September 2017
Volume 6, Issue 5
Open Access
Editorial  |   October 2017
The Importance of Reviewers
Translational Vision Science & Technology October 2017, Vol.6, 7. doi:
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Marco Zarbin; The Importance of Reviewers. Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech. 2017;6(5):7.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements
Journals constitute an essential component of our information dissemination infrastructure because, unlike meetings, the information contained therein is or ought to be subject to the rigors of peer-review. I suspect that most of us rely heavily on the fidelity of the peer review process to help create the zeitgeist of the scientific milieu in which we function. Unfortunately, even highly cited basic science research does not always produce results that are replicated.1,2 Errors in study design seem to occur more frequently than they should, even in basic research.3 Constructive, critical peer-review is thus an essential part of our “information dissemination process.” We are indebted to the TVST reviewers for the immensely important contributions they have made to the quality of the journal and for the service they have provided to the entire vision research community. On behalf of our Associate Editors, Editors, and readers, I thank each of you sincerely. 
Among the highly accomplished individuals who have generously donated their time and expertise for our benefit, a subset have made outstanding contributions due to the exceptional care with which they have reviewed manuscripts. The Editors of TVST have been asked to recognize these individuals by identifying them as “exceptional reviewers.” I am pleased to offer special recognition to these individuals as part of our thanks to each of the reviewers for TVST. 
TVST is our journal, and it will be as useful a source of information as we make it through the submission of our work and, no less, through the peer-review to which that work is subjected. 
Thank you again for your important contribution as an “exceptional reviewer!” 
Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012; 483: 531–533.
Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Disc. 2011; 10: 712.
Macleod M, Lawson McLean A, Kyriakopoulou A, et al. Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13: e1002273.

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.