Our reviewers,
Cardiology in the Young received over 500 submissions for publication in 2011. About a third of the articles submitted are eventually accepted for publication. The process of deciding which of our submissions to publish is led by the editors, but depends most critically on the willingness of our reviewers to put aside some of their time to assess the manuscripts and advise us on whether to publish them. Not only do they advise on publication, but more often than not the reviewers recommend improvements in papers for the authors to consider. In this way the reviewers are major, albeit anonymous, contributors to the journal. Once in a while we do have the opportunity to acknowledge them and thank them for their contribution. All of our reviewers over the last year are listed in http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S1047951112000716. We express our immense gratitude to all our reviewers for their advice, without which the editors would not be able to undertake their role.
The process of peer review is often criticised and doubtless it is not perfect. It may sometimes appear somewhat arbitrary to the authors, but for the editors of a journal such as Cardiology in the Young the support that an independent assessment of a submission gives is essential. It ensures that the journal does not merely reflect the expertise or interests of the editors, rather the full spectrum of our field of study. A good review is often difficult to write and I know from experience how much time many of our reviewers put into their reports. Although decisions remain with the editors, we can take them in much more confidence knowing that they are based on the views of an expert in the field.
