eLife latest: An additional 30 working scientists join the Board of Reviewing Editors

eLife is pleased to welcome new Reviewing Editors, including a recent early-career reviewer.
Inside eLife
  • Views 4,063
  • Annotations

Experts from a wide range of disciplines have strengthened the eLife journal by joining the Board of Reviewing Editors (BRE) since February this year. These include Biochemistry and Chemical Biology, Cancer Biology, Chromosomes and Gene Expression, Computational and Systems Biology, Developmental Biology, Evolutionary Biology, Human Biology and Medicine, Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Neuroscience, Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine and Structural Biology and Biophysics. The group also includes one early-career neuroscientist.

Reviewing Editors are responsible for handling papers assigned to them by eLife Senior Editors (who are also working scientists), overseeing the online consultation among referees and delivering clear, consolidated feedback to authors.

Kim Orth

“I have found the role of a BRE as a positive and enlightening experience. Having scientists as editors and reviewers takes some of the bias out of the equation.

Also working and discussing with colleagues the pros and cons on either the decision to review or the process of reviewing, adds a layer of depth, fairness and rigor to the process of accepting a quality peer reviewed article.”

– Kim Orth, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA

Image: hhmi.org

Those joining eLife most recently include:

  • Paola Arlotta, Harvard University, USA – Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
  • Adam Aron, University of California, San Diego, USA – Neuroscience
  • Brenda Bloodgood, University of California, San Diego, USA – Neuroscience
  • Deborah Bourchis, Institut Curie, France – Developmental Biology
  • Michael Breakspear, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Australia – Neuroscience
  • Christian Buchel, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany – Neuroscience
  • Michael Buszczak, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA – Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
  • Marisa Carrasco, New York University – Neuroscience
  • Flaminia Catteruccia, Harvard School of Public Health, USA – Microbiology and Infectious Disease
  • Floris De Lange, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, The Netherlands – Neuroscience
  • Jörn Diedrichsen, University of Western Ontario, Canada – Neuroscience
  • Timothy D. Griffiths, Newcastle University, UK – Neuroscience
  • Wolf-Dietrich Heyer, University of California, Davis, USA – Chromosomes and Gene Expression
  • Christian Landry, Université Laval, Canada – Computational and Systems Biology
  • Stephen Liberles, Harvard Medical School, USA – Cell Biology
  • John Long, Flinders University, Australia – Computational and Systems Biology
  • Ravindra Majeti, Stanford University, USA – Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
  • Tamar Makin, University College London, UK – Neuroscience
  • Kim Orth, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA – Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
  • Arun Radhakrishnan, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA – Structural Biology and Biophysics
  • Milica Radisic, University of Toronto, Canada – Human Biology and Medicine
  • Peter Ratcliffe, University of Oxford, UK – Human Biology and Medicine
  • Xiaobing Shi, Van Andel Institute, USA – Chromosomes and Gene Expression, and Cancer Biology
  • Thomas Surrey, The Francis Crick Institute, UK – Structural Biology and Biophysics
  • Nicole Swann, University of Oregon, USA – Neuroscience
  • Patrik Verstreken, KU Leuven, Belgium – Neuroscience
  • Kevin Verstreken, KU Leuven, Belgium – Microbiology and Infectious Disease
  • Blake Wiedenheft, Montana State University, USA – Microbiology and Infectious Disease
  • Doris Wu, National Institutes of Health, USA – Developmental Biology
  • Min Zhu, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China – Evolutionary Biology
Tamar Makin

"It was a real privilege to take part in the peer review process under the trial. Due to the commitment to publish the paper prior to peer review, the reviewers' role changes from primarily gatekeepers to collaborators, and the reviewing process becomes a lot more constructive and supportive of the authors.

I'm becoming convinced that this revised role of the review process holds potential to improving the way we publish research."

– Tamar Makin, University College London, UK

Image: plasticity-lab.com

To learn more about eLife’s consultative approach to peer review visit elifesciences.org/about/peer-review.

Questions and comments are welcome. Please annotate publicly on the article or contact us at hello [at] elifesciences [dot] org.

For the latest updates on editorial policy and other news from eLife, sign up to receive our bi-monthly newsletter. You can also follow @eLife on Twitter.