Following Peer Review Week 2024, to show our gratitude for the ongoing support and service of our reviewers to the journals, and the wider scientific community, we want to extend a heartfelt thank you to all peer reviewers. Reviewers serve a vital role in maintaining the high standards of ACAMH’s journals, providing diligent and insightful feedback to authors and serving as the foundation of the production of fascinating, valued papers in the field of child and adolescent mental health, and beyond. The field of scholarly publishing is enduring a period of confusion around the use/misuse of Large Language Models (LLMs), concerns around papermills, and subsequent effects on research integrity; it becomes all the more important to showcase the support we have from a large community of reviewers. We at ACAMH are repeatedly humbled by the generosity, efficiency and expertise of our reviewers.
We are proud to present the list of top reviewers for the 2023 calendar year. The individuals included in the list below have been evaluated on the number of reviews they have carried out for the journal, as well as for the quality and timeliness of their reviews. However, there are many more reviewers that didn’t make this list, but nevertheless provided reviews of great quality, for which we are incredibly grateful. To this end, we will also be publishing a full list of our reviewers for the 2023 calendar year.
JCPP Top Reviewers
- Jessica Agnew-Blais, Queen Mary University of London, UK
- Tycho Dekkers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Thomas Frazier, John Carroll University, USA
- BE Gibb, Binghamton University, USA
- Kirsten Gilbert, Washington University, USA
- Adam Guastella, University of Sydney, Australia
- David Hawes, University of Sydney, Australia
- Laura Hull, University of Bristol, UK
- Kasia Kostyrka-Allchorne, King’s College London, UK
- Benjamin Lahey, University of Chicago, USA
- Meng-Chuan Lai, University of Toronto, Canada
- Patty Leijten, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Barbara Maughan, Kings College London, UK
- Meeyoung Min, University of Utah, USA
- Aja Murray, University of Edinburgh, UK
- Tamsin Newlove-Delgado, Exeter University, UK
- Lori Scott, University of Pittsburgh, USA
- Gail Tripp, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan
- Pablo Vidal-Ribas, Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Spain
- Alecia Vogel-Hammen, Washington University, USA
- Mark Wade, Boston Children’s Hospital, USA
- Nicholas Wagner, Boston University, USA
- Jasmin Wertz, University of Edinburgh, UK
- Dieter Wolke, University of Warwick, UK
- Lucas Zullo, UCLA, USA
CAMH Top Reviewers
- Opeyemi Atanda, London South Bank University, UK
- Mashudat Bello-Mojeed, Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital, Nigeria
- Michael Bloch, Yale University, USA
- Camilla Cadorin, University of Verona, Italy
- Kunjie Cui, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, China
- Naoufel Gaddour, University of Monastir, Tunisia
- David Hawes, University of Sydney, Australia
- Philip Kerrigan, University of York, UK
- Michael Kölch, Rostock University, Germany
- Marinos Kyriakopoulos, University of Athens, Greece
- Maria Lodes, University of Bristol, UK
- Marina Miscioscia, University of Padua, Italy
- Liesl Nydegger, Johns Hopkins University, USA
- Tasuku Okui, Kyushu University Hospital, Japan
- Antonio Piolanti, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Austria
- Eleonora Prina, University of Verona, Italy
- Ronald Rapee, Macquarie University, Australia
- Tessa Reardon, Oxford University, UK
- Katie Russell, University of Central Florida, USA
- Cinto Segalàs, Bellvitge University Hospital, Spain
- Marcin Sekowski, Maria Grzegorzewska Academy, Poland
- Emma Soneson, University of Cambridge, UK
- Tilman Steinert, Ulm University, Germany
- Andrea Wiglesworth, University of Minnesota, USA
- Simona Zaami, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy
JCPP Advances Top Reviewers
- Jessica Armitage, Cardiff University, UK
- Stephen Becker, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, USA
- Dorret Boomsma, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Virginia Carter Leno, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, UK
- Jessica Cohen, The University of North Carolina, USA
- Yun-Ju Chen, McMaster University, Canada
- Tycho Dekkers, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Luis C. Farhat, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
- Felix Fischer, Charite Medical Faculty, Berlin
- Leonard Frach, University College London, UK
- Meredith Han, King’s College London, UK
- Stephen Kanne, Weill Cornell Medicine Psychology, USA
- Ralf Kuja-Halkola, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
- Michiel Luijten, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, The Netherlands
- Tom McAdams, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, UK
- Dana Charles McCoy, Harvard University, USA
- Merritt Millman, King’s College London, UK
- Meghan Miller, UC Davis MIND Institute, USA
- Espen Moen Eilertsen, University of Oslo, Norway
- Erik Pettersson, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
- Kathleen M. Roche, George Washington University, USA
- Susanne R de Rooij, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Keri Rosch, Kennedy Krieger Institute, USA
- Eivind Ystrom, University of Oslo, Norway
- Yanli Zhang-James, SUNY Upstate Medical University, USA
Thanks again to all our peer reviewers for their invaluable contributions to the ongoing success of ACAMH’s journals. ACAMH wishes to encourage any potential reviewers who are thinking of joining the peer review process. Our reviewers also have the opportunity to receive recognition for their review contributions on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Services (formerly Publons), allowing you to track, verify and showcase your review work and expertise without compromising anonymity (Read more here). The Editorial Office is actively exploring a spectrum of ideas to further showcase our appreciation for the vital role that reviewers perform.
For those less familiar with the process, take a look at our general advice to reviewers below:
- be fair – the process relies on your expertise so try to be objective and timely
- be open – if you are unable to accept a request due to other commitments, lack of expertise, or a conflict of interest – it is always better to say than delay the process
- be constructive – when you identify problems with the paper, try to suggest how they can be addressed
- consider context – a good review examines both the scientific rigour of the paper and what it contributes to the field as a whole
We would also like to take this time to encourage any reviewers who are thinking of joining the peer review process. If you are an early career researcher, we would love to hear from you. If you are interested in reviewing papers for any of ACAMH’s journals, please get in touch with the Publications Team.