In 2017, we began recognizing reviewers who have distinguished themselves by consistently providing insightful, detailed, and valuable input to our authors and our editorial team. We continue the tradition this year by inducting six remarkable reviewers into the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame. The editors thank and congratulate these reviewers, all of whom shared why they participate in the peer review process below:

Bryan R. Kestenbaum, MD
University of Washington

“Peer and editorial review are crucial for helping provide valid and meaningful scientific ideas to the medical community. On a personal level, peer review is a challenging and rewarding process that requires synthesis of biology, precedent, study design, and analytic methods.”

Hirotaka Komaba, MD
Tokai University

“I believe reviewing an article is another way of contributing to science. In addition, we can learn many things through peer review, both as a reviewer and a researcher.”

Eugene Lin, MD @eugelin06
University of Southern California

“With social media, the Internet, and the increasing availability of information, I have found it harder to trust high-quality data and scientific findings. I review because I believe it is vital for the public to have confidence that the medical information they are consuming has been reviewed by experts.”

 

Laura Mariani, MD @LauraMarianiMD
University of Michigan

“What I enjoy most about reviewing is trying to help the authors improve the paper. When I have been working on a project for a long time, it can become hard to spot the limitations and potential errors. I always appreciate a thoughtful and thorough reviewer who takes the time to understand the research question, approach and conclusions, so I hope I can provide that to my peers. In that way, the reviewer community and journal editors not only help select important papers for publication, but also get to participate in improving the quality of the work.”

 

Michal L. Melamed, MD @MelamedMichal
Albert Einstein College of Medicine

“Peer review is very important because it always improves papers. Sometimes authors are stuck in their paper, having worked on it for a long time, but peer reviewers bring in a new perspective. Peer reviewers asked a question on my first manuscript which then led me down a whole new line of inquiry.”

Laura C. Plantinga, PhD
Emory University

“I review because I strongly believe peer review makes us all strive to be better scientists. Better scientists publish better science, and better science only strengthens the evidence that we ultimately use to improve the health—and lives—of people with kidney disease.”

Congratulations again to these reviewers! The full list of reviewers in the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame is available here.