Checks and balances and checks is the ultimate reward in building what you design?
Residential Architect

I was recently interviewed for my views on disclosure and pharmaceutical funding of clinical trials. As I answered, I was surprised (again) at how constructive the peer review process can be, and how well I think it works for us, here at GERIATRICS.

The reality is, GERIATRICS is dependent on the age-old peer review process, whereby designated experts agree to review the work of others and make constructive commentary, as well as pass judgment on its publication worthiness. Some reviewers respond within days (our record here is 4 hours!); others procrastinate until the deadline. But both offer insights into manuscripts, graphics, and reference selections that improve the quality of the article and the clinical guidance we are able to offer our readers.

It's heartening when all the reviewers for a given article agree and harrowing when they don't. But always, the reviewers talk about the needs of the primary care physician in the trenches and focus their criticisms to achieve a sound clinical outcome. And for that I am thankful.

Last February we printed the names of our reviewers, right here within the book...but this year, the process for thanking our reviewers is, like everything else in the book, undergoing technological change...which means you need to log onto www.geri.com for the detailed list.