A free service for scientific peer review and publishing

much ado about noting

Reviewer Prize 2013

Peerage of Science
25 Aug 2013

holger schielzethThe winner of The Peerage of Science Annual Reviewer Prize 2013 is Dr. Holger Schielzeth.

Dr. Schielzeth wrote three peer reviews during the award evaluation period, on each occasion the best rated review for the manuscript in question, with consistently high PEQ scores averaging 4.179 (out of maximum 5.0). His peer reviewing, focusing on articles on female mate choice, have been evaluated by 12 peers in total. The peer reviews by Dr. Schielzeth are exemplary, being concise and focused in the essay section, and list references to support arguments presented, but also add thorough details and improvement suggestions in the optional comments to authors.

Dr. Schielzeth currently leads a research team at Department of Evolutionary Biology, Bielefeld University.

The Reviewer Prize 2013 is a unique medal, and a sum of 1000€.

Honourable mentions for excellent peer reviewing (within 90th percentile of winner) go to:

Dr. Zoltan Botta-Dukat
Dr. Richard Field
Dr. Matthieu Authier

Dr. Botta-Dukat wrote four peer reviews, all in the field of plant ecology. He is the Director of the Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Field wrote three peer reviews, all in the field of biogeography. He is an Associate Professor at the School of Geography, University of Nottingham.

Dr. Authier wrote four peer reviews, all in the field of dispersal and movement ecology. He is a postdoctoral researcher at Centre of Evolutionary and Functional Ecology, CNRS.

Honourable mentions are recognized with framed award certificates.

It is particularly encouraging to notice all winning peer reviewers have strong research records themselves, and more importantly, focused their peer reviewing on articles with subject areas they clearly have very strong expertise in. This strengthens confidence in one key aspect of Peerage of Science: that voluntary, free, peer-reviewed and rewarded peer reviewer engagement by peers themselves, in a community of validated scientists, really does match qualified experts with suitable articles.

About The Peerage of Science Annual Reviewer Prize:

The Reviewer Prize is given every year on August 25th, to the best peer reviewer of year preceding that date. The winner is determined by taking the average of PEQ scores accumulated in Peerage of Science during the preceding year, weighted by the number of evaluations by peers (i.e. reviews evaluated by more peers influence the average more), and multiplying that average by the number of reviews done (i.e. each review engagement contributes to the prize determination, even where the review is the only one for that manuscript and thus not scored itself).

The Reviewer Prize was first awarded last year. Hence, this was the 2nd Annual Prize, so we are officially on our way to what will hopefully be a lasting annual tradition of concrete recognition of academic excellence in peer reviewing.

Congratulations to the winners, and many, many, thanks for all the peer reviewers!

« | »

peerage of science Facebook peerage of science twitter peerage of science twitter