Automatica, February 2001, Volume 37, No. 2


Reviewers’ commendations

Like other learned journals, Automatica heavily depends on its reviewers. The quality of the profession relies on carefully screening every paper before publication, setting it in perspective, pointing out errors and omissions, and suggesting ways of improving it.

Many reviewers take their responsibility very seriously but there are some who go to greater trouble than others. About two years ago the Automatica Editorial Board decided to honor the latter individuals. Each year, around the time that the annual list of reviewers appears in the December issue of Automatica, the Editor-in-Chief sends out letters to a small number of selected reviewers, commending them for their reliable, punctual, thorough and high-quality reviews. At the end of 1999 I sent 24 such letters; in 2000 the number was almost the same. Four reviewers received the letter in both years.

The reviewers who receive the letter are selected on the basis of recommendations by Automatica Associate Editors, collected by the Editors. Necessarily, the process is not fully reliable, and I am aware that we miss a considerable number of well-deserving reviewers among the almost 1100 names listed in the 2000 annual reviewers list (Automatica, vol. 36, issue12, December, 2000.) This is why the list of commended reviewers does not appear in Automatica. If you receive one of my letters then you can be sure that it is well-deserved. If you do not then you may be equally deserving. My thanks go to all 1080 reviewers whose names are included in the 2000 list. Their efforts were needed to evaluate the more than 600 papers received during the review period.

There is one final point I need to make. The 2000 annual reviewers list includes the names of individuals who reviewed papers for Automatica in the approximate period August 1, 1999, to August 1, 2000. This is because the list needs to be ready to go to the publishers early in September. Also, generally the names of the reviewers of a particular paper are only included if the reviews are all in and the review process has been completed. Therefore, if you reviewed a paper shortly before August 1, 2000, your name still may be missing in the 2000 list. It will be included in the 2001 list. If you note any serious omissions then do not hesitate to let me know, however, and I shall correct them.

Huibert Kwakernaak