We’re proud to present our top ten reviewers.
| Reviewer | Reviews | Comments | Score | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| chris | 3 | 14 | 5.3 | accessibility |
| Farid | 9 | 4 | 4.7 | scientific |
| Angela | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | accessibility |
| Krystel | 5 | 4 | 3 | accessibility |
| Claudia | 4 | 10 | 2.7 | scientific |
| Cassandra | 0 | 15 | 2 | scientific |
| Dora | 2 | 5 | 2 | accessibility |
| Helene | 3 | 3 | 1.6 | accessibility |
| Bettina | 1 | 4 | 1.5 | accessibility |
| Jennifer | 2 | 2 | 1.4 | accessibility |
From 2026 onward, at the end of each calendar year, the Board of Directors awards a certificate to our three top reviewers as an expression of gratitude for their exceptional dedication.
Would you like to become a reviewer? Simply sign up as a member and check your contributions page after that to find out what manuscripts are currently needing reviewers or in discussion. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any question.
Would you like to know how we calculate the scores? The table shows, for each of our top 10 reviewers, the number of comments, the number of review reports, the score, and whether the reviewer is an accessibility or a science reviewer. We calculate the score based on the reviewer’s activity in writing comments and review reports on our manuscripts during their peer review. More specifically, the score is calculated as the weighted number of comments plus the weighted number of review reports. The weights are calculated as a multiplication of a value weight and a recency weight. The value weight is 2/3 for a review report. It is 1/3 for a comment of 900 characters or more, and decreases linearly for shorter comments. The recency weight is 1 for comments or review reports that were submitted today, and decreases linearly to 0.5 as the submission date gets older (up to and including 2015).
