Our Thanks to Reviewers in 2002

December 31, 2006

At Consultant, our goal is to provide the practical, authoritative information youneed to best serve your patients. That is why we “pre-test” article ideas (beforewe invite articles on those topics) to be sure they are of high interest to you andyour colleagues. It is also why we take great care in checking facts, creating usefultables and figures, and choosing illustrations and photographs to enhanceteaching messages.

At Consultant, our goal is to provide the practical, authoritative information youneed to best serve your patients. That is why we "pre-test" article ideas (beforewe invite articles on those topics) to be sure they are of high interest to you andyour colleagues. It is also why we take great care in checking facts, creating usefultables and figures, and choosing illustrations and photographs to enhanceteaching messages.And it is why all articles we publish must survive a peer-review processthat incorporates 3 elements:

  • Manuscripts are closely reviewed by the distinguished leaders in primarycare medicine who make up our editorial board (identified on page 1686).
  • Each article is also sent to specialists who are asked to consider whetherthe discussion is accurate, balanced, and up-to-date. Are the drug regimensreasonable? Are controversies fairly outlined? Has any important informationbeen left out?
  • In addition, each article is sent to several primary care physicians from amongthe readership of Consultant, who assess the manuscript from a different perspective.Does it assume familiarity with specialized terms or obscure concepts?Is the clinical advice clear? Are the diagnostic and therapeutic measures recommendedwidely available in the community?

Thus, each article is appraised by several clinicians--from the viewpointsof both primary care and specialist physicians. The questions these reviewerspose help the authors and our staff keep Consultant focused on your educationalneeds.In this, the last issue of our 42st year of publication, we want to extendour thanks to the following specialist reviewers who appraised one or moremanuscripts for us in 2002.
Robert Adler, MD
Rosemary Agostini, MD
Shreyasee Amin, MD
J. A. Astin, MD
Teddy F. Bader, MD
Bruce P. Barrett, MD
Barry Beyerstein, PhD
Norman R. Campbell, MD, FRCPC
Christopher P. Cannon, MD
Lin Chen, MD
James Cook, MD
Greg Cooper, MD
Burke A. Cunha, MD
William C. Cushman, MD
Richard Danehower, MD
Ronald E. Domen, MD
Gregory K. Feld, MD
Vaughn W. Folkert, MD
Laris E. Galejs, MD
Patricia A. Ganz, MD
Michael Keith Gould, MD
Susan P. Graham, MD
Steven T. Harris, MD
Gail G. Harrison, PhD
Stephen Roy Hazelrigg, MD
Mark L. Heaney, MD, PhD
Sharon A. Hunt, MD
Douglas A. Husmann, MD
Joseph Jankovic, MD
Young-In J. Kim, MD, FRCP
Scott Kinkade, MD
Samuel Klein, MD
Raymond S. Koff, MD
Richard B. Lipton, MD
Anne B. Loucks, PhD
Elan D. Louis, MD
Peter F. Malet, MD
Henry J. Mankin, MD
Albert J. Mariani, MD
Barry Massie, MD
Daniel J. Mazanec, MD
David K. McKenas, MD
R. T. Means, Jr, MD
Edward M. Messing, MD
Betty A. Mincey, MD
Alex Monto, MD
Unyime O. Nseyo, MD
Thomas G. Pickering, MD
Jonathan F. Plehn, MD
Peter Pompeii, MD
Glenn Preminger, MD
Margot Putukian, MD
Edward C. Rosenow III, MD
Douglas D. Schocken, MD
Mary Jo Shaver, MD
Sheldon G. Sheps, MD
David N. Spees, MD
Pamela Taxel, MD
Jaime Uribarri, MD
Katherine S. Virgo, PhD
Thomas J. Weber, MD
Sam W. Wiesel, MD
Martin S. Wolfe, MD
Ronald J. Zagoria, MDWe also gratefully acknowledge theassistance of the following primarycare physicians who reviewed one ormore manuscripts this year.
M. Gerard Baggot, MD
Milton D. Carrero, MD
Cornelio S. Casaclang, Jr, MD
D. Keith Cobb, MD
Peter Dale, MD
John D. Domanski, Jr, MD
Subbiah Doraiswami, MD
George F. Dunn, MD
Nabil W. Fahmy, MD
Harold J. Fields, MD
Lee A. Fischer, MD
Roger A. Forsyth, MD
Arthur A. Hagelstein, MD
Ronald Hirsch, MD
Jeffrey T. Kirchner, DO
Lawrence M. Markman, MD
Michael W. McShan, MD
James Mulinda, MD
Brandon Peters, MD
Ronald G. Smith, MD
Jon M. Sweet, MD, FACP