Congratulations and thanks to our top reviewers

Avatar photo
Editorial Assistant for ACAMH.

Posted on

In celebration of Peer Review Week 2021 and in recognition of our reviewer’s continued support and service to the journal, and in turn the wider scientific community, we would like to thank and recognise the efforts of all peer reviewers. Every review counts and ACAMH would like to offer our sincere gratitude to all reviewers who have used their precious time to support the peer review process and, as a result, the continued publication of research in the study of child and adolescent mental health.

We are proud to present the list of top reviewers for 2020. The individuals included in the list below have been evaluated on the number of reviews they have carried out for the journal, as well as for the quality and timeliness of their reviews.

JCPP Top Reviewers

• Stephanie Ameis, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto, Canada
• Ted Barker, King’s College London, UK
• Joseph McGuire, Johns Hopkins University, USA
• Michael Bloch, Yale University, USA
• Stephen Scott, King’s College London, UK
• Argyris Stringaris, National Institutes of Health, USA
• Matt R. Alderson, Oklahoma State University, USA
• Jessie Baldwin, UCL, UK
• Nico Bast, Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt, Germany
• Stephen Becker, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, USA
• Avshalom Caspi, Duke University, USA
• Tony Charman, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK
• Andrea Danese, King’s College London, UK
• Kristina Denisova, Columbia University, USA
• Graeme Fairchild, University of Bath, UK

CAMH Top Reviewers

• Thees Spreckelsen, University of Glasgow, UK
• Giovanni Ostuzzi, University of Verona, Italy
• Elizabeth Camacho, University of Manchester, UK
• Michelle Colder Carras, John Hopkins University, USA
• Roger Ho, National University of Singapore, Singapore
• Kacie Kidd, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, USA
• Emma Soneson, University of Cambridge, UK
• Anne Stewart, Oxford Health NHS Trust, UK
• David Brent, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, USA
• Julius Burkauskas, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Lithuania
• Sadhbh Byrne, Orygen The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Australia
• Rebekah Carney, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK
• Christina Dose, University of Cologne, Germany
• Tamsin Ford, Cambridge University, UK
• Suzanne Gerritsen, Erasmus MC, the Netherlands

JCPPA Top Reviewers

• Elizabeth Shephard, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, UK
• Andres Estrade, Catholic University of Uruguay, Uruguay
• Michele Fornaro, University of Naples, Italy
• Naoise Mac Giollabhui, Temple University, USA
• Ruth Pauli, University of Birmingham, UK
• Mona Bekkhus, University of Oslo, Norway
• James Blair, Boys Town National Research Hospital, USA
• Anne Inger Borge, University of Oslo, Norway
• Rosanna Breaux, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
• Melissa Brotman, The National Institute of Mental Health, USA
• Pao-Huan Chen, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taiwan
• Fabiano Gomes, Queen’s University, Canada
• Quentin Guillon, University of Toulouse, France
• Sally McManus, City University of London, UK
• Sarah Medland, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Australia

Thanks again to all our peer reviewers for their invaluable contributions to the ongoing success of ACAMH’s journals. ACAMH wishes to encourage any reviewers who are thinking of joining the peer review process. The journal office, along with our publishers Wiley, are in discussion about how we can make our peer reviewer database more diverse. We are exploring many different ideas and initiatives and will be implementing them into our journal process as soon as possible.

For those less familiar with the process, take a look at our general advice to reviewers below:
• be fair – the process relies on your expertise so try to be objective and timely
• be open – if you are unable to accept a request due to other commitments, lack of expertise, or a conflict of interest – it is always better to say than delay the process
• be constructive – when you identify problems with the paper, try to suggest how they can be addressed
• consider context – a good review examines both the scientific rigour of the paper and what it contributes to the field as a whole

We would also like to take this time to encourage any reviewers who are thinking of joining the peer review process. If you are an early career researcher, we would love to hear from you. If you are interested in reviewing papers for any of ACAMH’s journals, please get in touch at

Add a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *