ADDENDUM: Reviewer Acknowledgment 2014

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 2016

Journal of American History, 2012

This marks my (FP) first Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (JMFT) editor's annual report. I am pleased to report on some exciting JMFT initiatives, various statistics related to the journal in 2011-2012, and a few of my hopes related to future JMFT submissions.

2015

The JEDM editor and associate editors express their sincere gratitude and thank the editorial board and colleagues who devoted their time and effort to reviewing for JEDM in 2014.

2005

also wish to thank Kerryann DiLoreto, Jeremy Kraft and the many interviewers

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 2011

European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 2013

I also wish to draw your attention on the Nutrients website to our Editorial Board and also to the guest editors of our expanding list of special issues who have devoted their time and expertise to achieving rapid growth in the quantity and quality of published manuscripts. My special thanks also to Associate Editor, Jon Buckley, and members of the editorial office for their dedication to the journal.

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines (guidelines) with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. In 2013, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council recommended that the NHLBI focus specifically on reviewing the highest-quality evidence and partner with other organizations to develop recommendations. P-1,P-2 Accordingly, the ACC and AHA collaborated with the NHLBI and stakeholder and professional organizations to complete and publish 4 guidelines (on assessment of cardiovascular risk, lifestyle modifications to reduce cardiovascular risk, management of blood cholesterol in adults, and management of overweight and obesity in adults) to make them available to the widest possible constituency. In 2014, the ACC and AHA, in partnership with several other professional societies, initiated a guideline on the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure (BP) in adults. Under the management of the ACC/ AHA Task Force, a Prevention Subcommittee was appointed to help guide development of the suite of guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone for quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of guidelines without commercial support, and members of each organization volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Guidelines are official policy of the ACC and AHA. June 2018 of clinical practice. The Task Force may also invite organizations and professional societies with related interests and expertise to participate as partners, collaborators, or endorsers. The ACC and AHA have rigorous policies and methods to ensure that guidelines are developed without bias or improper influence. The complete relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) policy can be found online. Appendix 1 of the present document lists writing committee members' relevant RWI. For the purposes of full transparency, writing committee members' comprehensive disclosure information is available online. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is available online. In developing recommendations, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies that are based on all available data. P-6-P-9 Literature searches focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also include registries, nonrandomized comparative and descriptive studies, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and expert opinion. Only key references are cited. An independent evidence review committee (ERC) is commissioned when there are 1 or more questions deemed of utmost clinical importance that merit formal systematic review. The systematic review will determine which patients are most likely to benefit from a drug, device, or treatment strategy and to what degree. Criteria for commissioning an ERC and formal systematic review include: a) the absence of a current authoritative systematic review, b) the feasibility of defining the benefit and risk in a time frame consistent with the writing of a guideline, c) the relevance to a substantial number of patients, and d) the likelihood that the findings can be translated into actionable recommendations. ERC members may include methodologists, epidemiologists, healthcare providers, and biostatisticians. The recommendations developed by the writing committee on the basis of the systematic review are marked with "SR." The term guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT) encompasses clinical evaluation, diagnostic testing, and pharmacological and procedural treatments. For these and all recommended drug treatment regimens, the reader should confirm the dosage by reviewing product insert material and evaluate the treatment regimen for contraindications and interactions. The recommendations are limited to drugs, devices, and treatments approved for clinical use in the United States. The Class of Recommendation (COR) indicates the strength of the recommendation, encompassing the estimated magnitude and certainty of benefit in proportion to risk. The Level of Evidence (LOE) rates the quality of scientific evidence that supports the intervention on the basis of the type, quantity, and consistency of data from clinical trials and other sources (Table

European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 2012

I also wish to draw your attention on the Nutrients website to our Editorial Board and also to the guest editors of our expanding list of special issues who have devoted their time and expertise to achieving rapid growth in the quantity and quality of published manuscripts. My special thanks also to Associate Editor, Jon Buckley, and members of the editorial office for their dedication to the journal.

Science, 2015

ON 20 MAY, in response to questions about the validity of the methods and data in the 2014 Report by M. J. LaCour and D. P. Green, Science published online an Editorial Expression of Concern on the Report. On 28 May, Science released online an Editorial Retraction of the paper. Articles first published online are typically published in print a few weeks after online posting. Because of the rapid chain of events in this case, both the Editorial Retraction and the Editorial Expression of Concern are printed here. The Editorial Retraction is Science's final decision on this paper and supersedes the earlier Editorial Expression of Concern.