Each year I have the opportunity to thank the hundreds of peer reviewers who review submissions to this journal, and each year when I write this acknowledgment, something exciting is happening at the journal. Despite the fear, horror, and anger we all feel in the wake of the September 11 attacks, we at Psychiatric Services have much to look forward to in 2002, including the publication in Spanish of our second overseas edition. Our Italian edition reaches hundreds of people who would otherwise not have access to the journal, and our Spanish-language edition will help mental health professionals and others in Spain and Latin America keep abreast of the latest developments.

What does this have to do with thanking reviewers? More than you might think. After our Italian edition was launched in 1997, submissions of manuscripts from Italy increased, as did the number of Italian reviewers. Thus we predict an increase in the number of manuscripts from Spanish-speaking countries once the journal becomes better known in Spain and Latin America. And we hope to add more reviewers who are familiar with psychiatric services in these countries.

People from other countries who wish to publish in American journals often ask me why so many of their submissions are rejected. First, I emphasize the generally low acceptance rate of most of the top American journals, a fact apparently not widely known. Then I stress the importance of ensuring that the findings reported or the programs described are new to our readers. Unfortunately, an account of the successful replication in another country of a program already well known to us cannot compete equally with a report on new research or a programmatic innovation. A corollary to the question of newness is the "translatability" of findings or programs to our readers' settings. Unfortunately, too often the research population, the service's funding, or the setting in which the program was created is unique to that country. And finally—again unfortunately—many such submissions do not clearly and succinctly communicate their research or programmatic objectives, findings, and conclusions and cry out for editorial help from an English-speaking collaborator.

You, our loyal reviewers, might correctly point out that these shortcomings are not unique to submissions from other countries. As I've said before, it is you, the authors' peers, who know best what is new, translatable, and clearly written, and it is you who can best communicate that knowledge to me and to the authors. And it is for that seemingly simple but in fact extremely time-consuming and largely thankless service that I thank you.

I, more than anyone, am extremely dependent on and beholden to you. I cannot tell you enough times or with enough emphasis how grateful I am. So, thank you all for what you've already contributed and thank you in advance for reviewing even more submissions from our colleagues all over the world. Happy New Year!