Editorial Material
Environmental Sciences
Isaac Santos, Sara Mikaloff Fletcher, Benjamin Houlton, Katsumi Matsumoto, Zanna Chase
Summary: Peer review is crucial for building trust in the scientific process and maintaining high-quality standards. It not only helps to evaluate research papers but also improves their content and presentation. The Global Biogeochemical Cycles expresses gratitude to 456 reviewers for their contributions to scientific progress in the interdisciplinary field.
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
(2023)
Editorial Material
Geochemistry & Geophysics
Isabelle Manighetti, Rachel Abercrombie, Yves Bernabe, Michael Bostock, Mark J. Dekkers, Satoshi Ide, Douglas R. Schmitt, Shin-Chan Han, Paul Tregoning
Summary: The editors of JGR-Solid Earth express their gratitude to the peer reviewers who contributed in reviewing articles for the journal in 2022.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
(2023)
Editorial Material
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Harihar Rajaram, Suzana Camargo, Christopher D. Cappa, Andrew J. Dombard, Kathleen A. Donohue, Sarah Feakins, Lucy Flesch, Alessandra Giannini, Yu Gu, Christian Huber, Valeriy Ivanov, Kristopher Karnauskas, Monika Korte, Gang Lu, Gudrun Magnusdottir, Mathieu Morlighem, German A. Prieto, Bo Qiu, Hui Su, Daoyuan Sun, Kaicun Wang, Caitlin Whalen, Angelicque E. White, Quentin Williams, Andrew Yau
Summary: On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors of Geophysical Research Letters express sincere gratitude to the reviewers who contributed to manuscript reviews in 2022. The reviewers' efforts not only improve the quality of the manuscripts but also enhance the scientific rigor of future research. Many reviewers have also played a crucial role in evaluating data accessibility and availability, providing insightful comments to improve data presentation and quality, thus advancing open science as desired by AGU's data policy. The timely reviews provided amidst the demands of the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters are particularly appreciated. In 2022, we received 6,687 submissions and 5,247 reviewers contributed 8,720 reviews in total, demonstrating their invaluable contributions in these challenging times.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
(2023)
Editorial Material
Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
Minghua Zhang, Yafang Cheng, Rong Fu, Filippo Giorgi, Ruby Leung, Xin-Zhong Liang, Wahid Mellouki, William Randel, Nicole Riemer, Robert Rogers, Lynn Russell, Ping Yang, Yun Qian, Yongyun Hu, Xiushu Qie
Summary: The editorial board of JGR Atmospheres expresses gratitude to the reviewers who reviewed papers in 2022.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
(2023)
Editorial Material
Geochemistry & Geophysics
Isabelle Manighetti, Rachel Abercrombie, Yehuda Ben-Zion, Yves Bernabe, Michael Bostock, Mark J. Dekkers, Satoshi Ide, Stephen W. Parman, Douglas R. Schmitt, Paul Tregoning
Summary: The editors of JGR-Solid Earth express their appreciation to those who served as peer reviewers for the journal in 2021.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
(2022)
Editorial Material
Geochemistry & Geophysics
Fabio Florindo, Annmarie G. Carlton, Paolo D'Odorico, Qingyun Duan, Jasper S. Halekas, Gesine Mollenhauer, Eelco J. Rohling, Robert G. Bingham, Emily E. Brodsky, Michel C. Crucifix, Andrew Gettelman, Alan Robock
Summary: Reviews of Geophysics is the top-rated journal in Geochemistry and Geophysics, reflecting the excellent contributions received and the expertise of the reviewers. The journal's high standards are maintained thanks to the reviewers' time and effort. Their commitment and willingness to serve in this role are greatly appreciated.
REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS
(2022)
Editorial Material
Oceanography
Lisa M. Beal, Leon Chafik, Sarah Fawcett, Marjorie A. M. Friedrichs, Chellappan Gnanaseelan, Nathalie F. Goodkin, Yuanlong Li, Ryan P. Mulligan, Takeyoshi Nagai, Joanne (Joe) O'Callaghan, Hannah E. Power, Karina von Schuckmann, Christopher Sherwood, Arvind Singh, Lars Umlauf, Anna Wahlin, Fanghua Xu, Lei Zhou
Summary: In 2022, 1528 reviewers provided 2647 reviews for JGR-Oceans manuscripts, ensuring their high quality and integrity. The editors express gratitude to the peer reviewers of 2022. New editorial practices have reduced pressure on reviewers, and the introduction of a co-reviewer tool has facilitated collaboration with students and postdocs.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
(2023)
Editorial Material
Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
Stephen M. Griffies, Jiwen Fan, Natasha MacBean, Tapio Schneider
Summary: The editors of Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems express their gratitude to the 702 reviewers who contributed 1362 reviews in 2022. Their diligent work and valuable insights, often provided anonymously, benefit authors, readers, and the wider scientific community.
JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN MODELING EARTH SYSTEMS
(2023)
Article
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Daniel E. Acuna, Misha Teplitskiy, James A. Evans, Konrad Kording
Summary: Peer review is an important aspect of science, but the practice of authors suggesting reviewers has been controversial. This article examines the association between author-suggested reviewers and review invitation, review scores, acceptance rates, and subjective review quality, and finds that author-suggested review panels can increase the chances of acceptance but reviewers are less likely to agree to review.
Review
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Eunhye Song, Lin Ang, Ji-Yeun Park, Eun-Young Jun, Kyeong Han Kim, Jihee Jun, Sunju Park, Myeong Soo Lee
Summary: This scoping review assessed existing peer review guidelines for biomedical journals, identifying a total of 1,811 checklist items. Items related to Methods, Results, and Discussion were found to be highly discussed in reviewer guidelines. The variation in review guidelines across journals and publishers calls for further research to determine the need for uniform review standards for transparent and standardized peer review.
Editorial Material
Geochemistry & Geophysics
Laurent G. J. Montesi, Anni Maeaettaenen, A. Deanne Rogers, Bradley J. Thomson
Summary: Peer review is crucial for ensuring the publication of articles in scientific journals, such as JGR: Planets, that are based on sound scientific principles and cutting-edge techniques and present significant discoveries or new understandings of planetary processes. The journal covers a wide range of geoscience topics, with the only requirement being their relevance to planetary processes. The editorial board and guest editors rely on the expertise of the scientific community to evaluate and improve manuscripts, and they express their deep gratitude to the many scientists who volunteer their time and energy for peer review.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS
(2023)
Editorial Material
Forestry
Evgenios Agathokleous
Summary: This paper is specifically written for students at higher institutions or graduates who have published their first paper in a legitimate scientific journal, as they may soon start receiving invitations to act as a referee. A senior editor shares nine main suggestions and discusses do's and don'ts for peer reviewers, providing critical information for early career reviewers.
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY RESEARCH
(2021)
Article
Operations Research & Management Science
Gian Paolo Clemente, Susanna Levantesi, Gabriella Piscopo
Summary: The challenges of utilizing technology in the insurance industry are creating new possibilities for the development and distribution of innovative products. Peer-to-peer insurance schemes, which attract the interest of policyholders and insurance companies, have been introduced. This article focuses on the broker model, where insurance brokers form groups of peers with similar risk characteristics. The article proposes a cashback distribution mechanism based on the participant's marginal contribution to the risk, and uses the concept of Shapley value to define an optimal allocation rule of the remaining capital.
ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
(2023)
Editorial Material
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Matthew Huber, Ursula (Ulla) Roehl
Summary: This article expresses gratitude towards reviewers for their efforts and contributions in the scientific research process, while also expressing hope for their future work.
PALEOCEANOGRAPHY AND PALEOCLIMATOLOGY
(2022)
Review
Biology
Charles W. Fox
Summary: Identifying reviewers is generally discouraged, but some are willing to sign their comments. Male reviewers are more likely to sign than female reviewers, and reviews are more likely to be signed for more positively rated manuscripts. Signed reviews are longer and recommend more references.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
(2021)