Search

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors of Geophysical Research Letters would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for us in 2022. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improve the manuscripts, but also increase the scientific rigor of future research in the field. With the advent of AGU's data policy, many reviewers have also helped immensely to evaluate the accessibility and availability of data, and many have provided insightful comments that helped to improve the data presentation and quality. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the reviewers in advancing open science, which is a key objective of AGU's data policy. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. We received 6,687 submissions in 2022 and 5,247 reviewers contributed to their evaluation by providing 8,720 reviews in total. We deeply appreciate their contributions in these challenging times. Plain Language Summary: Individuals in italics provided three or more reviews for GRL in 2022. Key Points: The editors thank the 2022 peer reviewers [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the importance of viscoelasticity in the evolution of crustal stress/strain being widely recognized, the interpretation of interseismic geodetic measurements for assessing earthquake potential is still based overwhelmingly on elastic models. The reasons for this disparity include conflating deformation rates with deformation itself and the lack of a succinct representation of the seismic readiness of a locked fault in a viscoelastic Earth. Using a classical viscoelastic model for strike-slip faults, we reiterate the commonly overlooked message that, if the recurrence interval is long, most of the strain energy for the next earthquake accrues early in the cycle, and low strain rates later in the cycle by no means indicate diminished rupture potential. Fault stress stays near failure for much of the late interseismic period which may explain why slow slip-rate faults have more variable recurrence intervals than fast slip-rate faults. We propose to use displacement deficit instead of slip deficit to represent seismic readiness. Plain Language Summary Modern satellite measurements can reveal how quickly faults are being loaded by tectonic plate motions, and seismic hazard models use these loading rates as proxy for the likelihood of a pending earthquake. However, because of the partially fluid-like behavior of Earth's interior, these loading rates have actually evolved with time since the last rupture. For faults with long intervals between successive earthquakes, these rates slow down substantially as the next event draws near. We, therefore, caution that slow rates of loading should not be assumed to reflect limited earthquake potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed the manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters in 2019. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improve the manuscripts but also increase the scientific rigor of future research in the field. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. With the revival of the "major revisions" decisions, we appreciate the reviewers' efforts on multiple versions of some manuscripts. With the advent of AGU's data policy, many reviewers have helped immensely to evaluate the accessibility and availability of data associated with the papers they have reviewed, and many have provided insightful comments that helped to improve the data presentation and quality. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the reviewers in advancing open science, which is a key objective of AGU's data policy. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. Key Point: The editors thank the 2019 peer reviewers [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the Editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters in 2018. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improves the manuscripts but also increases the scientific rigor of future research in the field. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews, in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. With the revival of the "major revisions" decisions, we appreciate the reviewers' efforts on multiple versions of some manuscripts. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. In total, 4,484 referees contributed to 7,557 individual reviews in journal. Thank you again. We look forward to the coming year of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public. Key Point: In total, 4,484 referees contributed to 7,557 individual reviews in journal [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thank you to those who reviewed in 2017 for Geophysical Research Letters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]