Search

In JGR‐Planets, the peer review process is critical to ensuring that the published articles are based on sound scientific principles, follow state‐of‐the‐art techniques while acknowledging relevant prior results, and present exciting discoveries or novel understanding of the fundamental processes that affect solar system objects. JGR‐Planets covers a broad range of topics addressing every aspect of geoscience with the only requirement that the work addresses planetary processes. The wide breadth of topics published is reflected by our editorial team composed in 2023 of associate editors Adrian Brown, Jun Cui, Joel Davis, Leigh Fletcher, Matthias Grott, Ananya Mallik, Germán Martínez, Molly McCanta, Katarina Miljkovic, Naomi Murdoch, Ryan Park, Arianna Piccialli, Andrew Poppe, Beatrix Sánchez‐Cano, Laura Schaefer, Mariek Schmidt, Yasuhito Sekine, Kelsi Singer, Michael Sori, Norihiko Sugimoto, Sonia Tikoo, David Trang, and Zhiyong Xiao in addition to the editors who authored this note. We rely on the expertise of the community to vet the articles submitted to the journal. In 2023, JGR‐Planets benefited from 1,184 reviews provided by 731 unique volunteer referees. We also received help from 19 guest editors working on four active special collections. To these volunteers: We are truly grateful that you chose to dedicate your time and energy to evaluate manuscripts and to advise us on the suitability of each manuscript for JGR‐Planets, often suggesting ways to improve the papers. We know that all our volunteers juggle many duties, both professional and personal. On behalf of the entire editorial board of JGR‐Planets, we express our heartfelt gratitude to the many scientists who support this journal. Thank you! You are performing a valued service to this journal and to the community. Plain Language Summary: The peer review process is the key to ensuring that the articles published in JGR‐Planets are carefully vetted and present thoroughly considered, exciting discoveries or novel understandings of the fundamental processes that affect solar system objects. In 2023, JGR‐Planets benefitted from 1,184 reviews provided by 731 unique reviewers and from the help of 19 guest editors working on four active special collections. We are grateful that so many scientists chose to dedicate their time and energy to evaluating and suggesting ways to improve each submitted manuscript. We also wish to acknowledge our outstanding corps of 23 volunteer associate editors. Scientific publishing is truly a community effort. The entire editorial board of JGR‐Planets wishes to express our heartfelt gratitude to the many scientists who support this journal. Thank you! Key Points: 731 referees provided 1,184 peer reviews of manuscripts in 2023The JGR‐Planets Editorial Board includes 23 volunteer associate editors who provide a crucial serviceThe peer review process is critical to the integrity of JGR‐Planets; the Editorial Board is appreciative of the efforts of these individuals [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There are concerns in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for scientific manuscripts. This study examines trends in editorial and peer review processes in an ophthalmological journal over the last decade. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of editorial data from the journal Acta Ophthalmologica containing all manuscript submissions between 2010 and 2020. Results: The number of yearly submissions grew between 2010 and 2019 from 1014 to 1623, and in 2020, the number of submissions increased to 2449. In total, the number of submissions increased by 142% between 2010 and 2020. Similarly, the proportion of desk‐rejected manuscripts increased from 48% to 67% during the period 2010–2020. The number of invitations needed to obtain one review showed an increase from 1.9 to 2.6 between 2010 and 2019, but remained stable between 2019 and 2020. However, the number of reviewers per reviewed manuscript, reviewed manuscripts per reviewer and time from invitation to completed review assignment remained almost constant between 2010 and 2020. Researchers based in North American were disproportionally often invited to review (18%) compared to their share of published articles (7%), and they also declined review invitation more frequently compared to scholars in other parts of the world. Conclusions: The study revealed an increase in submitted manuscripts to an ophthalmological journal over the last decade, with a further increase during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The number of reviewer invitations needed to obtain one review grew during the study period but remained constant between 2019 and 2020, despite a vast increase in submitted manuscripts. Hence, the burden for unique reviewers did not increase. Instead, the proportion of desk‐rejected manuscripts grew, and the reviewer pool expanded, which allowed the annual average number of reviews by individual reviewers to remain stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]