Search

Science is at its best when shared widely both within the scientific community and to the broader public. To maintain trust in science while simultaneously maximizing openness, it is important that every paper is carefully vetted. For this we rely on many volunteers, especially our peer reviewers. Their work is key for maintaining the integrity of scientific journals and to ensure the highest standards of scientific rigor. Reviewers verify that the assumptions, the methods, and the inferences made in our papers are sound. Many spend hours going over derivations, analyses, and evaluating the novelty and significance of the submitted manuscript. In 2019, JGR Planets benefited from 901 reviews provided by 584 unique reviewers. On behalf of the entire editorial board of JGR Planets and the entire planetary science community, we want to express here our most heartfelt gratitude to all of you. Thank you! Plain Language Summary: Peer review is key to vetting every paper submitted to JGR Planets in order to ensure the highest standards of scientific rigor in the journal. Reviewers verify that the assumptions, the methods, and the inferences made in our papers are sound. We depend on, and are grateful to, all the volunteers who spent going over and evaluating the submitted manuscript. In 2019, JGR Planets benefited from 901 reviews provided by 584 unique reviewers. On behalf of the entire editorial board of JGR Planets and the entire planetary science community, we want to express here our most heartfelt gratitude to all of you. Thank you! Key Points: Peer review is a crucial component of the high‐quality planetary science published in JGR: PlanetsIn 2019, 584 individuals provided 901 reviews of papers submittedPeer reviewers: thank you for your service to the planetary community [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a study evaluating the value of a documentary as a key medium to communicate design research. We present information from the evaluation of a second screen application using video as well as a scientific paper, in order to assess how the efficacy and usefulness of using such a documentary for science communication is perceived when compared to a scientific paper. Techniques of a method called Design Documentary , developed to inspire design research teams through video, combined with science journalism were the basis of the production. Twelve researchers and students were shown the documentary and asked to read the paper in counter-balanced order. Our qualitative results show that the documentary as a complementary means of communication can bring benefits to research communication, since it delivers information the paper cannot provide. However, the fact the video is not suited for peer review might restrict its place when compared to the paper. On the overall, participants thought both formats are valuable and are complementary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Describes the above-named upcoming conference event. May include topics to be covered or calls for papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]