Calling all early career researchers and professionals: Peer review needs you!

Are the ‘invitation to review’ emails stacking up in your inbox, but you don’t quite feel ready to click ‘accept’? Maybe you’ve not yet been invited but are keen to take part in peer review? If so, RMetS is here to support you! 

Peer review is essential to the scientific process, whereby the scientific community provides constructive feedback about journal articles submitted for publication. Ultimately, this process strengthens both the science and its communication, and safeguards the integrity of scientific publishing. During the recent RMetS Early Career and Student Conference, RMetS surveyed attendees and found that most early career respondents had no experience of peer review but were keen to get involved. One of the main barriers to saying yes to invitations to review was knowing whether you have enough expertise to write a good review. 

In an interactive Q&A at this year’s Annual Weather and Climate Conference, two Editors-in-Chief of RMetS journals, Dr Cristina Charlton-Perez (Meteorological Applications) and Dr Chris O’Reilly (Atmospheric Science Letters), discussed their experiences with peer review and their perspectives as Editors-in-Chief. A key message was that you don’t need to be an expert in all areas of a paper to write a good review; a good review is honest, and part of this is honesty about what you do and don’t know. A well-written paper should be understood by most people with some expertise in the field; if something in a paper is unclear to you, then asking the authors to communicate their methods or results more effectively is valuable feedback. 

Another key takeaway was an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the journal Editors versus reviewers. The decision to accept or reject a paper, and the level of revisions required, sits with the Associate Editor assigned to the paper. A reviewer’s role is to advise the Associate Editors and the Editors-in-Chief. While a reviewer’s report should be directed to the authors, there is always the opportunity to provide feedback which only the Associate Editor and Editors-in-Chief can see. 

According to one attendee of the conference, Eme Dean-Lewis—who will soon be starting her doctoral studies having completed a Masters in Applied Meteorology at the University of Reading— “The session helpfully demystified the peer review process and how to get started as a potential reviewer”. If you too are thinking about getting involved in peer review, consider asking a supervisor to include you as a co-reviewer. By co-reviewing, you can learn on-the-job and benefit from your supervisor’s experience. If you feel ready to review by yourself, make yourself known to journal Editors. Have a look at which journals may be suited to your expertise and get in touch to let the Editor know your areas of interest and expertise. 

From how long to spend on a review, to how to deal with a bad paper, the conference session covered many of the practicalities of being a reviewer. There is a clear appetite amongst early career researchers and professionals to get involved in peer reviewing and to be equipped with the tools to do an excellent job. In the coming months, RMetS is producing resources to support and train in peer reviewing, so please look out for these.

If you would like to get involved in steering this initiative, please contact the Society’s Science Engagement Officer (beth.woodhams@rmets.org) for more information.