Daniel Rothenberg, Brightband, AIES

For insightful and timely reviews, often for manuscripts that needed emergency reviews.

Sharanya Majumdar, University of Miami, BAMS

For consistently providing thoughtful, critical, and constructive reviews.

Peer review generally holds scientists accountable and raises the standards. With no peer review (or bad peer review), the quality of the published work is diluted, the conclusions are less meaningful, and there are likely more critical errors which can lead to bad decisions and be inherited by follow-up studies.

Andrew Molthan, NASA, BAMS

For thorough, excellent, and constructive reviews.

Steven Cavallo, University of Oklahoma, Cross-Journal

For providing reviews containing detailed and constructive feedback for authors of multiple AMS journals.

Human reviews are critical because context matters, and humans possess a deeper understanding of the topics. There is a certain depth of knowledge that experts have on a topic that AI could not replicate. An expert on a topic can offer fresh perspectives and creativity on ideas that may be unexplored or less well-known.

Scott Landolt, NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), JAMC

For high-quality reviews that are consistently constructive and attentive to manuscript details, and help to improve the presentation and flow of manuscripts.

Everyone has something to offer in the review process. You don't need to be an expert in the research being discussed and there will be at least one or more reviewers also providing feedback. As long as you make the editor aware of that, they can ensure other reviewers are more closely aligned with the primary research topic. You will bring a unique perspective that others more familiar with the research may not have. Don't be afraid to ask clarifying questions in your review as you will be helping the authors reach a broader audience by modifying the manuscript to address your questions.

Gert-Jan Duine, University of California, Santa Barbara, JAMC

For timely and quality manuscript reviews, including a quality review on short notice when an additional review was needed.

By performing reviews, I have learned myself to structure papers better, and try to get the message of the paper better across. I highly recommend picking up as many as possible in early career stage (also from less prestigious journals), by doing so you will get to see many examples, and hopefully understand for yourself what kind of paper you like to read. What you like to read, is what you like to write as well. Thereby, by performing reviews, your own papers will get better!

Rosimar Rios-Berrios, NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), JAS

For providing meticulous, thoughtful, and constructive reviews on manuscripts.

Scientific peer review is not only about judging the quality and innovation of scientific studies—it is also about furthering our own research trajectories! Peer review can expose us to the latest scientific studies, can provide us with ideas for our own research, and can expand the breadth of our research by exposing us to new topics. I am constantly learning new things from manuscripts I review.

Pablo Zurita-Gotor, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, JAS

For providing insightful reviews on manuscripts, including particularly challenging ones.

I think an important lesson for early-career authors is not to get discouraged by negative reviews or feel disheartened by the process. One should take the review as a cue to improve the paper. A bad review does not necessarily mean that the work is wrong, only that it didn't connect with the reviewer. And this is a person with high expertise willing to spend a significant amount of time trying to understand your paper. There is a strong chance then that the paper will not reach a broad audience if published. If your goal is to have an impact, not just to add another unread article to your CV, then thoughtful feedback is something to welcome, not resent.

Shoichiro Kido, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, JCLI

For always being available to give high quality reviews.

Osamu Miyawaki, Union College, JCLI

For effective handling of challenging reviews.

Scientific progress requires not just pattern recognition but the evaluation of new ideas that challenge established understanding. Human reviewers are critical for assessing whether new research validly extends the boundaries of existing knowledge. Humans bring knowledge gained from research experience that AI doesn't have, such as recognizing when a methods section lacks details for reproducibility. While AI can excel at some tasks required in peer review, a good peer review demands more than what the current generation of AI can provide: contextual judgment about novelty, validity, and methodological completeness that comes from actively conducting research in the field.

Ben Schenkel, University of Oklahoma, JCLI/MWR

For thoughtful and detailed reviews on a variety of topics.

Serving as a reviewer is a great way to give back to the meteorology community, for which I am grateful. My experience as a reviewer has not only taught me about fields outside of my expertise but also provided invaluable lessons about being a better reviewer and scientist.

Ali Tokay, University of Maryland Baltimore County, JHM

For polite, meticulous, and insightful reviews.

Mara Freilich, Brown University, JPO

For providing insightful, helpful, and timely reviews on a variety of topics for different JPO editors.

Peer review is a critical part of shaping both the scientific literature and the scientific community. As their outward facing role, reviewers ensure that high quality research is published by disciplinary journals and that both scientists and the public can maintain confidence in the work published in these journals. However, reviewers also play a critical role in shaping the culture of the scientific community through their ability to provide constructive and impartial feedback that enables authors' diverse perspectives to realize their full potential.

As a reviewer, I often read papers that I would otherwise not read closely because they are outside my main area of study. This provides me the chance to learn different perspectives and about new topic areas!

Fraser King, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, JTECH

For timely, technically detailed, and comprehensive reviews.

Peer review is not a perfect process. Just because a paper makes it through one or two reviewers to get published does not necessarily mean it is without issue or error. While we hope the bar for reviews is high and that their assessments are comprehensive and constructive, this is not always the case, and so I recommend continuing to think critically and verify results shown in publications instead of blindly trusting everything you find.

Peer review brings outside perspectives that can really make your paper stronger! I've had some excellent ideas for my projects come from reviewers that I previously had not considered and would therefore recommend to students to really take the time to think deeply about the points being suggested as they can make for awesome final products!

James Marquis, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, MWR

For preparing thorough, constructive, and timely reviews.

Matthew Brown, National Severe Storms Laboratory, MWR/WAF

For providing consistently thorough and constructive reviews

I think one of the biggest misconceptions amongst the public (especially in the current landscape) is that peer review is a popularity contest - in other words, that the ideas that are the loudest and closest to the zeitgeist fly through peer review unscathed. While this might be true in some other fields, I think the weather and climate communities take peer review much more seriously. My non-academic friends are often shocked to hear that I have papers in peer review for 6-9+ months, undergoing meticulous rounds of feedback and revising. Communicating to the public how painstaking the peer review will go a long way in rebuilding public trust in science, which has been eroded in many ways recently.

The biggest thing I've learned from peer review is that you only stop learning if you close your mind off to it. I have read papers, authored by everyone from senior scientists to early MS students, that have fundamentally changed the way I understood a given topic. Having the chance to see how others view and approach a given scientific challenge is, in some ways, a gift. It's an opportunity to round out your perception of a concept in a way that you couldn't have solely from your scientific point of view. Peer reviews take time and effort, but when it "goes right," both parties involved end up coming out better than when they started.

Feimin Zhang, Lanzhou University, WAF

For years of dedicated service providing timely, critical, and constructive reviews that have significantly improved the scientific quality of submissions.

Shubhechchha Sharma, University of Minnesota, WCAS

For providing extensive and constructive reviews on a manuscript that were very helpful to the editor and the authors.

Peer review is collaborative, not just gatekeeping. Even the toughest critiques should be aimed at strengthening research, not dismissing it. Rejection is common and often reflects a mismatch in fit or timing rather than a lack of quality or competence. Multiple rounds of revision are standard and part of the process, not a failure. Importantly, reviewers are volunteers donating time to advance their fields. Constructive reviews often lead to collaborations, mentorships, and networks that enrich science beyond a single paper.