Sebastian Lech, Karlsuhe Institute of Technology, AIES

For dependably providing several high-quality reviews in the last two years

In my view, it is important to provide a fair and unbiased perspective on the manuscripts, with the readership of the journal in mind.

Randy Chase, Colorado State University, AIES/WAF

For providing thorough, excellent, prompt, and constructive reviews that help the authors improve their papers

I often learn about niche areas of research while doing paper reviews. This comes about because our community is often doing exciting research but not everyone can be an expert in every aspect of the research. Thus, while doing peer reviews I find myself saying: "Oh that's a neat method" or "I didn't know that, let me read more about it".

Qiaohong Sun, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, BAMS

For thoughtful and insightful critiques always focused on improving the quality of the work being reviewed

Engaging in peer reviews exposes me to works originating from individuals with different backgrounds, viewpoints, and styles, ultimately broadening my understanding of different approaches and ideas.

Stefan Kneifel, Ludwig-Maximilians University, BAMS

For insightful and timely reviews to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts

Aaron Hill, Colorado State University, Cross-Journal

For providing constructive and insightful reviews on an exceptionally broad range of topics across AMS journals

Each author is afforded their own voice, and our job as reviewers is to uphold scientific standards while allowing authors to share their work and results in their own style. It is easy to suggest certain changes or improvements that insert our own voice into someone else's manuscript, so I make every effort to give authors freedom to address my concerns in the best way they see fit.

David Bodine, University of Oklahoma, JAMC

For providing timely, critical, and constructive reviews that helped improve the quality of scientific analyses

Providing constructive, critical reviews improves the quality of scientific research and is an important avenue for me to return the favor to other reviewers and editors who have helped me and my students improve our research through the review process.

Michael Fischer, University of Miami, JAS

For multiple high-quality and very thorough reviews that have been helpful in making critical editorial decisions

We're all humans. Writing a balanced review—that is, noting the areas that need to be improved, but also praising the authors for excellent analyses, explanation, or visualizations—reassure the authors that you (the reviewer) have a genuine desire to improve the quality of the manuscript. Receiving criticism can be challenging, but when it is expressed in a fair manner, I have found that the authors are more willing to accommodate my suggestions. This helps both sides as we work towards improving the quality of the manuscript and, ultimately, advancing the state of the science.

Peter Haynes, Cambridge University, JAS

For an extensive history of insightful reviews on many aspects of atmospheric dynamics

What seems obvious and what needs careful explanation varies a lot from one person to another. So if an individual reviewer's comment suggest that they don't understand the message of your paper then that is usually a valid prompt that more care is needed in the presentation. Sometimes that allows a more positive opportunity -- the paper can be presented as relevant to a broader research topic that you as the author had originally envisaged.

Bing Pu, University of Kansas, JCLI

For reviews that are consistently of high quality with especially meaningful assistance to the authors

[By peer reviewing] I better understand the peer review process and appreciate the efforts and time of reviewers and editors. Thorough and constructive reviews, which often take a lot of time to write, can be very helpful to the authors. It is amazing to get involved in the process to witness the improvement of manuscripts after revisions and eventually being published.

Riyu Lu, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, JCLI

For providing an impressively large number of reviews in a timely fashion

Reviewers [are] like the shelving staff in supermarkets. They, together with editors, check the papers and judge whether the papers are suitable for various journals, bring[ing] convenience to [the] customer [other researchers/readers].

Hailan Wang, NOAA Climate Prediction Center, JCLI

For consistently delivering detailed, informative and timely reviews

Scientific peer review is an essential process for maintaining standards and integrity of scientific journals.

Andrew Feldman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, JHM

For constructive and detailed reviews of manuscripts addressing drought and land-atmosphere feedbacks

Reviewing papers is a great way to “take the pulse” of the community. It gives me a way to know which problems other researchers are trying to solve and how they are thinking about them. I sometimes even learn new methods – researchers will often execute their work so well that they teach you something new. Additionally, being on the other side of the review process gives me a fresh perspective on how I present my own work. For example, when reviewing a paper, if I come across a way to present data in a figure that does or does not work well for me, I will update my figure presentation to reflect that.

Mimi Hughes, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, JHM

For sustained excellence as a reviewer

Clarity of the writing and story is absolutely critical, and can make the difference between a mediocre and outstanding paper.

Elizabeth Yankovsky, New York University, JPO

For many thoughtful and helpful reviews of papers in a variety of sub-disciplines resulting in significant improvements in quality and impact

Aside from the scientific knowledge that I’ve gained from working on peer reviews, I’ve developed my understanding of scientific writing and communication. Working on peer reviews allows me to empathize with different approaches to scientific problem-solving. This gives me a wider perspective in my own research; I can imagine how others will perceive my results and emphasize what is unique in my own research philosophy.

Daniel Sanchez-Rivas, University of Bonn, JTECH

For prompt, in-depth, and fair reviews of technical manuscripts

Michael French, Stony Brook University, MWR

For providing numerous extremely thorough, thoughtful and constructive reviews over many years

Reviewing a paper is a balance between acknowledging the hard work of the authors while remembering that I am being asked to sign off on a permanent addition to the body of work in my field. The authors have very likely put a lot of effort into their submission and it is imperative to respect that in your writing style, even if you believe a submission has severe problems. I work to do that while also ensuring the most important part: that papers published in AMS journals reach the high scientific standards we have come to expect and which are necessary to have a functioning dynamic body of knowledge.

Luke Madaus, Jupiter Intelligence, WAF

For dependability in providing timely, comprehensive and scholarly reviews on wide-ranging topics, and for providing concise and constructive comments for all manuscripts

I enjoy seeing different ways that authors choose to tell a story with their results. That storytelling is a powerful way to make your work resonate with readers. I get satisfaction through the iteration of reviewer comments in helping to shape that story. It also gives me practice in how to help the people I mentor construct a scientific narrative that speaks through their voice and tells a clear story.

Sarah Fay Buckland, University of the West Indies, WCAS

For consistently providing thoughtful, detailed, and constructive reviews that reflect a tremendous commitment to high quality scholarship

Doing peer reviews has reinforced the understanding that it takes a ‘village’ to produce excellent research. A paper can have excellence in its core but still requires significant refining processes. Doing reviews makes me appreciate the value of perseverance as published research is not only for academic consumption. Research often can have the power to influence policies that can have global implications for decades to come. With this power comes immense responsibility to ensure that the peer-reviewed process is ethical and that what gets published is indeed of value and credibility. It is a humbling experience to be part of this process. Interacting with content produced by colleagues in my own study niches is also exciting, as it stimulates possible opportunities for future collaboration.