Editors’ Vox is a blog from AGU’s Publications Department.
“Mysterious”, “a black box”, “I’m really not sure…”—these are phrases many early career researchers might use when discussing the editorial process of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Peer-review is esoteric as it is, and while most scientists become familiar with peer review as authors and, eventually, reviewers, very few receive formal training in how editorial decisions are made or how to evaluate manuscripts from the broader perspective of an editor (Gradoville and Deemer, 2022). The Early Career Editorial Fellows (ECEF) program, launched in 2024 in Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences (JGR: Biogeosciences) and GeoHealth, offers an opportunity to glimpse behind the veil of journal editing and gain that perspective. The program aims to cultivate the next generation of scientific editors by providing early-career researchers with hands-on editorial experience, mentorship, and exposure to the decision-making process (Xenopoulos and Nguyen, 2024). Through mentorship from experienced editors, fellows learn to evaluate research beyond their own areas of expertise, contribute to the broader scientific community, and develop the skills needed to become both capable reviewers and future editors. As the first cohort to complete the program in JGR: Biogeosciences, we wanted to share our experiences in the hope that more AGU journal editorial boards will consider offering this opportunity.
We’ve learned the ropes of scientific publishing and journal editing from reviewer recruitment through synthesizing feedback and issuing editorial recommendations.
Over the past two years, we’ve learned the ropes of scientific publishing and journal editing from reviewer recruitment through synthesizing feedback and issuing editorial recommendations. Upon joining the editorial team, our role was primarily that of a reviewer as we familiarized ourselves with the editorial process under the guidance of mentors and demonstrated our ability to provide and recognize a useful peer review. Following this onboarding period, we transitioned into an associate editor (AE) role, actively handling manuscripts from start to finish. The workload was typically sporadic, with concentrated time spent reading incoming manuscripts, searching for and contacting reviewers, synthesizing feedback, and drafting recommendations for the handling editor. When revisions were recommended, we were typically looped back in upon resubmission to assess whether concerns were sufficiently addressed and if an additional review cycle was warranted.
Recruiting reviewers frequently emerged as the most time-consuming component of the overall process, consistent with recent trends in scientific publishing (Gradoville and Deemer, 2022). Compiling a qualified list required balancing topical expertise, career stage, geographic and gender diversity, and avoiding conflicts of interest, then cycling through and appending the list as invitees declined, went silent, or failed to deliver promised reviews could stretch across several weeks. Once reviews were in, reconciling conflicting assessments was often the most mentally demanding task, requiring us to conduct an independent read of the manuscript to make a fair recommendation, particularly when the topic touched on areas outside our own expertise. Beyond handling manuscripts, we attended quarterly editorial board meetings and had opportunities to write ‘Editor’s Highlights’ for Eos, which challenged us to distill a paper’s core message and engage the broader scientific community to promote noteworthy new publications.
Within JGR: Biogeosciences, we worked one-on-one with mentors who were in the same or similar scientific fields, some of whom we may not have necessarily connected with otherwise. This mentorship was focused on expanding skills related to reviewing, evaluating reviews, and making editorial recommendations, which are skills that early career scientists do not often have dedicated time or mentorship to practice and learn, especially from mentors with differing perspectives on the editorial process.
In addition to hands-on editorial experience, the ECEF program also provided opportunities to network with scientists from a variety of fields, as well as with the broader AGU journals community. As ECEFs, we were invited to attend official and unofficial events at the AGU Annual Meeting. The Editors’ Dinner was an opportunity to reunite with editors we had worked with previously or seen at quarterly board meetings, as well as connect with editors from other AGU journals that we had never met. Being invited to be a part of the broader AGU journals community was an impactful experience, which highlighted the importance of having a community of scientists and journal staff that make our science visible. We were also invited to meetups with the other JGR: Biogeosciences editors to discuss matters relating to the journal and network in a more casual setting. These events allowed for more in-depth, personal conservations that seemed more productive than typical passing interactions at conferences.
Participating in the ECEF program fundamentally changed how we review manuscripts, write papers, and interact with journals.
Participating in the ECEF program fundamentally changed how we review manuscripts, write papers, and interact with journals. Viewing peer review from an editor’s perspective emphasized that the most valuable reviews are not those that identify the greatest number of minor issues, but those that assess a manuscript’s overall scientific contribution, clearly identify its key strengths and weaknesses, and provide constructive suggestions for improvement. It also helped us recognize that reviewers do not need to evaluate every aspect of a multidisciplinary study; instead, they can focus on making meaningful contributions within their own areas of expertise. Furthermore, the program changed how we view editorial decisions. Previously, we often regarded an editor’s decision as the final word. As one ECEF participant reflected, “Now, if I were in this situation again [of having a paper rejected despite positive reviews], I would email the AE and ask for additional clarification on their decision/make the case for why their decision should be revisited.”
As the inaugural fellowship concludes, one question naturally follows: Should other journals adopt similar programs? Our answer is simple: yes. High-quality scientific publishing depends on knowledgeable editors who can manage peer review fairly, efficiently, and transparently. Yet many editorial boards are under increasing pressure from rising submission rates, reviewer fatigue, and the growing complexity of modern publishing (AGU Editorial Network, 2024; Gradoville and Deemer, 2022). Editorial fellowships provide a structured pathway to develop future editors while strengthening journals today.
The benefits extend far beyond the fellows themselves. First, fellowships create a sustainable pipeline of well-trained editors, reducing reliance on a small pool of overburdened senior researchers. Second, they improve the quality of peer review by giving fellows a deeper understanding of editorial decision-making, publication ethics, and constructive reviewing. These skills extend into their own research, improving the manuscripts they write, the reviews they provide, and the guidance they offer colleagues and students. Third, fellowships diversify editorial leadership by bringing early-career researchers—and often individuals from underrepresented groups—into editorial decision-making, broadening perspectives, and strengthening the scientific community.
The journals themselves also benefit directly. Fellows contribute fresh perspectives on submission systems, reviewer guidance, and editorial workflows while expanding subject expertise and editorial capacity. Although mentoring fellows requires an initial investment from senior editors, our experience suggests that this is quickly offset as fellows become independent and begin sharing editorial responsibilities. Careful selection of participants, structured mentoring, and regular interaction among fellows can further maximize the effectiveness of these programs. The need for such initiatives has never been greater. Scientific publishing is adapting to the rapid rise of AI and large language models (LLMs), increasing concerns over publication ethics, reviewer fatigue, paper mills, and the continued growth of predatory publishing (AGU Editorial Network, 2024; Van Noorden, 2023). These challenges place increasing demands on editors to safeguard the integrity and credibility of the scientific peer review process.
Investing in the next generation of editors is ultimately an investment in the quality, credibility, and resilience of science itself.
Programs like the Early Career Editorial Fellowship offer a practical and much needed forward-looking solution. By training future editors through structured mentoring and real editorial experience, they strengthen peer review, build editorial capacity, and foster a culture of scientific integrity. Investing in the next generation of editors is ultimately an investment in the quality, credibility, and resilience of science itself. If journals are serious about protecting research integrity and strengthening peer review (Bohrer et al., 2026), they must invest not only in today’s editors, but also in training tomorrows.
—Bailey A. Murphy ([email protected], 
0000-0002-0399-5221), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States; Ceara J. Talbot ([email protected], 0000-0002-6227-6868), University of California, Davis, United States; Hongyan Bao ([email protected], 0000-0002-9632-1487), Xiamen University, Xiamen, China; Kyle S. Boodoo ([email protected], 0000-0001-7063-5042), Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Austria; and Kendalynn A. Morris ([email protected], 0000-0002-0388-6965), Pacific Northwest National Lab, United States