ISSN 1827-9635 (print) © Firenze University Press ISSN 1827-9643 (online) www.fupress.com/ah Editorial The “Peer” in “Peer Review” Gad Perry1, Jaime Bertoluci2, Bruce Bury3, Robert W. Hansen4, Robert Jehle5, John Measey6, Brad R. Moon7, Erin Muths8, Marco A.L. Zuffi9,* 1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; Journal of Herpetology 2 Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; Phyllomedusa 3 USGS, Corvallis, OR, USA; Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4 Clovis, CA, USA; Herpetological Review 5 University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK; Herpetological Journal 6 University of the Western Cape, South Africa; African Journal of Herpetology 7 University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA, USA; Herpetologica 8 USGS, Fort Collins, CO, USA; Journal of Herpetology 9 Museum Natural History, University of Pisa, Italy; Acta Herpetologica Peer review is the best available mechanism for assessing and improving the quality of scientific work. As herpetology broadens its disciplinary and geographic boundaries, high- quality external review is ever more essential. We are writing this editorial jointly because the review process has become increasingly difficult. The resulting delays slow publication times, negatively affect performance reviews, tenure, promotions, and grant proposal suc- cess. It harms authors, agencies, and institutions (Ware, 2011) In our review process, editors assign each new submission to a knowledgeable Asso- ciate Editor, who seeks sufficient expert reviewers to evaluate the manuscript. In recent years, Editors have commented on the increasing difficulty of finding willing reviewers, and have speculated on its causes, often citing selfishness (Ghazoul, 2011; Hochberg, 2010; McPeek et al., 2009; Navarro et al., 2010; Sheppard, 2000; Thompson, 2010). There are certainly people who regularly decline requests to review, but our experience agrees with Ware (2011) that they are the exception. Why, then, is the problem getting worse? Most reviewers reside at academic institutions and government agencies facing budget cuts, unfunded “accountability” measures, and increasing privatization and commerciali- zation (Perry et al., 2007). Writing an informed and constructive review takes consider- able work. As professional responsibilities increase each year, the time and recognition for such unpaid work diminish. Moreover, potential reviewers are sometimes instructed to minimize their service activities (Garrison, 2005). Yet competent peer review is as vital a part of the scientific process as any experiment. * With the exception of the first author, authors are arranged in alphabetical order G. Perry et al. Our goal is to provide a publication process that is objective, efficient, timely, and pleasant. We are exploring various options for addressing the problem, and we need your help. Please help us by taking the following steps: If you are asked to review a manuscript, please respond quickly. This will shorten the process. Delays in review often begin with a tardy response to the request for a review. Please do your best to say “Yes.” If you do, please make sure to meet the deadline or explicitly request an extension to a specific date. We are increasingly facing delays because of chasing colleagues who missed the deadline, sometimes by many weeks. If you are not able to do the review, do not have the time to provide an in-depth review, or do not think you can meet the deadline, then please say “No” right away and suggest one or more alternate potential reviewers. Involve your advanced graduate students in the review process while maintaining the confidentiality of the process. Explain that this is an important part of their professional duties. Advocate to administrators the value of reviewer service at every opportunity, explain that it is a performance-related part of your job that helps keep you up-to-date, and ask for it to be part of your annual evaluation. These are simple steps, but they will greatly help reduce delay and frustration. Many thanks in advance, Your editors REFERENCES Garrison, C. (2005): Exploring new faculty orientation: The good, the bad, and making it better. Essays in Education 13: 1-9. Ghazoul, J. (2011): Reviewing Peer Review. Biotropica 43: 1-2. Hochberg, M.E. (2010): Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas Ecol. Evol. 3: 8-10. McPeek, M.A., DeAngelis, D.L., Shaw, R.G., Moore, A.J., Rausher, Strong, D.R., Ellison, A.M., Barrett, L., Rieseberg, L., Breed, M.D., Sullivan, J., Osenberg, C.W., Holyoak, M., Elgar, M.A. (2009): The golden rule of reviewing. Am. Natur. 173: E155-E158. Navarro, L., Sánchez, J.M., Cortina, J., Jiménez-Eguizábal, L. (2010): En manos de la bue- na voluntad de los colegas… En nuestras manos. Ecosistemas 19: 1-7. Perry, G., Mackessey, S., Sites, J., Ford, N. (2007): The ongoing privatization of public uni- versities. Iguana 14: 257-258. Sheppard, C.( 2000): The poor referee. Marine Poll. Bull. 40: 1-2. Thompson, F.R., III. (2010): The Golden rule of reviewing. J. Wildlife Managem. 74: 191- 192. Ware, M. (2011): Peer review: recent experience and future directions. New Rev. Inform. Network. 16: 23-53.