In working as an associate editor for the past few years, I find the “curtain was pulled back” on many aspects of the publication process. My behavior as an author and a reviewer changed because of being an editor. How you ask?

1. Cover letters matter. I used to use the same cover letter for every submission as an author, swapping out the title. Now I cover the highlights of the paper as well as *why the submission is in scope*.

The first decision an editor makes is whether the paper is in scope. If it is on the border of scope, it’s going to be harder for the editor to find reviewers who are excited about the work.

The paper may be fascinating, insightful, and important, but if you aren’t sending it to the right place, then it likely won't be successful. Read the scope of the journal and determine how your paper aligns, and state that in the cover letter.

This will speed up the publication process and get it to the right reviewers.

2. I don’t get down about desk rejections anymore. As stated above, it’s not a reflection that the work isn’t good, it just indicates it’s not the right place. Better to get this decision early rather than wait for unenthusiastic reviews to come back, delaying the process.

3. As an author, I suggest more than the minimum number of suggested reviewers and indicate why I think they are well-suited to review. Will they provide a clinical/applied/engineering/experimental/modeling perspective? Are they an expert on the population/technique?

4. When you can’t review, it is amazing when you suggest other potential reviewers (y'all are awesome!). I did this prior to being an editor, but I suggest a longer list of people now. Bonus points if you suggest people who are junior to you to engage them in the process.

5. As a reviewer, I never used to put anything in the “confidential comments to editor” box outside of the numerical ratings. Now I always do.

Of course, the editor is going to read your remarks to the authors, but a summary in the “confidential comments” box helps to convey the big picture of your impression of the paper. Do you think the paper could be improved and ultimately publishable?

Are you willing to review a revised version? Is the paper fundamentally flawed and thus not realistic for a resubmission? Why? Were you on the fence between suggesting a major revision vs. rejection? Tell the editor. This helps put your remarks in context with other reviewer(s).

6. Final thought (for now). If you agree to review, please don’t ghost. Delays are understandable. If you thought you were going to be able to review and now you can’t, that’s also fine. Tell the editor so they (and the authors) aren’t waiting indefinitely for your comments.