A rite of passage for many scientists is their elevation to some kind of editorial board, usually associated with a scientific journal.  This is where they get to review the work of other scientists and become part of the decision-making process that results in publication – or rejection.  It is an excellent means of extending one’s network of people who are interested in the same discipline.  It is always a learning experience, no matter how many papers one reviews or edits over a lifetime; new ideas, new data, new methods, new ways of expression.  Admittedly, the task of reviewing a paper can arrive on your desk at precisely the wrong time.  But a good reviewer will understand that there is always a quid pro quo; your own paper under review may arrive on someone’s desk at a time most inconvenient for them.  So you do the job anyway. Continue reading →