In a Calvin and Hobbes comic, creator Bill Watterson wrote, “Sometimes when I’m talking, my words can’t keep up with my thoughts. I wonder why we think faster than we speak. Probably so we can think twice.” I encourage you to think twice before declining when Applied Optics or another journal asks you to perform a manuscript review. We really need your help! I guarantee that an effective manuscript review can make a difference in someone’s life and career.

The number one complaint that I get from our Topical Editors is that it is very difficult to secure willing reviewers—a problem that I experienced myself as an editor for Applied Optics and Optical Engineering. Sometimes editors have to send out as many as 12 requests before they are able to secure two reviewers to read and comment on a manuscript. I recently analyzed our peer-review statistics and confirmed that the majority of the delays are due to inability to find reviewers.

We all know that peer review is critical to the scientific community. Many of us were able to progress in our careers by publishing in journals, which means that others in the community reviewed our papers, leading to the validation of our work. We owe it to both our younger folks and senior researchers to provide the same service to them that we expect from others for evaluating our own research. Early professionals in particular can benefit significantly from peer-review feedback to guide their paths for future projects.

Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify my criteria for Applied Optics’ manuscript reviews, as they may be a little different than what you expect. Most reviewers provide feedback on whether a paper is technically correct. We appreciate this input, and if a paper has major errors it should obviously be rejected. However, it’s also very important that reviewers state explicitly whether or not they believe the paper is original and significant. Is this new, original research? Is the paper important? Are the findings incremental, or are they a significant leap in progress? I would like to see a statement at the end of each review that addresses these questions to determine if the paper should be published in Applied Optics. For example, “I believe this work is significant and it is worthy of publication in Applied Optics because xxxx.” Or, “I believe this work is incremental and is not significant enough for publication in Applied Optics because xxxx.” Or, if appropriate, “This work has been reported in a previous paper and should not be published in Applied Optics.”

This is my plea for you to pitch in by providing reviews of Applied Optics manuscripts. Not only do the Topical Editors, Division Editors, staff and I need your help, but more importantly, our authors sincerely need your help as well. The “decline to review” attitude seems to get worse every year. Many of us at OSA are trying to combat this behavior by showing appreciation for reviewers in new ways and by recognizing our best reviewers. Did you know that when you agree to complete a review you can receive temporary access to the OSA Publishing digital library (formerly Optics InfoBase)? I welcome your suggestions for other ways to attract more reviewers. In the meantime, please think twice before declining a review request.