Thank You to Our 2022 Peer Reviewers

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors of Geophysical Research Letters would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for us in 2022. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improve the manuscripts, but also increase the scientific rigor of future research in the field. With the advent of AGU\u27s data policy, many reviewers have also helped immensely to evaluate the accessibility and availability of data, and many have provided insightful comments that helped to improve the data presentation and quality. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the reviewers in advancing open science, which is a key objective of AGU\u27s data policy. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. We received 6,687 submissions in 2022 and 5,247 reviewers contributed to their evaluation by providing 8,720 reviews in total. We deeply appreciate their contributions in these challenging times

Thank You to Our 2018 Peer Reviewers

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the Editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters in 2018. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improves the manuscripts but also increases the scientific rigor of future research in the field. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews, in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. With the revival of the “major revisions” decisions, we appreciate the reviewers’ efforts on multiple versions of some manuscripts. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. In total, 4,484 referees contributed to 7,557 individual reviews in journal. Thank you again. We look forward to the coming year of exciting advances in the field and communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public.Key PointIn total, 4,484 referees contributed to 7,557 individual reviews in journalPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152982/1/grl59194.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152982/2/grl59194_am.pd

Thank You to Our 2019 Peer Reviewers

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed the manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters in 2019. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improve the manuscripts but also increase the scientific rigor of future research in the field. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. With the revival of the “major revisions” decisions, we appreciate the reviewers’ efforts on multiple versions of some manuscripts. With the advent of AGU’s data policy, many reviewers have helped immensely to evaluate the accessibility and availability of data associated with the papers they have reviewed, and many have provided insightful comments that helped to improve the data presentation and quality. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the reviewers in advancing open science, which is a key objective of AGU’s data policy. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics.Key PointThe editors thank the 2019 peer reviewersPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162718/2/grl60415.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162718/1/grl60415_am.pd

Kidney disease pathways, options and decisions: an environmental scan of international patient decision aids

Background: Conservative management is recognized as an acceptable treatment for people with worsening chronic kidney disease; however, patients consistently report they lack understanding about their changing disease state and feel unsupported in making shared decisions about future treatment. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate patient decision aids (PtDAs) developed to support patient–professional shared decision-making between dialysis and conservative management treatment pathways. Methods: We performed a systematic review of resources accessible in English using environmental scan methods. Data sources included online databases of research publications, repositories for clinical guidelines, research projects and PtDAs, international PtDA expert lists and reference lists from relevant publications. The resource selection was from 56 screened records; 17 PtDAs were included. A data extraction sheet was applied to all eligible resources, eliciting resource characteristics, decision architecture to boost/bias thinking, indicators of quality such as International Standards for Patient Decision Aids Standards checklist and engagement with health services. Results: PtDAs were developed in five countries; eleven were publically available via the Internet. Treatment options described were dialysis (n = 17), conservative management (n = 9) and transplant (n = 5). Eight resources signposted conservative management as an option rather than an active choice. Ten different labels across 14 resources were used to name ‘conservative management’. The readability of the resources was good. Six publications detail decision aid development and/or evaluation research. Using PtDAs improved treatment decision-making by patients. Only resources identified as PtDAs and available in English were included. Conclusions: PtDAs are used by some services to support patients choosing between dialysis options or end-of-life options. PtDAs developed to proactively support people making informed decisions between conservative management and dialysis treatments are likely to enable services to meet current best practice

Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus

A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P=9.2 × 10-20), ER-negative BC (P=1.1 × 10-13), BRCA1-associated BC (P=7.7 × 10-16) and triple negative BC (P-diff=2 × 10-5). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P=2 × 10-3) and ABHD8 (P<2 × 10-3). Chromosome conformation capture identifies interactions between four candidate SNPs and ABHD8, and luciferase assays indicate six risk alleles increased transactivation of the ADHD8 promoter. Targeted deletion of a region containing risk SNP rs56069439 in a putative enhancer induces ANKLE1 downregulation; and mRNA stability assays indicate functional effects for an ANKLE1 3′-UTR SNP. Altogether, these data suggest that multiple SNPs at 19p13 regulate ABHD8 and perhaps ANKLE1 expression, and indicate common mechanisms underlying breast and ovarian cancer risk

Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus

A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P = 9.2 x 10(-20)), ER-negative BC (P = 1.1 x 10(-13)), BRCA1-associated BC (P = 7.7 x 10(-16)) and triple negative BC (P-diff = 2 x 10(-5)). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P = 2 x 10(-3)) and ABHD8 (PPeer reviewe

Gravitational potential energy and regional stress and strain rate fields for continental plateaus: Examples from the central Andes and Colorado Plateau

The commonly observed extension in areas of elevated and thickened crust is an expected consequence of having excess gravitational potential energy (GPE) compared to the low GPE of the surrounding crust. While this conceptual model is well founded, it is less clear how well GPE-related stress orientations compare quantitatively to observed stress and strain rate orientations and what any inconsistency tells us about the presence of other competing forces. We estimate the GPE distribution for the central Andes and the greater Colorado Plateau area using topography and crustal thickness variations, respectively, and compare the related stress fields with the World Stress Map as well as with a geodetic strain rate field (for the Colorado Plateau only). In both areas, deviatoric stresses associated with GPE variations alone cannot fully account for the observed deformation rate field. For the central Andes only a combination of deviatoric stresses associated with GPE and relative plate motions can account for the near N–S tensional stress observed in the Peruvian Andes and the margin–normal compressional stress along the eastern Cordillera and sub-Andean fold-and-thrust belt. The observed deformation field around the Colorado Plateau shows E–W extension, largely inconsistent with the deviatoric stresses associated with GPE variations except for the area east of the Rio Grande Rift. The NE–SW oriented stress observed on the southwestern Colorado Plateau is consistent with the orientations of tensional deviatoric stresses associated with GPE variations. We argue that this consistency could be haphazard; stress observations may not reflect the current state of stress due to inherited structure, or could result from the relative high strength of Colorado Plateau that allows for regional GPE variations (and possibly basal shear) to be more significant forces than far-field plate interactions. For the central Andes and Colorado Plateau, stresses associated with GPE variations have a strong influence on the total stress field, and can thus be used to calibrate the overall level of deviatoric stress acting within the lithosphere