{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021052631578947368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006015037593984963, 'mean_word_length': 5.166666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Advice for early-career peer reviewers and authors responding to peer reviews

The peer-review system, despite its flaws, is a central component of the publication process. However, relatively little guidance is provided for early-career scientists on 2 important aspects of peer review: 1) writing effective peer reviews and 2) responding effectively to reviews of a manuscript. In this editorial, I discuss the peer review process briefly and provide the rationale and context for the 2 editorials that follow it. This series of editorials is a first step toward encouraging and mentoring students and early career scientists as they become engaged professionals.