{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027488425925925927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005787037037037037, 'mean_word_length': 5.0755711775043935, '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}}
Championing our peer reviewers during the pandemic

For Editors, or at least for me, the peer review process can be instructive, helpful and stimulating, but also at times frustrating (I have one paper where I requested 23 reviewers before two reviewers accepted the invitation to review). It can be challenging to find appropriate reviewers and ensure they deliver timely, fair and constructive reports that serve to make the paper stronger, and hopefully not crush the authors’ spirits (too much), even if it is eventually a ‘reject’. Over the course of the pandemic, I have seen an increase in the number of submissions during the pandemic. Others have also commented on the unprecedented volume of research conducted during this time and the subsequent number of papers submitted to journals (Bauchner, Fontanarosa, & Golub, 2020). However, the quality of some COVID-related papers is at times questionable and where the tendency to deliver quick research has come at the expense of rigorous research. For example, of the total number of COVID-related papers submitted to Advances in Mental Health, 70% were rejected without going to review, with others still in review (and so possibly rejected in the long term). This is unfortunate because now more than ever it is critical that we offer timely, evidence-based articles that can be used to influence clinical practice and policy. Simultaneously, I have found it significantly more challenging to find reviewers during the pandemic, and I am not sure why, given the increase in publications. You would hope that as authors submit (and sometimes publish) more, they would review more, though I acknowledge that one does not necessarily follow the other. It could be that the pandemic has created a new field of research in which many do not feel confident to review. Additionally, recent trends suggest that the pandemic has impacted researchers differently, along gendered lines. As a result of stay-at-home orders and increased caring responsibilities, many academic women have struggled to research, resulting in a decreased number of publications by women, even though the proportion of research published by men has increased (Allen et al., 2021). Others have shown that men and women review papers differently (König & Ropers, 2021) but how the pandemic may have impacted peer reviewers along gender lines (including agreeing to review) is not clear. Research might be conducted to examine the proportionate number of women/male reviewers before and during the pandemic to explore this further. Notwithstanding these issues, this editorial serves to champion the many reviewers we call on for Advances in Mental Health, and especially during the pandemic. The peer review process is not without its critics, who point out that the process can result in publication delays and may not always identify errors, fraud or authors’ unethical behaviour. Peer reviewers can also be biased (either consciously or not) towards certain authors (on the basis of their gender, country or first language), subject material, or methodological approach (Walker & Rocha da Silva, 2015). Some reviewers see the process as an opportunity to push their own research for example, asking authors to cite the reviewer’s own papers. The process of reviewing can stymie innovation by rejecting papers that present methodologies or approaches that are alternative and differ from accepted or mainstream practice. However,