Search

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.

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.

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 2023. 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's 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's 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 4,512 submissions in 2023 and 5,112 reviewers contributed to their evaluation by providing 8,587 reviews in total. We deeply appreciate their contributions. Plain Language Summary: Individuals in italics provided three or more reviews for GRL in 2023. Key Points: The editors thank the 2023 peer‐reviewers [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The thermospheric neutral density response to the 7–9 September 2017 storms is investigated based on the Swarm satellite observations and the thermosphere‐ionosphere‐electrodynamic general circulation model (TIEGCM) simulation. The Swarm data depicted a prominent interhemispheric asymmetry (IHA) in the afternoon sector during the second storm, a feature that was yet explained. Driven by realistic high‐latitude electric potential and electron precipitation patterns, the TIEGCM is able to reproduce the observed storm‐time neutral density response. The TIEGCM simulation reveals that the differences in the traveling atmospheric disturbances (TADs) is largely responsible for the observed IHA in the neutral mass density response at low and middle latitudes, whereas the difference in mean molecular mass between the two hemispheres may contribute to the IHA in neutral density at higher latitudes. The IHAs in TADs and mean molecular mass are attributed to the IHA in Joule heating dissipation on the night and dawn sides. Plain Language Summary: During geomagnetic storms, thermospheric neutral density can increase drastically due to intense heat inputs. Enhanced neutral density increases the air drag on satellites which could lower their orbits and lead to faster atmosphere reentering of satellites. In addition, enhanced neutral mass density may cause larger uncertainties in orbit prediction which increases the risk of collisions with other space objects. Therefore, it is essential to improve the understanding of storm‐time neutral density variations to improve satellite operations. Recent satellite observations have revealed that thermospheric neutral mass density response can be interhemispherically asymmetric even under equinox conditions when the background density in the two hemispheres is comparable. This paper presents a case study of such an event based on data analysis and numerical simulations to investigate the physical mechanisms behind this intriguing phenomenon. The event took place on 7–9 September 2017 and the most prominent interhemispheric asymmetry of neutral density occurred in the afternoon sector. Our study found that the interhemispheric asymmetry during this event results from the differences in the generation, propagation and interaction of globally propagating atmospheric waves, namely traveling atmospheric disturbances, as well as the difference in mean molecular mass between the northern and southern hemispheres. Key Points: Thermosphere‐ionosphere‐electrodynamic general circulation model captures the observed interhemispheric asymmetry (IHA) in the neutral density response to the 7–9 September 2017 geomagnetic stormsThe IHA in the neutral density response results from the IHA in traveling atmospheric disturbances and mean molecular massThe observed IHA in the neutral density response is not caused by direct Joule heating dissipated at the same local time [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]