JUOP Editorial January 2025: Peer Review Recognition

Probably the most important comment to make for this month is our posted article recognizing our top peer reviewers for 2024.1 The editorial team does a lion share of peer reviews, but we are a large community of science, and we depend upon ad hoc reviewers. We have 23 specific reviewers recognized—a few have joined our editorial team as well. We are seeking to expand the board in 2025, so let us know your interest. As far as key points to make from an editor's point of view is how an invited reviewer can make a big difference for a journal as well as the authors submitting their work. The best responses could be ranked in order of: Performing a well-done, timely review, with additional key perspectives send in the editor's box. Make clear, numbered revisions requests to help the authors respond. Same as #1, but a little late better than never. Respond to the editor/staff if asking when you will finish. Decline a review and even consider nominating another expert. This may surprise you to be #3, but the way editorial software works, if you decline, the invites will move along faster to the next expert. Editorial teams are happy to learn of new experts to consider, especially as fellows make their move to attendings. No response—this is somewhat harmful in that the software will wait 1 to 2 weeks for a reply and possibly slow the process. Accept but never turn it. This is the most disruptive outcome as it sets back the review cycle several weeks. One last point—if you want to review with a resident/fellow that is no problem, just read/approve their work and acknowledge the team effort. JANUARY 2025 ARTICLES We have 2 new articles posted in January 2025. Several more were delayed to the next month and a nice set of new submissions to start the year. Overall, we had 173 unique submissions for 2024. Zeelenberg et al2 performed a single-center, retrospective comparison of T1 renal cancer—percutaneous ablation partial nephrectomy. Although both cohorts were eligible for either approach, this was nonrandomized and the authors acknowledge selection biases such as tumor characteristics, comorbidity, and patient preference. For example, the ablation cohort was 12 years older. Techniques were surgical minimally invasive surgery by urologists vs ablation by interventional radiologists. They review key tumor characteristics and complications. Of survival metrics, partial nephrectomy had a longer recurrence-free survival, even though actual recurrence numbers were low (<7%) and nonsignificant. Overall, this is a useful, confirmatory-type comparison that reflects how many departments have triaged these 2 options. In peer review, it was pointed out that the 12-year older ablation cohort also had an 18% higher all-cause mortality rate. This reflects how active surveillance may be the other appropriate option, as older/comorbid patients may have higher priority health concerns. Raffi et al3 present a timely report on an unusual visual change side effect associated with mirabegron use in a 24-year-old patient being treated for overactive bladder symptoms for the past 4 years. The authors present the ophthalmology findings and the relevant pharmacology—a key fact that β3-receptor agonist may have receptors in the retina and choroid. Fortunately, symptoms improved with drug cessation. The scope of the issue is potentially broad—a study of the topic of anticholinergic vs β3-receptor agonist stated that an estimated 2,971,449 individuals filled prescriptions for overactive bladder in 2019.4 PEOPLE, PLACES, AND THINGS No meeting or related reports from this past month but planning a busy year of meeting reports with pictorials will challenge the board to contribute. As a challenge in the related photography and quest for fun JUOP cover art, I was impressed with my wife's observation that after a rainstorm and sunlight re-emerging, the pattern of water droplets on my car gave off an impressive refractory light spectrum (Figure 1). So, there is your cover art. I scoured my photo collection to demonstrate other pleasing light/color effects you should try with your photography. Figure 2 shows a tripod shot from the Riverwalk during our AUA meeting last year. With a night shot, you can show several seconds of exposure and watch the water turn to glass and the waterfalls smoothen out like silk. See the caption for a tip on how to do this with a handheld iPhone. Here is a video short summary.5Figure 1.: Water droplets on the sunroof. Credit Deborah K. Davis, MD.Figure 2.: Slow exposure waterfall. Two options here—(1) use a tripod in low light for a multisecond exposure or (2) you can shoot a “live” photo with an iPhone and click the option to convert it to a long exposure.Sometimes, color effects are naturally made, like most glacier ice and its blue effect from the compact nature of the ice (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the night/tripod effect with a rough bay of water turned to glass. Figure 5 shows a good trick for gray skies or, in this case, a gray thermal structure with steam. Try the dehazing editing feature to color in a sky or filter out steam. Finally, backlighting around a solid structure can give a halo effect or, in this case, an added effect of sun through ice on a frost covered set of trees (Figure 6).Figure 3.: The blue ice effect—the Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau Alaska. Glacier ice looks blue due to its dense structure with few air bubbles—essentially filtering out colors except blue to reach the eye.Figure 4.: The glass water effect. Again, another fun long exposure night effect, from the Sydney Opera House. The rough bay water merges to a glass effect over a 30-second exposure on a tripod.Figure 5.: The dehazing effect. From the Atacama desert in Chile, a thermal warmed geyser mostly emits steam, but a dehazing effect can filter it out and show the water/foam underneath. Other key applications include making a dull/gray sky look somewhat interesting.Figure 6.: Extreme backlighting. The combination of a morning angled sun on frost covered trees on a rural Idaho farm gives a tremendous color contrast. This was an incidental finding on a long road trip, that is, one of those “pull the car over” photo moments.