Editorial: Why should I review papers?

This issue has three fascinating papers. The first paper, Software component composition: A subdomain-based testing foundation, by Hamlet, proposes a theory of composing software components that is based on testing. Instead of modeling or specifying software systems directly, this paper suggests the novel approach of deriving abstractions of components from testing and then using these abstractions to model the behavior of the entire system. The second paper, A combinatorial testing strategy for concurrent programs, by Lei, Carver, Kacker and Kung, addresses the hard problem of testing concurrent software. Instead of trying to test all possible synchronization sequences, this paper presents a method and algorithm for choosing a subset of synchronization sequences that will lead to effective fault detection. The third paper, Studying the separability relation between finite state machines, by Spitsyna, El-Fakih and Yevtushenko, explores the relationships between finite state machines. It quantifies the ‘distance’ between nondeterministic FSMs. Owing to the difficulty in soliciting reviews, one of these papers has actually been in STVR’s reviewing process for more than two years, which brings me to the main subject of this editorial . . . . One of the most important jobs of editors and associate editors is soliciting reviews. Reviewing takes time that we don’t get paid for. The effort counts for almost nothing in promotion and tenure decisions. Not surprising, a perennial problem for most journals is getting reviews in a timely fashion. So I’m not surprised when I hear the question: ‘why should I review papers?’ Luckily, I can offer several good answers. The most obvious reason is that it is a service to the community. Service is good for the soul, and donating our time to our field makes us feel better about ourselves. Another obvious reason is to return the favor. Every time we submit a paper to a journal, four or five people work for us: three reviewers, an editor, and possibly an editor-in-chief. We don’t pay them in money, but we can pay for their time by reviewing their papers. A less obvious reason is to learn. Reviewing papers is a good way to learn new results early. Of course it’s unethical to use results before they’re published, but the reviewers know the results as soon as they’re published. Moreover, the best ideas don’t just give you ideas upon which to build your research, but they change the way you think. And changing your thinking earlier than others always helps. Another thing we learn is how to write papers. Seeing good (and bad!) examples help us develop and refine our own writing skills. Perhaps the most subtle reason for reviewing is to enhance our reputation. This is especially true for young scientists. Reviewing papers allows us to help senior scientists who ask for the