A recent editorial in the Journal of Wildlife Management (Krausman 2022) provided insight into the duties of an Editor-in-Chief (EIC). His discussion, coupled with the Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021) editorials regarding the publication process from authors' perspectives, sparked us to share some thoughts from the viewpoint of an Associate Editor (AE). Most of us have or will spend a larger fraction of our careers directed at publishing papers than as reviewers, which generally means we may have less of an understanding regarding the important role that AEs play in the publication process (until we become one). We decided to share some insights into what an AE does and issues they face to provide a glimpse into another part of the publication process. We are all women from different biological fields and at some point, have served (or are serving) as an AE for the Journal of Wildlife Management and others. We focus primarily on our experiences with the journals produced by The Wildlife Society (TWS) but most could apply to other journals. We also offer recommendations to improve the AE experience. First and foremost, if you are interested in serving as an AE for any TWS publication, we encourage you to volunteer, and not wait to be approached. Having a doctorate is not a prerequisite; expertise is accumulated from a variety of pathways. The Journal of Wildlife Management provides AEs with guidelines for the basic operations, timelines, and a description of typical procedures. The instructions do not cover what to expect personally or the paradigms an AE might adopt to address the critical evaluation of scientific writing. Being an AE is akin to being a super reviewer and it requires a substantial investment of time—a precious commodity. How this investment is rewarded varies. In academia, reviewing and editing are considered service to the scientific community and can ultimately aid in promotion. In other settings, an AE appointment might be viewed as an extracurricular activity or even as an undesirable distraction. To know what type of support you may have or may face as a potential AE, we strongly recommend that you first speak with your supervisors before accepting an AE position. An AE acts as a team lead in overseeing the reviews of a manuscript and provides an integrated assessment and recommendation to the EIC. An AE can be involved in the selection of the reviewers or can leave that up to the journal staff. Once reviewers have been obtained, both the AE and the reviewers are asked by the EIC to evaluate the scientific merit of a submitted manuscript and whether it should be accepted for publication. The main difference between the AE and a reviewer is that the AE integrates their own opinions with those of the reviewers. In one strategy, an AE first reads the comments of the reviewers and then reads the manuscript, letting the reviewers lead the way. In a second strategy, an AE first personally evaluates the manuscript in full, and then compares their evaluation with that of the reviewers (the option preferred by the current EIC of this journal). Regardless of the strategy, it is key that AEs respect the reviewers' perspectives, recognizing that these experts have given their time to support the peer-review process. An AE's job is to summarize, and reconcile if needed, all comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript in a letter to guide the author in their revisions. Associate Editors have 3 goals in providing authors comments: clearly communicate the suggested revisions and the reasons for them, aid authors in improving the manuscript, and uphold the standards of TWS journals and expectations of its readership. The purpose of the review process is not to reject manuscripts because of some set quota from the publisher. Rejection is usually an outcome of a flawed study design, poor methods, insufficient data to support inferences, or a poor match with the focus of the journal. Associate Editor comments should not attack the authors' abilities but focus on encouraging authors to make their manuscript the best it can be. Where significant deficiencies could be corrected but are likely to take considerable time and effort (e.g., by including more information, reanalyzing data, reorganizing the manuscript), an AE may recommend rejection with an invitation to resubmit. Even when considered to be of merit, most submissions to TWS journals require ≥1 round of revision. Clear direction for revisions facilitates an efficient review process, especially when comments are extensive. When the revised manuscript is returned, the AE reads the manuscript and the authors' responses to see if they have understood the requested changes, implemented them adequately, or provided sufficient explanations for their rebuttal. A detailed cover letter from the author(s) that clearly indicates where revisions were made and providing reasons for not making suggested revisions is invaluable. If there are delays in returning revisions or if authors have concerns or questions, they are always welcome and encouraged to contact an AE or the EIC directly. A misconception regarding the AE's duties is that they make the decision to reject or accept a manuscript for publication. This is not accurate. The AE is there to ensure the quality of the research and then make recommendations to the EIC, much like a line chef presents a plate of food to the sous chef for inspection before it is served. Most of the time, an EIC will follow the recommendation of the AE because they trust their team of experts. When more technical expertise is needed than the original reviewers or the AE possess, or special considerations arise, such as widely conflicting or belligerent reviews, AEs may communicate with the EIC, even prior to making their recommendation. It is still possible that an EIC will differ in opinion and not accept the AE's recommendation. Stepping into the role of an AE is not without its uncomfortable moments. It can be daunting to provide an opinion, either positive or negative, on someone's work. Many people, when asked to become an AE, doubt their abilities to critically assess other's manuscripts. This is particularly true when AEs are new professionals, or even in the case of veteran AEs when the subject matter is not their specialty. Soliciting further reviews or speaking with the EIC can provide guidance. The wildlife field is relatively small and despite deliberate efforts to avoid it, AEs may be assigned to manuscripts by authors with whom they share a professional or personal relationship. Disclosing any conflict of interest to the EIC early in the evaluation process helps maintain fair and unbiased handling of manuscripts and testifies to the AE's belief in TWS's Code of Ethics (https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20190304-Code-of-Ethics.pdf). An AE also may struggle when their assessment of a manuscript conflicts with those of the reviewers or the reviews are simply unhelpful. A reviewer who provides a detailed, thoughtful review, regardless of the recommendation, is an AE's best friend. A quick review, resulting in a terse “This is an outstanding paper that will significantly improve our understanding and the management of the study species. Recommendation: Accept.” is not useful even if written by the world's foremost authority. The reasons behind a recommendation, whether positive or negative, must be clear. A review that does not articulate these is not helpful to the author, AE, or the EIC making the final decision (Johnson et al. 2021, Gould et al. 2021) Being an AE occasionally feels like an unpaid, thankless, drain on your time. Given this, why would anyone consider becoming an AE? Simply put, it makes you a better scientist and writer. First, being involved in the continuous and repetitive process of critically evaluating someone else's work through the peer-review allows you to see how others (reviewers) perceive the work, which helps you continually improve your own reviewing and writing skills. The more you read reviews of manuscripts, the more intuitive it becomes to recognize clear, well-articulated text, and the better you can emulate it. Second, because you invest a lot of time sifting through the work of others, you are continually exposed to new methods, techniques, and analyses. Essentially, AEs continue to learn and stay at the forefront of science. You gain broader knowledge by connecting with other scientists not solely within your specialized topic. Third, AEs are part of a community, and it is fundamentally rewarding to do service to community. Associate Editors are simultaneously coaches, teachers, and students. You mentor younger or less-experienced writers and scientists. These types of personal service and the personal exchanges that develop are a form of giving to others that has been shown to increase overall satisfaction in life (Revord et al. 2021). We realize that individuals who volunteer to be AEs enter the position with different levels of editing experience, and even those with an abundance of experience may be unfamiliar with TWS journal philosophies and operations. Coping effectively takes practice, but training can help. Formal training for AEs of TWS journals historically has been scant, perhaps because it was assumed AEs were already well-versed in the necessary insight and communication skills. Even if this were true, AEs deal with an author's labor of love, and ultimately what influences their reputation (and even paycheck), so there is always more for AEs to learn. We end this commentary with a few suggestions of what TWS might change to improve the AE experience and ultimately be successful in meeting the mission of the TWS peer-reviewed journals. Key to being a successful AE is communication: communication with the EIC, reviewers, authors, and even TWS and the publisher. Providing AEs with a brief history of TWS publications and the vital role they play in the Society's mission and finances provides context for a job well done. Editors-in-Chief are hired for their scientific expertise but also for their leadership in a rapidly evolving publication world. A web-based recording from the EIC of their personal philosophy and vision for their journal would set clear expectations for AEs, authors, and reviewers. An initial training video could fast track new AEs in the current submission site operations and help emphasize key points, such as how to write a constructive recommendation, how to handle conflicting reviews, how to handle drawn-out revisions, and how to recognize gender-biased language. Despite their open-door policy, EICs typically have met formally with AEs only once a year at a publisher-sponsored luncheon during the TWS annual meeting, where journal issues are discussed, and AEs provide feedback. We understand the financial limitation of bringing a group of AEs together more frequently, but we suggest that this limitation no longer exists. Periodic webinars and pairing mentoring of inexperienced AEs by experienced AEs could benefit both. Webinars allow experienced AEs and staff to share their perspectives in handling manuscripts and can allow new AEs to ask questions (respectful of confidentiality). These venues are especially conducive to open dialogue on tricky issues like: Is an extremely caustic review useful? When are additional reviewers necessary? To what level should language be a barrier to accepting the science? Moving forward, we believe endorsing these practices will provide a more gratifying experience among AEs, who dedicate their time to promote the best available science in peer-reviewed journals. The peer review process is important to maintain the integrity of TWS journals and science. Associate Editors, as a group, play a key role in this process. They are the linchpin to providing scientific discourse and ensuring a strong foundation of credible knowledge. Being an AE for the TWS journals is an often-overlooked opportunity to serve TWS and address scientific dialogue in our field. We have all faced the uncertainties and challenges of being an AE within the peer-review process, but we maintain the rewards from helping to protect scientific integrity, learning from others, and serving the TWS community are far greater than the costs in time and energy. We acknowledge the long-term guidance that A. S. Cox and A. C. S. Knipps have shared with us as Associate Editors over the years. We acknowledge the generous discussions with P. R. Krausman and all EICs who have given their time and energies to ensure the scientific literature is compelling and reputable. We acknowledge those whose passion for wildlife management and conservation provide the fortitude and patience to prevail within the publication process.