I'm good with the latest language. However, the expectation that all reviews have at minimum two reviewers will likely be news to some of our editors, who regularly have assigned one. (I've always tried to assign ≥2 reviewers myself.) So we'll just want to make sure and communicate that expectation, along with some of the other updates/clarifications.

For a while now, I've been assigning a minimum of two reviewers, consistently.

We've seen various examples of reviewers going MIA mid-review, or never showing up after the Review issue is started. When two reviewers were assigned, we've been able to move forward to acceptance on the basis of the one responsive review, plus extra checks from the editor. When only the one delinquent reviewer was assigned, the editor needs to start from scratch finding a new reviewer, and it's a long delay for the paper.

@labarba I totally agree, and I've been an advocate for at least two reviewers since the beginning—my only point is that in practice some editors have not been doing this consistently, so we need to make the expectation clear to all.

Should we say something about the editor supplying a review in some cases? If so, this would be by formally adding themself as a reviewer, not just informally approving the paper? And would this be allowed for the 2nd review, or would there need to be 2 non-editor reviewers?

👍