Do we have any way of generating a list of journals that do or do not typically have a policy of asking for a reviewer with inat experience on inat involved papers? If we could find out journals that do not do this we could write them letters.
I don’t know in the various fields that might use inat observations how many or what type of reviewers are typical; most of my own papers have had 1 reviewer, or sometimes 1 reviewer and additional mark ups from designated specialist editors who don’t write a full review, just some mark ups or comments. So maybe a model where a designated ‘citizen science editor’ marks up all papers that use citizen science data could be good if a journal usually only uses one reviewer and that reviewer needs to be a taxon specialist instead.