In a scientific journal's lifetime, perhaps the fifth year of publication marks the end of adolescence: any teething problems should have been solved; the scientific community will have formed an initial opinion of the new arrival; and the annual issuing of the journal impact factor will have become almost routine the third time around. At this transition into 'mature journalhood', we have surveyed the Nature Geoscience audience for their opinion of the journal.

We sent the survey to 27,137 people and received 1,002 responses between 6 and 22 June. 886 of the respondents stated that they have read content from the journal. We were pleased to hear that 82% of these readers rate the quality of Nature Geoscience as excellent or very good, with a further 14% saying the journal is good. We do, of course, realise that people who are willing to fill in a survey are more likely to be in favour of Nature Geoscience. Nevertheless, we are grateful for the broad support.

One surprise from the survey, from our point of view, was the widespread interest in peer review under double-blind conditions, where referees and authors are both anonymous. Three-quarters of our respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed that double-blind peer review is a good idea, whereas only 16% either strongly or somewhat disagreed. In view of this clear vote in favour of the process, we will be looking into ways of implementing a trial on an opt-in basis for authors.

We also note some ongoing uncertainties regarding the relationship between Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change. In a section for open comments, some respondents said they expected that Nature Geoscience would restrict itself to 'hard rock' science, now that Nature Climate Change has been established. As we have said before (Nature Geosci. 4, 129; 2011), this is not our plan. We aim to bring together research from all the Earth science disciplines, and we will continue to publish across subject areas, including those that are relevant to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.

As expected, the survey shows that researchers in each field tend to believe their own interest does not receive as much coverage as it deserves. But of all the broad topics, the planetary sciences were nominated most frequently by those outside the field as being under-represented. We have taken note, and will work to develop this area. Our planetary science editor Tamara Goldin, who joined us in January, will help with this initiative.

Finally, we are pleased that as many as 79% of our respondents mostly browse through the table of content rather than searching for specific papers. We set out to bring the broader picture to our readers (Nature Geosci. 1, 563; 2008), by delivering a mix of content that will raise their interest in other fields. It seems that we are on track in this endeavour.