Judging panels vs. peer review — building both without overcommitting

Following up on the community posts here about getting your first judging credit — wanted to add a practical note on pacing, since I made the mistake of saying yes to too much at once early on and it nearly became a real time problem. Peer review for journals is generally lower-commitment per instance (a review takes what it takes, but there's no ongoing obligation after you submit it) compared to a standing panel or editorial board role, which is an ongoing commitment that can stack up if you take on more than one. I said yes to two editorial board invitations in the same season, on top of my regular job, and the actual reviewing workload from both together was more than I'd estimated from either one alone. What I'd tell someone starting from zero: build a small track record with a few individual peer reviews first — lower commitment, easier to say yes to — before taking on an ongoing panel or board role. It's easier to add an ongoing commitment once you have a sense of how much time review work actually takes for you personally, than to be stuck over committed to two simultaneous roles you agreed to before knowing that.