In 2024, TP reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
January, 2024
Yuan-Pang Wang, University of São Paulo, Brazil
February, 2024
Miriam B. Garcia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
March, 2024
Valdano Manuel, Complexo Hospitalar de Doenças, Angola
April, 2024
Allan S Jaffe, Washington University, USA
July, 2024
Sarah U Morton, Boston Children’s Hospital, USA
August, 2024
Enrique Gea-Izquierdo, Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain
September, 2024
Francesca Rosamilia, Gaslini Hospital, Italy
October, 2024
Ru-Jeng Teng, Medical College of Wisconsin, USA
January, 2024
Yuan-Pang Wang
Yuan-Pang Wang received his MD degree from the University of Sao Paulo Medical School, and his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Psychiatry at the same institution. Since then, he has worked as a research associate in the Section of Psychiatric Epidemiology and has become a member of the International Federation of Psychiatric Epidemiology and the World Psychiatric Association. In 2014, he was recognized as one of the New Voices in Global Health during the World Health Summit. Currently, he is a collaborating member of the Global Burden of Disease Initiative. His research interests include population-based surveys (global health) of psychiatric disorders, non-communicable chronic diseases (obesity-related), and latent models applied to psychopathology. He also has an extensive editorial experience as Associate Editor for BMC Public Health, BMC Psychiatry, World Journal of Psychiatry, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, and Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry. Learn more about him here.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Wang: The existing peer-review system, while being a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, has several limitations. Key limitations include the bias and subjectivity of peer reviewers in evaluating a manuscript, and the time-consuming peer-review process, which would delay the dissemination of research findings. As potential solutions, implementing transparent and open review processes, where the identity of reviewers is disclosed, can reduce biases and increase accountability. In addition, providing recognition, incentives, and compensation to reviewers can motivate them to invest more time and effort into the review process.
TP: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Wang: Ultimately, this is about finding a balance that suits individual preferences, professional commitments and career goals. Prioritization and planning are essential to manage the workload. Overcommitment should be avoided, so set realistic limits on the number of reviews you will accept in a given timeframe. Developing personal policies regarding the types of manuscripts one is willing to review, the number of reviews accepted per month or year, and the criteria for accepting or declining reviews can help maintain a balanced workload.
TP: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Wang: Yes, it is critical that authors disclose COIs in their research publications. Full and transparent disclosure is essential to maintain the integrity and credibility of scientific and medical research. A COI arises when an author has financial, personal or professional interests that could influence their research or its interpretation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Miriam B. Garcia
Dr. Miriam B. Garcia is a pediatric oncologist at the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. She received her medical degree from The University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, TX and her undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. She was trained in Pediatric Hematology & Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center and returned as faculty to lead the Pediatric Leukemia & Lymphoma section as their chief in translational research. Her clinical research focus is in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia where she leads and collaborates in groundbreaking clinical trials for children and adolescents and young adults.
Dr. Garcia believes that peer review plays a critical role in science not only to provide a system of accountability for sound research, but also to ensure the work we produce is meaningful.
Dr. Garcia appreciates the anonymity of the peer-review process both as a reviewer and as an author. The reviewer should be unbiased and be perceived as such by the authors. A reviewer’s goal is to assist in producing high-quality work that will be impactful for the audience. Authors are also less likely to take the review personally and would see it as a tool for production of valid and potentially practice-changing work, rather than a critique. In a word, the reviewer and the author are part of the same team.
Lastly, Dr. Garcia would like to express her gratitude to reviewers who provide responsible reviews in their areas of expertise with integrity and who devote themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Valdano Manuel
Dr. Valdano Manuel is a cardiac surgeon for adult and pediatric patients. Currently, he is Head of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Service in the Complexo Hospitalar de Doenças Cardio-Pulmonares Cardeal Dom Alexandre do Nascimento located in Luanda, Angola. He is a member of the governing council of the World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery. His research area is immunology/biomarkers in congenital heart surgery and cardiac surgery. Connect with him on Instagram.
In Dr. Manuel’s opinion, there is no perfect or healthy review system. He thinks that the closest thing to that would be a system that is double blind, with expert reviewers, and where impartiality are kept. It should help improve, instead of demotivating research. What usually happens is that most journals/reviewers do not meet these criteria.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Manuel thinks that data sharing is another way of bringing transparency and credibility to scientific production. It does not impact the quality of the review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Allan S Jaffe
Dr. Allan Jaffe is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He received his house staff and Cardiology training at Washington University and continued there for 24 years rising to the rank of Professor of Medicine and Director of the Coronary Care Unit. He then moved to the State University of New York where he was Chair of the Cardiovascular Division, Associate Chair of Medicine for Academic Affairs, and Professor of Medicine. After four years, he moved to Mayo Clinic where he is presently Professor of Medicine in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and the Wayne and Kathryn Preisel Professorship for Cardiovascular Disease Research. He is a noted authority on biomarkers of cardiac injury, inflammation, hemodynamic disturbance, and coagulation and particularly their clinical utility. Dr. Jaffe has published a large number of original manuscripts, book chapters, reviews, and sits on most of the prestigious editorial boards and guideline committees in the Cardiology and Clinical Chemistry communities. He has been a principal for the Universal Definition of MI group.
Dr. Jaffe thinks that nothing is perfect but peer review should help make sure that higher- rather than lower-quality papers appear in the published literature. Unfortunately, so many papers are not as easy to understand as might be ideal which can on occasion lead to incorrect conclusions.
In Dr. Jaffe’s opinion, reviewers are advocates for readers and should make sure that not only the methods and results are clear and correct but are easily understandable for those who may not be experts in the field. They also must be sufficiently aware of the literature to avoid repetitive publications of the same or very similar data.
According to Dr. Jaffe, if one focuses on one’s area of expertise, peer review can help with one’s own initiatives by making one aware of the recent literature findings. That assumes the articles reviewed are good ones which reference the field appropriately and discuss the results in adequate detail.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Sarah U Morton
Sarah Morton is a physician scientist, who practices as a neonatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is an Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School. She is also an associated scientist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Her research group is focused on how genetic factors influence human development and disease risk, particularly for congenital heart disease. Recent projects have included characterization of gene dysregulation in cardiac tissues from individual with Trisomy 21, as well as a description of how maternal vascular malperfusion is frequent among pregnancies with fetal congenital heart disease. Her ongoing work includes characterization of variants of uncertain significance from people with congenital heart disease, as well as multivariable models of factors that contribute to risk and resiliency during neurodevelopment. In addition, she directs the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Biobank at Boston Children’s Hospital. Learn more about her here.
In Dr. Morton’s opinion, reviewers are often providing their service to the community between myriad other obligation, so she tries to find a pleasant, clean space to sit where she can be free of distractions when she starts a review. That helps her to have an open mind as the authors take her through their research. She spreads out the pages to be able to review all figures or table (main and supplemental), as well as references, as she moves along. She believes that reviewers need to bear in mind that they have a responsibility to the authors to approach the paper without prejudice, as well as a responsibility to readers to have the best possible science included in the final version.
“Peer reviewers are sometimes the silent authors of a manuscript, having taken the time to engage deeply with the draft. The process of peer review not only improves a manuscript, but also improves the reviewer. During peer review, the reviewer is exposed to the authors’ early presentation and interpretation of their work and then has back-and-forth which helps. Though often not formally recognized, the devotion and commitment of reviewers provides invaluable contributions to the academic community and the world at large. It is important to remember that the contributions of reviewers extend far beyond the individual manuscripts. Reviewers’ feedback often serves as a foundation for further research and therefore can be particularly formative for the early career scientists involved in a manuscript,” says Dr. Morton.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Enrique Gea-Izquierdo
Prof. Enrique Gea-Izquierdo works at Department of Medical Specialties and Public Health, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain. He received two doctorates from the Complutense University of Madrid (Epidemiology, International PhD Mention, Extraordinary PhD Award) and University of Malaga (Environmental Health). Additionally, he obtained Master’s Degree of Research and Advances in Preventive Medicine and Public Health (UGR), Master’s Degree of Occupational Risk Management, Quality and Environment (UMA), Master’s Degree of Prevention of Occupational Hazards (UPM), University Expert in Epidemiology and Applied New Technologies(UNED-ISCIII), University Expert in Advanced Statistical Methods (UNED) and graduated in Biology. He has a position working in public health with special focus to prevention and control of respiratory diseases. His fields of interest are mainly training and research, with more than 27 years in public health. He has worked with high-level leadership skills in health strategy and policy development, together with proven capacity to foster high-quality collaborative research and international research outcomes. His research interests cover Public Health, Epidemiology, Environmental Health, Occupational Health, and Respiratory Diseases. Learn more about him here.
“A reviewer should be a person of integral academic standing, professional knowledge, willingness to work within the journal's guidelines and check the drawbacks of the current approaches to the problem, and ability to write clearly,” says Prof. Gea-Izquierdo. Additionally, he thinks that reviewers must be polite, fair, civil, balanced, and with excellent communication qualities, good analytical skills, expertise, ethics, and knowledge about codes of conduct.
According to Prof. Gea-Izquierdo, the limitations of the current peer-review system include editorial responsibility, concerns about subjectivity, biases or conflicts of interest by reviewers or editors, lack of training for some new editors or reviewers, variability in quality of reviews, delays of the review process, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. He thinks that journals should consider providing guidelines on how to write and review a research paper, increase the reviewer's database, distribute reviewer's invitations across the globe, use more inclusive peer-review recruitment strategies, create incentives for peer review, and give more credits to the reviewers.
“The time available for peer review is very limited and not always recognized. The consistent role of reviewers is essential for the stability and functionality of the science,” says Prof. Gea-Izquierdo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Francesca Rosamilia
Dr. Francesca Rosamilia is a healthcare researcher in the Bioinformatics Unit at Gaslini Hospital (Genoa), focusing on the analysis of complex diseases. She completed their PhD in Biostatistics at University of Genoa, with a doctoral thesis centered on the multi-omic investigation of Hirschsprung disease. They have gained valuable experience working at the Statistical Genetics Department at Columbia University (New York City), contributing to projects involving the UK Biobank. Their research integrates advanced statistical methods and bioinformatics to uncover insights into genetic and environmental factors influencing disease mechanisms, aiming to enhance personalized medicine approaches. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Rosamilia, peer review is essential in the scientific publication process acting as a quality filter, ensuring that only valid and original research would be published. Peer reviewers help maintain high standards in the dissemination of scientific knowledge by critically assessing the validity, significance, and originality of a study. The quality of manuscripts is usually improved by the peer-review process by providing constructive feedback, identifying errors, and suggesting improvements. This system encourages authors to produce robust and credible research, safeguarding the integrity and authenticity of scientific knowledge.
Though peer review is a fundamental process for the publication system, Dr. Rosamilia thinks that it is not without limitations. She indicates that one of the main challenges is the potential for bias that could affect the evaluation process. There may also be delays due to the time-consuming nature of the review process, which can slow down the dissemination of important findings. Additionally, peer reviewers often lack formal training, which may lead to inconsistent review quality. To improve the system, it is important to promote transparency, and provide clear guidelines for reviewers.
“I would invite all the dedicated reviewers to invest time and expertise to reviewing manuscripts, since they are playing a vital role in advancing scientific progress and maintaining the integrity of the academic publishing process. Peer review is a contribution to the health and we need rigor to help ensure that the research we read and trust is of the highest quality. We need to keep in mind that our work is not only beneficial to authors but also to the entire scientific community,” says Dr. Rosamilia.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Ru-Jeng Teng
Ru-Jeng Teng, MD, is a Professor of Pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin whose research interests involve clinical problems related to neonates and translational research involving reactive oxygen species, inflammation, hematology, genetics/dysmorphology, signaling pathways, metabolomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics. His recent works focused mainly on the mechanistic role of myeloperoxidase in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) using the hyperoxia animal models. The results of his recent works led to the creation of the BPD destructive cycle involving oxidative stress, neutrophil activation, HMGB1-mediated sterile inflammation, endoplasmic reticulum stress, autophagy, and cellular senescence. He and his collaborators successfully used a novel tripeptide – N-acetyl-lysyltyrosylcysteine-amide (KYC) - to attenuate the severity of BPD by affecting several signaling pathways. His team coined the Systems Pharmacology Agents to describe KYC. His team and collaborators have extended the research to all myeloperoxidase-mediated disorders by repurposing MPO into catalase-like activity.
In Prof. Teng’s opinion, the peer-review process can assist authors in sharing their experience with the readers more effectively, prevent bad science from being disseminated, and safeguard authors from publishing falsified information. On the other hand, it allows reviewers to learn different research topics and strategies, broaden their minds, and improve their writing style.
According to Prof. Teng, reviewers should bear in mind that excellent science should be widely distributed and bad science should be prohibited from mudding the water. Reviewers should do some homework to familiarize themselves with the study methods so they will not misjudge the manuscript. At the same time, they should be critical of the data quality, which can reasonably tell the story. In addition, reviewers need to have experience with similar studies to know the validity of the results.
“I sincerely appreciate those willing to devote their precious time as reviewers. Without your dedication, science cannot strive so successfully. Thank you for spreading the good science to improve our environment so we can all enjoy a better life,” says Prof. Teng.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
