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
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)
