In 2024, TGH 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.
February, 2024
Javier Arredondo Montero, Hospital Universitario de Navarra, Spain
May, 2024
John Leung, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA
June, 2024
Leo I Gordon, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, USA
July, 2024
Srujitha Marupuru, Merck & Co., USA
August, 2024
Takako Nagata, NT Biologics, USA
September, 2024
Leonard Sowah, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, USA
October, 2024
Toshimitsu Tanaka, Kurume University Hospital, Japan
February, 2024
Javier Arredondo Montero
Dr. Javier Arredondo Montero, MD, PhD, obtained his medical degree in 2015 at the University of Alcalá and completed his specialty in Pediatric Surgery at the Hospital Universitario de Navarra. He obtained his doctorate with qualification Cum Laude in 2023 (University of Navarra). He was awarded the SANITAS end-of-residency national prize in 2023. He has more than 80 publications in international indexed journals, many of which in first quartile, and has participated as peer reviewer in more than 100 publications. He is currently editorial board member of the World Journal of Pediatric Surgery and Review Editor of Frontiers in Surgery and Frontiers in Pediatrics (Pediatric Surgery section). He is currently leading a multicenter research group related to pediatric acute appendicitis (BIDIAP 2).
TGH: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Arredondo: The foundations of quality scientific communications are undergoing drastic changes in recent years. The vertiginous pace at which new advances are being developed and the unhealthy competitiveness that is being fostered in academic environments, together with the emergence of multiple predatory journals, are compromising the quality and integrity of scientific production. Peer review logically presents areas for improvement, but in my opinion, it is the invisible guardian that watches over authentic and quality science in a supportive and global manner.
TGH: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Arredondo: There are many virtues that can be demanded of a reviewer, but they are all based on the same two pillars: humility and altruism. A reviewer must be a generous person who devotes quality time to the work he/she evaluates without expecting anything in return and must be able to ask for help or inform sincerely when he/she is not qualified.
TGH: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval? What would happen if this process is omitted?
Dr. Arredondo: The basis of sound scientific work in humans or animals is ethics. Nowadays there is a huge rush to publish, and the evaluation of these committees is perceived in many cases a "funnel" which slows down the studies. This erroneous perception can lead to non-compliance with current ethical requirements. IRBs are essential non-profit multidisciplinary boards which constitute an essential element in the research chain, providing comprehensive oversight of the rights and duties of research participants and ensuring that the research does not violate any ethical or regulatory framework in force. I believe that an important area for improvement is the creation of fluid and simple communication channels between researchers and IRBs, as well as specific training concerning their functions and researcher-IRBs work flows.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
John Leung
Dr. John Leung, MD, AGAF, FACAAI, is the sole US physician dual board-certified in Allergy/Immunology and Gastroenterology. He earned his medical degree from the University of Michigan Medical School and completed his residency at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. He has pursued fellowships at Tufts Medical Center for Gastroenterology and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School for Allergy/Immunology. He founded Boston Specialists in 2015, a prominent independent clinical and research center in New England. Dr. Leung serves as an adjunct assistant professor at Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and adjunct faculty at Tufts Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. His research focuses on eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, mast cell GI disorders, and food allergy/intolerance. He has authored over 50 peer-reviewed manuscripts, including articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, and has presented at esteemed institutions such as Massachusetts General Hospital and the American Gastroenterology Association.
Dr. Leung believes reviewers must consider several key factors to ensure the quality and integrity of academic publications. First and foremost, as reviewers, they must assess the relevance of the research to the scope and audience of the journal or conference. Additionally, reviewers should look for originality in the research, evaluating whether it presents novel findings, ideas, or methodologies that contribute to advancing knowledge in the field. Methodological rigor is also a crucial aspect of the review process, as reviewers should examine the appropriateness and soundness of the research methods. Clarity and organization are essential for effective communication of the research findings, so reviewers should scrutinize the paper's clarity, structure, and use of figures and tables. The validity of results is another key consideration, assessing the reliability of the data analysis and the support for the conclusions drawn, while verifying the accuracy and appropriateness of references and citation and ensuring that relevant literature is properly acknowledged. Ethical considerations, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest (COIs), should be carefully examined to ensure adherence to ethical standards. Reviewers should evaluate the paper's contribution to the field, assessing the significance of the findings and their implications for advancing knowledge. Lastly, and most importantly, reviewers should strive to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work, offering suggestions for clarifying points, strengthening arguments, or addressing limitations. Throughout the review process, the reviewer’s confidentiality and objectivity shoule be maintained, focusing solely on the quality of the research and avoiding personal biases or COIs. In considering these factors, all reviewers should know they are playing a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publications and contributing to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.
In Dr. Leung’s opinion, all reviewers play a vital role in the advancement of scientific progress, often working tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the quality and integrity of research publications. Therefore, he would like to say a few words to them, “Your dedication and commitment to rigorously evaluating manuscripts contribute immensely to the dissemination of reliable knowledge and the growth of academic disciplines. Your attention to detail, constructive feedback, and adherence to ethical standards are invaluable in maintaining the credibility of scholarly literature. Your efforts help shape the future of scientific inquiry and inspire confidence in the research community. Thank you for your unwavering dedication to advancing scientific progress, and know that your contributions are deeply appreciated and make a significant difference in the world of academia. Keep up the excellent work!”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Leo I Gordon
The overarching goal of Dr. Leo I. Gordon’s involvement in translational research is to improve the outcome of patients with lymphoma. With scientists in the US and abroad, his team is currently investigating novel signalling pathways in lymphoma, using cell lines and animal model systems. More specifically, they have used bio inspired lipoprotein gold nanoparticles to induce alteration in membrane cholesterol flux, leading to upregulation of cholesterol synthesis genes and down-regulation of glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4), a process that leads to ferroptosis in lymphoma and other cholesterol addicted malignancies. His clinical research interests are as follows: 1) the study of CAR-t cells in lymphoma clinical trials; 2) novel biologic agents in Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; and 3) stem cell transplantation in lymphoma. Connect with him on X @ligordon.
Dr. Gordon thinks that peer review is the foundation upon which scientific advancement is vetted and assures that the science is credible and reproducible. “It is vital if we are to have faith in science and our scientists and our institutions,” adds he.
In Dr. Gordon’s view, fairness in review is the cornerstone of the process and the role of reviewers should be to offer constructive criticism and to serve almost as a mentor to authors if they see weaknesses in the work.
Furthermore, Dr. Gordon reckons that transparency in scientific research is critical, and lack of transparency provides fodder for mistrust in science and in the institutions.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Srujitha Marupuru
Dr. Srujitha Marupuru, is an Associate Director in Precision Medicine, Outcomes Research at Merck & Co., with expertise in real-world evidence generation, health economics, and patient-reported outcomes. She holds a PharmD from Manipal University, and an MS and PhD in Health and Pharmaceutical Outcomes from the University of Arizona. She has worked extensively on developing strategies for documenting disease burden, unmet needs, and health economic aspects of drug therapies, supporting market access and reimbursement decisions. She has been involved in a wide range of Real-World Evidence and outcomes research studies, publishing 36 peer-reviewed articles and presenting at international conferences such as ISPOR and AMCP. In addition to her research, Dr. Marupuru is an active mentor to pharmacy students and residents, and a peer reviewer for various scientific journals. Her work contributes significantly to advancing evidence-based practices in oncology research. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
TGH: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Marupuru: Peer review is crucial in scholarly research, ensuring quality and academic prestige, but it has significant gaps. Subjectivity and bias can affect reviewers' decisions due to their baseline education, expertise in the topic of peer review, nationality, own affiliation to institution or personal relationships. These factors can majorly influence the decision-making process and rationality. It is also very unclear on how the quality of the peer-review process is affected by which journal they are reviewing for or how much of prior experiences exists in the peer-review field. The peer-review process varies by journal and discipline, leading to inconsistent feedback, lack of accountability, and long delays when appropriate peer reviewer with expertise is not available. Transparency is often lacking, and the time-consuming process can delay the publication of research findings. Improving the system requires transparency in reviewer identities, better criteria sharing, diverse reviewer pools, and providing resources and training for new reviewers to ensure quality and reduce wait times.
TGH: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would COI influence research?
Dr. Marupuru: Disclosing COI is crucial in research submissions to ensure transparency and integrity. COIs occur when personal interests conflict with professional obligations, which may not always involve financial gain. While COIs, such as financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, can affect study design, outcomes, and reporting, they don’t always imply wrongdoing. Reporting COIs helps maintain ethical standards and trust in the research. Many journals require authors to provide a COI statement, often following guidelines like the ICMJE’s standardized form. Editors and reviewers assess these disclosures to ensure the research remains unbiased and credible. Editors as well as reviewers play the role of reviewing these disclosures and funding sources to ensure ethical standards of conducting research have been upheld. It is the potential of bias that makes COI disclosure very important. Handling this COI in a very responsible manner is essential for the public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of several peer-reviewed publications annually.
TGH: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes?
Dr. Marupuru: I believe that just as meaningful scientific research is vital to advancing science and technology, the availability of peer reviewers and their generous contributions of time and expertise are equally important. Peer reviewers provide insightful feedback and critiques, which are invaluable to the success and quality of publications. Their contributions foster a culture of research excellence, making them the unsung heroes of the process. Despite busy careers, they agree to review and deliver on time. Peer review remains the key process for sharing knowledge and offering constructive feedback before a study is published.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Takako Nagata
Takako Nagata, MD, PhD, with a clinical background in Japan and extensive research experience in the United States, specializes in signal transduction and metabolism. She has a particular focus on alcoholism. She is also dedicated to advancing research in nuclear proteomics and kinetics, having developed a patented methodology for isolating intact and viable nuclei.
“While peer review is not perfect, it remains the most effective system we have,” says Dr. Nagata, who thinks that human bias is an inherent challenge, but blind reviews and multiple reviewers can mitigate this issue. However, finding qualified reviewers who are experts in the specific field of each manuscript can be a significant obstacle. At times, the corresponding author is not the primary expert, but rather the first or second author. Moreover, as the number of journals proliferates, locating suitable reviewers is becoming increasingly difficult. To address these issues, it is essential to stay informed about the research interests and activities of individual scientists. AI could play a pivotal role in creating a comprehensive database to streamline this process. To ensure timely reviews, she is committed to working weekends and holidays when necessary.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Leonard Sowah
Dr. Leonard Sowah is a Physician Researcher with several years of experience in HIV clinical care and research. He is a co-founder and Chief Medical Officer of Adashi Research Group, a company focused on helping achieve geographic equity in research. He is the current co-chair of the Academy Council for Racial Equity. As a physician scientist, Dr. Sowah worked in both academic, federal and industry settings as a physician developing and conducting clinical trials in HIV and viral Hepatitis. In the field of drug development, he has led in the development of several clinical trials. His dedication to clinical trial excellence was recognized with a National Institute of Health Merit Award in 2021 for his work in developing and implementing a strategic plan for strengthening age and identity verification for HIV/AIDS Network Clinical Trials. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Sowah thinks that an ideal peer-review system must be based on complete anonymity of authorship and affiliations to reduce the inherent bias associated with the names of recognized experts, key opinion leaders and institutions. This helps level the playing field and improves the diversity in the sources of ideas and viewpoints that are included in the general scientific discourse. When it is appropriate, editors may also need to consider certain reviewer characteristics such as the inclusion of at least one reviewer with relevant clinical experience for some clinical research manuscripts.
Dr. Sowah reckons that reviewing a manuscript for publication needs responsibility and must be approached in a very deliberate manner. The role of the reviewer is to assist the editor decide on the manuscript as well as help the authors tell a better story of their research work. With such an approach, even authors whose manuscripts are rejected obtain reviewer comments that may offer them the opportunity to revise these manuscripts for publication in an alternate journal of their choice.
“Scientific advancement is based on having valuable scientific discourse. The fact that some journals articles are only available by subscription in a manner reduces the diversity of thoughts and ideas that are allowed in the discussion. Providing free voluntary peer review is my contribution to open science. Additionally, reviewing is an opportunity for me to learn new ideas and ways of doing things,” says Dr. Sowah.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Toshimitsu Tanaka
Toshimitsu Tanaka MD, PhD, is affiliated with the Multidisciplinary Treatment Cancer Center, at Kurume University Hospital, Kurume, Japan. His practice focuses on chemotherapy for advanced gastrointestinal cancer. His main research interests include predictive analysis in gastrointestinal cancers and research on the mechanisms of resistance mechanisms. In addition, in vitro experiments using human cancer cell lines and in vivo experiments using xenograft mouse models are being conducted to clarify clinical questions using basic techniques and methods.
Dr. Tanaka believes peer review is an indispensable process to ensure the quality of papers since papers are only complete after rigorous peer review. The completion of an article is a collaborative effort among authors, reviewers, and editors, and ensuring the quality of articles published through peer review is a guarantee of the journal's quality. He thinks that the quality of peer review is a judgment of credibility, importance, and novelty.
Dr. Tanaka reckons that constructive review means that reviewers can point out viewpoints that authors have overlooked and make specific comments to improve the quality of the paper. On the contrary, a destructive review focuses only on the author's shortcomings and insists on his or her ethics. Moreover, it is a reviewer who only asserts himself and has no intention of contributing to improving the quality of the paper.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
