In 2024, ASJ 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.
May, 2024
Jose Palacios Leon, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Peru
June, 2024
Ashley R. Wilson-Smith, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Australia
November, 2024
Elissavet Symeonidou, Ippokratio General Hospital of Thessaloniki, Greece
December, 2024
Barry T.S. Kweh, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia
May, 2024
Jose Palacios Leon
Dr. Jose Manuel Palacios Leon graduated from the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM) in Lima, Peru in 2001, and completed his residency in General Surgery at the Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen National Hospital (HNGAI) (2003-2006) and Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery at the Lima Heart Institute (2006-2009). He obtained a master degree in Medicine and Management in Health Services. Currently, he is an undergraduate professor at the Faculty of Medicine of the UNMSM and a tutor of residents in the Faculties of Medicine at the UNMSM and the Ricardo Palma University. He is also a member of APTOT, ISHLT, ALAT, Head of Thoracic Surgery and the Lung Transplant Program of the HNGAI, and also works at the San Felipe Clinic. His fields of specialization are Lung Transplantation, Airway Surgery, Lung Cancer and Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Leon believes that reviewers must evaluate several key aspects when reviewing an article. First, scientific quality is essential. Reviewers must analyze whether the methodology is sound, whether the data are well presented, and whether the conclusions are consistent with the results. Second, the originality of the study is important. Reviewers should verify whether the work brings something new to the field. In addition, reviewers must ensure that the article follows ethical principles regarding the treatment of human or animal subjects. Third, the clarity and precision of the language is another crucial aspect, because a good article must be well written and easy for readers to follow. Fourth, reviewers must review the clinical or scientific relevance of the work, making sure that the conclusions have an impact on the field studied. Fifth, it is essential that reviewers act in an impartial and objective manner, providing constructive criticism that helps improve the articles rather than simply pointing out the errors. In addition, reviewers must maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
“The burden of research and medical work can be quite heavy. Combining patient care with research, teaching and other responsibilities requires careful planning but it is rewarding. As for peer review of scientific papers, I usually try to allocate specific blocks of time in my schedule for this activity, outside of hours of medical care or active research. Peer review is an essential part of advancing science, as it helps to ensure the quality and credibility of published research. While it can be challenging to fit this task into a busy schedule, it's the responsibility reviewers embrace because they understand its impact on our scientific community. The review process for me is an opportunity for learning and improvement, since, by analyzing the work of others, I can apply new approaches and knowledge to my daily work,” says Dr. Leon.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Ashley R. Wilson-Smith
Dr. Ashley R. Wilson-Smith is a surgical registrar based at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. His principal research focus centers around cardiothoracic surgery, sub-specializing in aortic and valvular surgery, as well as thoracic oncology. He is primarily affiliated with the University of Sydney (USYD), and the University of New South Wales (UNSW), as a clinical lecturer, tutor, and academic. His most recent publications were focused on the outcomes of patients undergoing robotic coronary artery bypass grafting, and surgical atrial fibrillation management. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
ASJ: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Wilson-Smith: As research becomes increasingly more sub-specialized, it subsequently becomes more difficult to find peer-reviewers that are appropriately qualified to review content. Developing a consistent review panel, with the freedom to review papers within a generous timeframe, with individuals that have specialized/sub-specialized expertise, is critical for all journals. Having a consistent standard for all peer-reviewers, with respect to their qualifications, publication record (quantity and quality), and broader professional reputation is also key.
ASJ: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Wilson-Smith: Pragmatically, bias reduction should center around clear and transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest, as practically every journal requires of those who are submitting or assessing content. That system is largely honor-based, which is clearly susceptible to abuse. Particularly in the instance where there could be a financial benefit from research outcomes, journals (and peer-reviewers) should check the bona fides of academics/surgeons/researchers, given the ease of accessibility data today. Journals should also thoroughly vet their peer-reviewers to ensure that any biases on their behalf is also identified early in the on-boarding process.
ASJ: Peer-reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Wilson-Smith: I believe that it is incumbent upon all surgical trainees and consultants to be involved in best-practice research, to uphold the academic and clinical standards of the profession, to mentor, and to stay current, irrespective of whether there is a tangible financial gain or not. The demands on surgeons are unique, and not seen in many other professions. Often, baseline clinical work is double that of any other full-time career, and there are significant non-paid, non-clinical responsibilities – such as peer-reviewing – that we as surgeons are expected to maintain, to help the profession as a whole to advance. Financial or reputational incentive clouds this ethic.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
November, 2024
Elissavet Symeonidou
Elissavet Symeonidou graduated from the Medical School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, in 2017. Her interest in research led her to acquire a Master’s Degree in Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Research Methodology from the Medical School of the University of Thessaly. She completed her surgical residency training in Ippokratio General Hospital of Thessaloniki from 2018 to 2024. During her training, she attended the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the Breast Unit of the Western General Hospital as an honorary fellow. She is a General Surgeon, with an interest in breast surgery and abdominal wall reconstruction. Currently, she is working on her PhD thesis, studying the effect of Pembrolizumab on the healing of colonic anastomosis. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Symeonidou, the peer-review process is a necessary procedure, which aims to improve the quality of the articles being published, using the opinion of people who have an expertise not only in medical research in general, but also in the specific topic. The reviewers identify possible mistakes or weak spots, and make suggestions to the authors for how the manuscript can be improved. It is a very helpful procedure, especially for the young authors, as they can learn through the feedback, and use the knowledge provided in their next manuscripts. In addition, after the article’s revision, which is based on the reviewers’ recommendation, and finally the publication, the feeling is more than satisfactory for both sides. As an author, she is always grateful to the reviewers because of their contribution to the final result.
Dr. Symeonidou reckons that reviewers should evaluate the scientific content, and ensure its accuracy. They should check that the methodology used is adequate and correct. They should also consider the originality of the article and recognize possible biases. The conclusions and the key points of the article have to be clear and easy for readers to absorb and process. Moreover, even when an article is considered not suitable for publication or requires major revision, the reviewers should be polite, respectful, and provide constructive feedback, so that the authors understand their mistakes, but are not discouraged to carry on with their research.
“Peer reviewing is a time-consuming and invisible job. Despite this, when asked to review a paper, my scientific curiosity does not let me push the decline button. It is an opportunity to learn something new from a different point of view, and contribute to the final result with your feedback, which leads to both personal and scientific progress,” says Dr. Symeonidou.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
December, 2024
Barry T.S. Kweh
Dr. Barry Kweh is a neurosurgery registrar who has worked at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Austin Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a research fellow at the National Trauma Research Institute in Melbourne. He received his undergraduate medical degree from Monash University, and has also undertaken a postgraduate diploma in surgical anatomy from the University of Melbourne. Particular areas of his research interest include spine trauma classification stratifications, perioperative risk stratification, and both non-operative as well as operative neurosurgical interventions. He is a current peer reviewer for more than 50 journals and assists in editing for several journals.
ASJ: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Kweh: A healthy peer-review system demands a consistent approach founded in logical scientific rigidity. It is also essential that reviewers provide constructive feedback on both the structure or form of a manuscript as well as its individual content. Contextualization of the proposed novel research within the existing literature as well as its potential effect on future models of care should also be advocated by the authors. It is important when reviewing to ensure every effort is made to clarify the thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
ASJ: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Kweh: Reviewing manuscripts represents a delicate equilibrium between recognizing the importance of both the submitting authors as well as the readership of the journal. On one hand, it is a privilege for the investigators to elect to publish their manuscript in a particular journal. This demands that the individual original research is rigorously but respectfully interrogated for methodological robustness, scrutinized for internal consistency and shaped to ensure important nuances are conveyed. On the other hand, the entire literary landscape needs to be considered as to whether this manuscript is rational and adds to the existing corpus. It is this internal conflict with which the reviewer grapples on every occasion which is both burdensome as a responsibility but also satisfying when it is felt that the appropriate decision is made by the editorial team as a collective.
ASJ: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Kweh: This silent art of reviewing is extremely rewarding and satisfying despite its lack of recognition at times. Without the global efforts of reviewers, it would prove impossible to sustain the current model of publication. It is extremely intriguing and also inspiring to read the comments of fellow reviewers who are derived from a vast array of different backgrounds before a final decision is cast. It is my belief that reviewing is to the benefit of all involved ranging from the authors, reviewers, editorial team, audience and the literary body as a whole.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
