In 2024, TCR 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
Felipe Andrés Cordero da Luz, Uberlândia Cancer Hospital, Brazil
February, 2024
Siripat Aluksanasuwan, Mae Fah Luang University, Thailand
March, 2024
Benjamin A Teply, University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA
January, 2024
Felipe Andrés Cordero da Luz
Dr. Felipe Andrés Cordero da Luz is a senior researcher in public health at the Cancer Prevention and Research Project Center of the Luta Pela Vida Group, a non-profit organization focused on the treatment of cancer patients, prevention, and cancer research. He graduated in biomedicine and received his Master's and Doctor of Science degrees from the Postgraduate Program in Applied Immunology and Parasitology at the Federal University of Uberlândia. He specializes in Applied Statistics and an MBA in Clinical Research. His main interests focus on breast cancer, ranging from basic to clinical research. He is currently the developer and one of the managers of two projects approved by the Ministry of Health, one focusing on the estradiol signaling pathway through the beta estrogen receptor and the other on the development of statistical methods and algorithms to support clinical decision-making regarding chemotherapy in breast cancer. Connect with him on LinkedIn or learn more about him here.
“Science is based not on the prestige of the authors, nor just refined methodological processes, but mainly on integrity and rigor,” says Dr. Luz. He reckons that the peer-review process is essential to assess whether a study adheres to the precepts and was developed with ethical conduct, to avoid the dissemination of bad science. Therefore, the review must serve as an evaluative judging process, not of authors, but of the work carried out to provide guidance and important adjustments to the study, strengthening the scientific community, and preventing false science from reaching society.
Dr. Luz indicates that while reviewing papers, reviewers should keep in mind that every study and methodology has limitations. This in itself is not a weakness. Therefore, the evaluation of the study must be focused on adherence to regulations, protocols, and ethical conduct. As a reviewer with experience in statistics, he would focus a lot on whether the analyses were conducted following the appropriate precepts and met the prerequisites of the tests and models used. Also, it is necessary to have a critical and impartial, as most as possible, view of the results. This way, the discussions and conclusions will be free from bias and conflicts of interest on the part of the authors, not inducing certain inappropriate conclusions in the reader who often does not have this knowledge of statistics.
“Research, science, is a collective construction carried out based on supportive cooperation among different researchers. What motivates me to act as a reviewer is precisely the fact that I have already been benefited, not only to improve my articles, but helping me to think critically as a researcher and professional. Therefore, I believe that I can contribute my experience in certain fields and help others to also become stronger in these areas,” says Dr. Luz.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Siripat Aluksanasuwan
Dr. Siripat Aluksanasuwan earned a Ph.D. in Immunology from Mahidol University, Thailand. During his academic journey, he participated in a six-month international Visiting Graduate Student program at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto, Canada. Currently, he is serving as a lecturer and the Head of the Cancer and Immunology Research Unit at the School of Medicine, Mae Fah Luang University, Thailand. His research areas include proteomics, cell and molecular biology, cancer research, and biomarker discovery. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Aluksanasuwan’s opinion, a reviewer should demonstrate a combination of expertise, effective communication skills, and the availability of time. It is crucial for a reviewer to have a solid background to accurately assess the manuscript's scientific content. Additionally, he thinks that the ability to provide constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the manuscript's quality is essential. Adequate time commitment is also necessary to deliver a thorough and timely reviewer report, ensuring the efficiency of the peer-review process.
A healthy peer-review system, according to Dr. Aluksanasuwan, comprises several key elements. Firstly, transparency is crucial. Clear and open communication between authors, reviewers, and editors fosters trust and accountability within the process. Timely reviews are a vital factor in accelerating the dissemination of knowledge. Additionally, constructive engagement is essential, encouraging respectful and collaborative interactions among all members involved in the scientific community.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. As a reviewer, Dr. Aluksanasuwan aims to approach each review with an open mind, placing primary emphasis on evaluating the scientific content and ethical considerations. To him, employing anonymous or double-blind review process can serve as effective tools in minimizing biases by ensuring the undisclosed identity of authors and reviewers. Awareness of potential biases is crucial for maintaining the integrity and objectivity of the peer-review process. He adds, “Peer review is important for maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Serving as a reviewer contributes to the scientific community and provides an opportunity to enhance my scientific knowledge and communication skills.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Benjamin A Teply
Benjamin A. Teply, M.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Oncology/Hematology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and a staff physician at Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Veterans Health Care System. He is a medical oncologist who specializes in genitourinary oncology with a research focus in clinical and translational research in prostate cancer. Specific areas of research include clinical trials, novel hormonal manipulation in advanced prostate cancer (e.g., bipolar androgen therapy), non-hormonal therapy options in hormone sensitive disease (e.g., PARP inhibitors), novel biomarkers of therapy resistance (e.g., Neuropilin2) and the optimal use of approved therapies.
From Dr. Teply’s point of view, peer review by content experts is the best way to referee science. The process relies on reviewers so that we can trust our body of literature that is informing science and patient care. Although the process can be difficult at times, it ultimately improves the end product of the final published paper.
In addition, Dr. Teply believes that a reviewer needs to first understand the potential importance and promise of a paper and ask questions involving the impact of the work among the other related literature. Being a content expert is critical to this process in order to critique the background/introduction of a paper. He is selective in his reviews in order to make sure he can truly expertly referee the topic. When he does see that the paper is a fit, he tries to make every effort to review the paper.
“The peer-review process of reviewing is almost entirely done behind the scenes by volunteers who are taking time out of their own busy schedules. I have found that participating in this process as a reviewer has its own rewards, however. I always learn something new after reviewing a paper or think about a topic in a different way. By being a reviewer, I have become a better scientist—better at experimental design, anticipating weakness and improving my own work before submission,” says Dr. Teply.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
