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
May, 2024
Sanjay Gupta, Cleveland Medical Center, USA
June, 2024
Changwon Yang, Ewha Womans University, Korea
August, 2024
In Kook Chun, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Korea
September, 2024
Robert H. Eibl, Heidelberg, Germany
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)
May, 2024
Sanjay Gupta
Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a Professor & Research Director and holds Carter Kissell Endowed Chair in Urologic Oncology in the Department of Urology at Case Western Reserve University and The Urology Institute at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center. He also holds secondary appointments in the Departments of Pathology, Pharmacology, Nutrition and Division of General Medical Sciences at Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Gupta’s research involves basic, translational, and clinical areas of focus. He has made seminal contributions to the fields of cancer biology, epigenetics, and pharmacology, in particular, identification of biomarkers and targets, development of prognostic models and application of small molecules for prevention and therapy of cancer. His recent interest is on development of new technologies based on artificial intelligence and bio-printing based cancer model systems. His innovative research on basic and translational aspects has been featured on national news and various prestigious scientific societies. Dr. Gupta has authored more than 200 research publications, including book chapters, research articles and reviews, and has spoken at several occasions in cancer prevention symposium, seminars and meetings. Extensively cited with H-index > 60, he was awarded "American Asian Scientist Award" in 2014 and has won several awards from various professional societies. He has been serving in various study sections at National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Department of Defense (DOD), and other councils around the globe. He also serves on the editorial board as well as reviewer for several prestigious scientific journals. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Gupta thinks that peer review is integral to the scientific method, ensuring the validity, reliability, and quality of research. Through rigorous evaluation by experts in the field, peer review helps validate findings, identify errors or biases, and assess the methodology and interpretation of results. He reckons that this process acts as a quality-control system, applying checks and balances to ideas and scientific discoveries before they are widely accepted by the scientific community. It ensures that incorrect or faulty data are much less likely to enter the public domain. Although no system is perfect, the overwhelming consensus is that peer review is beneficial for science and provides authors an opportunity to improve the quality of their research.
In Dr. Gupta’s opinion, reviewers play a crucial role in providing an unbiased assessment of the novelty, conceptual advancement, and technical soundness of a study. They should contribute to promoting a culture of research integrity. For the process to be constructive, it requires a high level of rigor, objectivity, and transparency from both authors and reviewers. As a reviewer, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to provide feedback on others' findings.
“Peer reviewers are essential to the scientific review process and the development of credible, impactful science. Serving as a reviewer is a privilege that allows one to contribute to the scientific community. Reviewers should remain objective, unbiased, ethical, and constructive, providing meaningful feedback aimed at improving the quality of the work. I salute all reviewers for their great work, which is often not compensated but is crucial in advancing the scientific community,” adds Dr. Gupta.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Changwon Yang
Dr. Changwon Yang received his doctoral degree in molecular biotechnology from Korea University, South Korea. He is currently serving as an assistant professor in the Department of Science Education at Ewha Womans University. As a faculty member at the College of Education, he teaches courses in cell biology and molecular biology, with the aim of training future biology educators. He has been conducting research on the identification of metabolic and molecular mechanisms involved in cancer treatment, as well as exploring the nutritional and environmental influences on carcinogenesis. His current research focuses on developing new anti-cancer treatment strategies by identifying the regulatory mechanisms of the cell cycle and DNA synthesis regulation mechanisms in colorectal cancer and gastric cancer using metabolites derived from the intestinal microbiome. A potential future research interest for him is developing a framework for undergraduate student-led anticancer research, integrated into a curriculum aligned with undergraduate. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Yang’s opinion, reviewers must be able to assess the scientific plausibility of a study. He thinks that research is a narrative, and readers should be able to follow this narrative without difficulty. Reviewers should identify areas that may hinder readers from following the paper's logic and suggest improvements to the authors. This includes clarifying why the authors initiate the study, why they conducted specific experiments, what the results signify, and how they arrived at their conclusions. Regardless of the study’s topic or the quality of the data, reviewers must apply professional scientific reasoning to clearly convey the study’s significance and limitations to the readers.
Dr. Yang reckons that an objective review is an evaluation based solely on the manuscript and data, irrespective of the author's reputation, nationality, or affiliation. Reviewers should thoroughly investigate the previous work cited by the authors to assess the relevance of the research need, but the fact that an author’s research group has been working on a particular topic for a long time does not guarantee the reliability of the paper under review. Reviewers should explicitly ask authors to address any descriptions or data that may represent logical gaps in the manuscript. Authors sometimes selectively present favourable data in their papers, so it is important to inform readers as much as possible about the trials and errors the authors encountered during the research process and the limitations of the study. This approach not only strengthens the objectivity of the review, but also helps prevent other researchers referring to the study from encouraging unnecessary failures in the future. Additionally, reviewers should avoid encouraging authors to cite the reviewer's work unless it clearly enhances the logical validity of the manuscript.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
In Kook Chun
Dr. In Kook Chun, BSc, MD, PhD, is working for Korea Cancer Center Hospital, a branch of Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Buscan, Republic of Korea, which is a governmental organization with a role of research and healthcare services. He majored in physics at university and graduated with a BSc, then received an MD from medical school and a PhD in molecular medicine and biopharmaceutical sciences from graduate school. He has been working as a licensed nuclear medicine physician since 2014 and taught medical students as an assistant professor at a medical university, a prior affiliation. He has been interested in the field of neuroscience since his doctoral studies, especially in the diagnosis and treatment of various neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease using radiopharmaceuticals. He is also interested in diagnosing and treating oncological diseases using new radiopharmaceuticals and is working hard on clinical research. Learn more about him here.
TCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Chun: I think that a reviewer should have at least three abilities: expertise in the relevant field of knowledge, an unbiased perspective, and a passion for medical advancement. It goes without saying that to evaluate a new research paper, one must have expertise in the relevant field. This is an important characteristic that can affect the quality of a reviewer’s review. The second is an unbiased perspective. Since the reviewer’s own knowledge is inevitably limited, it is important to ensure that there are no biased considerations in the process of reviewing others’ research results. Third, the process of reviewing others’ research results should not be considered a waste of time. The reviewer’s efforts play an important role in ultimately contributing to medical advancement.
TCR: What can be done to improve the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Chun: To improve the quality of reviews, it is necessary to receive in-depth reviews from more and more diverse reviewers, but this leads to a contradiction in that the more time it takes from paper submission to publication, the more delay there is in widely disseminating the research results. In other words, there is an unavoidable trade-off between a high-quality review process and the time required. To optimize this, it is important to have a system that efficiently manages reviewers so that they actively participate in the established review process. In particular, the planning and operational capabilities of the editor will be key such as selecting suitable reviewers. In addition, providing support or incentives for reviewers’ self-development can be considered to improve the review process and maintain high quality. Of course, I think almost all current reviewers (including me) have felt that participation as reviewers itself is also beneficial to their self-improvement without such support or incentives.
TCR: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, PRISMA and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Chun: I think reporting guidelines are necessary and helpful for both authors and reviewers. Since the required items will vary depending on the type of paper, providing authors with advanced information on the essential items needed to write a paper will play an important role in minimizing unnecessary waste during the review process. However, it seems desirable to improve the current guidelines to a webpage input system that utilizes artificial intelligence to automatically check the guidelines without the author having to do so, thereby assisting the author in easily supplementing them, rather than providing the guidelines in the form of a list as in the past and having the author manually check them one by one.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Robert H. Eibl
Dr. Robert H. Eibl is an independent medical scientist specializing in cancer research and biophysics. He earned his doctorate from Heidelberg University through studies at the German Cancer Research Center. His later work on brain tumor models and tumor genetics at the University Hospital of Zürich has played a crucial role in shaping the forefront of current brain tumor diagnostics and research worldwide. Dr. Eibl’s focus on tumor progression and metastasis has supported independent research at major institutions, including Stanford University. His work often involves comparing organ-specific metastasis with lymphocyte homing mechanisms. Notably, he pioneered the use of atomic force microscopy (AFM) to study molecular adhesion on living cells at the single-molecule level, which led to his inclusion in the Sigma Xi society. Currently, he assesses the potential of a start-up applying nanotechnology in liquid biopsy and pharmacology.
TCR: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Eibl: A constructive review offers actionable feedback that improves the quality of the research, regardless of whether it is ultimately accepted or rejected. It should be specific, objective, and balanced, pointing out both strengths and weaknesses with clear suggestions for improvement. Constructive reviews not only help authors refine their work, but also aid editors in assessing the quality of the reviewer’s comments and, ultimately, the author’s responses. Ideally, the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors to preserve impartiality. In contrast, a destructive review often lacks specificity and objectivity or is overly critical without offering solutions. It may focus on minor issues or critique the author personally rather than the work itself. Such reviews can be discouraging, undermining the review process's purpose and hindering scientific progress.
TCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Eibl: The current peer-review system does have limitations, including potential biases, inconsistent review quality, and a lack of transparency. Biases may arise from conflicts of interest, competition, or favoritism, affecting fairness. Review quality can vary significantly, as reviewers may lack experience or sufficient time to conduct thorough evaluations. Additionally, the process is often opaque, with reviewers remaining anonymous and authors left unclear about the rationale behind decisions. Ultimately, it is the authors’ responsibility to choose reputable journals with rigorous peer-review standards. Unfortunately, the expanding market of low-standard journals that don’t follow strict peer-review practices is a growing issue, as rejections may be seen as profit loss rather than a quality safeguard.
To improve the peer-review system, steps could include:
- Transparency around rejection rates to reflect journal quality.
- Respect reviewer’s recommendations to reject: no resubmission without major revisions.
- Reviewer training programs.
- Providing recognition, like “Reviewer of the month”
TCR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Eibl: Time management is essential. To allocate time for peer review, I accept only a limited number of peer reviews at a time, ensuring I don’t take on too many in parallel. When my schedule is full, I decline additional requests. Also, I focus on interesting abstracts and papers closely related to my expertise, where I can provide the most value. Occasionally, I accept invitations outside my primary field, but I am transparent about any limitations in my expertise. Lastly, I approach peer review as a valuable learning opportunity.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
