In 2024, MED 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
Luca Bertolaccini, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Italy
July, 2024
Yongfeng He, Cornell University, USA
August, 2024
Renata Langfort, National Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Poland
September, 2024
Pedro Soler Coltro, University of São Paulo, Brazil
October, 2024
Simant Singh Thapa, Indiana University Health Ball Memorial Hospital, USA
November, 2024
Marcello Migliore, University of Catania, Italy
January, 2024
Luca Bertolaccini
Luca Bertolaccini is a Thoracic Surgeon at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. He is an Associate Editor (Thoracic) of the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. He was the former Associate Editor (Thoracic) of the Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, serves on several editorial boards, and is a reviewer for many scientific journals. His primary clinical interests are lung cancer surgery, minimally invasive thoracic surgery, and thoracic oncology. Dr. Bertolaccini’s research interests and leading publications focus on lung cancer surgery and biostatistics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
MED: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Bertolaccini: Peer review in medicine is crucial for maintaining research and clinical practice standards. It acts as quality control, identifying and rectifying methodological flaws and biases to ensure the dissemination of high-quality, reliable information. Additionally, it validates research findings by verifying study methodologies and conclusions, fostering trust in scientific literature. Peer feedback also aids in refining methodologies, promoting continuous improvement in research practices and advancing medical knowledge. Moreover, peer review prevents the spread of misinformation by filtering out studies lacking scientific rigor or influenced by conflicts of interest (COIs), safeguarding patient care and public health. Overall, peer review is essential for upholding the quality, credibility, and reliability of medical research and clinical practice, ensuring accurate information dissemination, and fostering continual improvement in healthcare outcomes.
MED: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Bertolaccini: Reviewers play a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process, necessitating adherence to several key considerations. Foremost, objectivity and impartiality are paramount, requiring reviewers to assess manuscripts solely on scientific merit while avoiding personal biases and COIs. A thorough evaluation of the study design and methodology ensures the clarity of research questions, the appropriateness of the methods, data analysis robustness, and the validity of the results. Additionally, reviewers scrutinize the incorporation of relevant literature to contextualize the study within existing knowledge and uphold ethical standards by verifying ethical approval and human subject protection. Constructive feedback aids authors in enhancing manuscript quality, addressing weaknesses, and suggesting additional analyses. Timely completion of reviews is essential for the efficient progression of the peer-review process and the timely dissemination of accurate scientific information. By upholding objectivity, evaluating methodologies, assessing literature, considering ethics, providing constructive feedback, and adhering to timelines, reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining scientific rigor and quality.
MED: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Bertolaccini: Objective manuscript evaluation is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of peer review and ensuring the reliability of scientific knowledge. Achieving objectivity involves several principles and practices. Reviewers must consciously set aside personal biases and COIs, focusing instead on the scientific merit of the manuscript. This entails prioritizing the evaluation of methodology and evidence, adhering to predefined criteria, and separating the work from the author's identity. Assumptions about authors' intentions should be avoided, with constructive feedback provided to aid improvement. Consistency in evaluation across manuscripts further enhances objectivity. By employing these principles, reviewers contribute to the credibility and reliability of scientific literature.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Yongfeng He
Dr. Yongfeng He serves as an instructor of cancer biology in Cardiothoracic Surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University. He received his Ph.D. from Chonnam National University in South Korea before relocating to the US for postdoctoral training. His training commenced at Stanford University and was furthered at City of Hope before joining Weill Cornell Medical College. He has extensive expertise in tumorigenesis, tumor microenvironment, disease modeling, immunotherapy resistance and vaccine development. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. He’s opinion, a healthy peer-review system should meet the following criteria.
- Confidentiality - The reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts being reviewed.
- Transparency of conflicts of interest - Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors.
- Interactive communications - The editors, reviewers and authors should be able to communicate regarding the reviewers’ comments. If the reviewers’ comments are unclear, authors should have the opportunities to express their opinions. The editor will facilitate communication between reviewers and authors to ensure smooth interaction.
- Ethical standards - The review process should adhere to high ethical standards.
Dr. He reckons that, while reviewing papers, the following points should be kept in mind. 1) The review process is confidential. Reviewers should not share any information in the manuscript with anyone. 2) The feedback to the authors should be constructive and reasonable. And 3) reviewers are responsible for maintaining the quality of the manuscripts in the journal and should uphold high standards in their evaluations.
“Peer-review system is crucial for ensuring quality of scientific articles. I believe that scientists have a responsibility to participate in the peer-review process, as they also benefit from it when publishing their own work. I greatly value the feedback I receive from reviewers and find their comments both instructive and helpful. This appreciation motivates me to offer my own insights and feedback to other researchers,” says Dr. He.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Renata Langfort
Prof. Renata Langfort works at the Department of Pathology of National Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Warsaw, Poland. She is also Head of Pathology Department, President of the Polish Society of Pathologists, involved in the creation of "Organizational standards and standards of procedure in pathomorphology - guidelines for pathomorphology departments/laboratories". For years, she has been involved in pathomorphological diagnostics of respiratory diseases, with particular emphasis on interstitial lung diseases, lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma. She is author and co-author of over 300 publications, including Polish recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, thoracic cancers, chapters in monographs on the pathomorphology of respiratory diseases.
Prof. Langfort indicates that the review allows for checking the value of scientific research, and its usefulness in further research. It helps select innovative articles presenting current state of research, and assess the substantive and methodological value, as well as the way of presenting the issue and the thoroughness of the translation.
In Prof. Langfort’s opinion, it is necessary to check the substantive value of the paper, the authors’ reference to current knowledge on a given topic, the correctness of the presentation of the issue. Moreover, it is vital to check whether the paper is the authors’ original concept and not plagiarism, whether the aim of the work is consistent with the results, as well as the references are up-to-date and consistent with the citation.
“It is very difficult to allocate time to do peer review. It is why I undertake to review works in which the subject matter is close to my knowledge. But unfortunately, sometimes I have to decline due to lack of time. There are few pathologists and we have a lot of diagnostic work - the patient is the most important,” says Prof. Langfort.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Pedro Soler Coltro
Prof. Pedro Coltro, MD, PhD, has been the Professor of Plastic Surgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Brazil since 2015. He got his postdoctoral degree from the University of São Paulo Medical School (2014 - 2016), and his doctorate degree from the same school (2010-2014). He is a Board-Certified Plastic Surgeon and Full Member of the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery, and obtained international fellowships at Harvard University (2009) and Yale University (2009). He maintains constant scientific activity, having published 1 book, more than 60 articles in indexed journals and 17 chapters of Brazilian and international books. He is an advisor to the São Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP) and Amazon Research Support Foundation (FAPESPA). He was Editor of Plastiko's magazine from Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (2018-2023). He acts as Scientific Reviewer of more than 60 journals in Brazil and abroad. Throughout his career, he has been awarded more than 25 scientific awards and academic honors. He has experience in a wide field of aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery.
Prof. Coltro thinks a healthy peer-review system should be a system in which reviewers have experience with the topic and can contribute to improving the study. “As a university professor, I feel it is my mission to contribute to the advancement of science through voluntary review work. Reviewers always learn more about the topic of the article in question, making us more professional,” says he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Simant Singh Thapa
Dr. Thapa currently works as Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician at Indiana University Health Ball Memorial Hospital, Indiana. He is Assistant Professor of Medicine at Indiana University. He has immense passion for teaching and has received teaching awards during residency and as an attending physician. He completed his Internal Medicine Residency at Saint Vincent Hospital, Massachusetts and was selected as chief resident during residency. He completed his Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship at SUNY Upstate Medical University, NY and was selected as chief fellow during fellowship. He has completed his research training certificate program “Principles and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR)” from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts. He has also worked as High-Altitude Physician in past and completed International Diploma in Mountain Medicine (DiMM). His current clinical interest and active research are in topics related to sarcoidosis, advanced lung diseases, mediastinal diseases, interventional pulmonary procedures, critical care echocardiogram/ultrasound, high altitude medicine and hypoxia physiology.
MED: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Thapa: The peer-review process provides unbiased and thorough review of the research manuscript and the data from experts in the given topic/field. This process can provide very valuable feedback and sometimes helps unwind unclear information overlooked by the research team. In my experience, the peer-review process has always led to improved overall outcome of the research article that I submit.
Nowadays, when there is plethora of research paper submitted daily, peer review can serve as the initial screening process/ litmus test regarding nobility of findings, accuracy of data discussed, plagiarism, and whether the submitted article provides any valuable information to already existing research data pool in given topic.
MED: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Thapa: When reviewing paper, we need to act as “peer” to the authors and provide unbiased and constructive comments so that we can help the authors to further improve the overall quality of the article. Rather than just dismissing the article, we should provide our recommendation on what might work better and the reasoning/evidence for our recommendation. It is also our responsibility as reviewer to make sure we have sufficient knowledge and clinical experience in the topic we agree to review so that we can provide the authors with accurate, updated recommendations and do the justice to the peer-review process of the article.
MED: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Thapa: Data sharing in research is crucial as it can provide new opportunity for collaboration with various stakeholder with shared vision on a global scale and further expand your research project to new horizon. Data sharing also helps to keep everything transparent and maintain integrity of the research project.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
November, 2024
Marcello Migliore
Dr. Marcello Migliore is currently Full Professor of Thoracic Surgery at the Department of Surgery and Medical Specialties at the University of Catania, Italy. He is the Chief of Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery and New Technologies at Policlinico University Hospital of Catania, Italy. He is Consultant Thoracic Surgeon at King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, KSA. He is Secretary of the Assembly 8 thoracic surgery and transplantation of the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Dr. Migliore’s research includes oncologic trials, development of new technology and clinical strategies; innovation; minimally invasiveness in thoracic surgery; uniportal VATS; mesothelioma; lung metastases; TNM staging system; and surgery for stage IV lung cancer. In 1998, he pioneered uniportal VATS, which has become well known only 20 years later. He specialized in the surgical treatment of diseases of the lung, mediastinum, pleura and the esophagus. He has authored over 200 papers, of those over 150 in peer-reviewed journals and textbook chapters and authored a book manually in thoracic surgery. He has been invited Lecturer and Faculty member at several national and international conferences. He is also a member of the ERS, SCTS, ESTS and STS and acts as a reviewer for several international thoracic journals. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Migliore’s opinion, peer review is a mutual philanthropic structure in which all actors (reviewers, associate editors, editors, etc.) should stand by the Golden Rule of Reviewing: review for others as you would have others review for you. Reviewers should provide a detailed, impartial, and beneficial assessment of the work; and they should do it at first occasion regardless of the deadline to really shorten the time required to publish the scientific paper that acceptance rates are lower and referees are more critical when the reviewer is unaware of the author's identity. These patterns are not significantly different between female and male authors. Authors at top-ranked universities and at colleges and low-ranked universities are largely unaffected by the different reviewing practices, but authors at near-top-ranked universities and at nonacademic institutions have lower acceptance rates under double-blind reviewing.
According to Dr. Migliore, being a scientist doctor/surgeon should be seen as a wish rather than a burden. Therefore, it is not unusual that reviewers work during night hours after the clinical job is done, and do not want anything in exchange. “As I told before it is important to apply the Golden Rule of Reviewing: review for others as you would have others review for you. In general, a paper generally takes around 4-6 hours, and although some reviewers may spend 8 hours to write a review, a study has shown that completing a review takes 2.7 hours on average,” says he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
