In 2023, JXYM 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.
Glívia Maria Barros Delmondes, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco-UFPE, Brazil
Glívia Maria Barros Delmondes
Dr. Glívia Maria Barros Delmondes has a degree in Physiotherapy and a Master's degree in Pathology from the Universidade Federal de Pernambuco-UFPE, and she is a PhD candidate in Hebiatrics from the Universidade de Pernambuco-UPE, where she is part of the Research Group on Lifestyles and Health- GPES, with research activities carried out among school adolescents on health and lifestyle through the Attitude project. She also works as an Intensive Care Physiotherapist in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the Centro Universitário Integrado de Saúde Amaury de Medeiros-CISAM. She is an Assistant Professor of the Physiotherapy course at the Universidade Católica de Pernambuco - UNICAP, and she guides students to develop projects in the line of research on Techniques and Resources for Assessment of Pulmonary Function. She is currently the General Director of Assistance Flows at the Health Department of the State of Pernambuco, Brazil. She has experience in the areas of Human Physiology, Intensive Care, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Learn more about her here.
In Dr. Delmondes’s opinion, with the advancement of science at the current time, the production of research works has been growing at an important rate, and specific areas are “hungry” for information that brings reliable results, as it is essential to monitor and evaluate research with robust and reliable methodologies. However, this more careful analysis requires time that many reviewers are unable to carry out the review properly. Furthermore, finding reviewers with expertise in the research area of the submitted manuscript is quite difficult. Another important limitation is the prejudice that reviewers themselves may have in relation to a specific method/technique, or against certain groups or research teams. To improve these limitations, an anonymous peer-review system can reduce these prejudices; in addition, the use of a network of reviewers who can indicate other colleagues who have the same expertise can help reduce the waiting time for the evaluation of the project manuscript.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. Dr. Delomndes indicates that an anonymity review is crucial to avoid bias, where reviewers must pay attention to the quality of the science and must avoid judging the manuscript based on the origin, affiliation, or importance of the authors. Furthermore, reviewers who do not have a conflict of interest with the research to be evaluated must be selected.
Dr. Delmondes reckons that a reviewer needs to be ethical and impartial at the time of their evaluation to ensure quality and integrity in the peer review. Furthermore, reviewers must have sufficient knowledge to judge the appropriate methodology and statistics of the manuscript, and not just the area of their expertise. They must dedicate the necessary time to review in a constructive way, valuing the effort made by researchers and trying to understand the nature of the research, making suggestions to the authors that can improve the quality of the manuscript.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)