In 2024, 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.
January, 2024
Marcin Kurowski, Medical University of Łódź, Poland
February, 2024
Anna Christina de Lima Ribeiro, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
March, 2024
Chibuzor M. Babalola, University of Southern California, USA
January, 2024
Marcin Kurowski
Marcin Kurowski has acquired his MD title at the Medical University of Lodz in 1999 and since then, he had been developing his career within his Alma Mater, reaching the position of Associate Professor in January 2020. He is board-certified in Internal Medicine and Allergology and is actively involved in patient care and research. His main interests, both in terms of clinical practice and science, include asthma, in particular exercise-induced and severe, food allergy, anaphylaxis, urticaria and angioedema. He is also an active member of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) as well as the Polish Society of Allergology (PTA), having held various board positions in the past and currently. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
To Dr. Kurowski, peer reviewing is a great way to have an independent, impartial and unbiased look at one’s work, whether it is original research or a review providing novel insights of formulating hypotheses. During peer review, inconsistencies in population description, design and interpretation of results may be identified. In addition, in his own experience, he would sometimes add new directions and aspects for interpretation of data, which might bring some potential benefit for authors.
As a reviewer, according to Dr. Kurowski, one needs to judge what was the predominant goal of submitting the reviewed article, whether the results can influence and modify our clinical thinking, or – in case of reviews – whether the selection of topic and authors’ approach was justified and innovative. It may also be useful to try to put oneself in the authors’ place and ask what and how he/she would respond if he/she had been doing similar research or writing a similar review text.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Kurowski thinks that authors following reporting guidelines means that some intellectual rigors and mind flow have been observed. Therefore, it adds to the overall quality of the proposed paper. However, if these checklists are not provided, this does not mean that the manuscript should be rejected right away. He points out that authors should be encouraged to discuss ways of selection of sources for their reports and amend the paper accordingly.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Anna Christina de Lima Ribeiro
Anna Christina de Lima Ribeiro, MD, is a pediatric cardiologist at Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Instituto do Coracao (InCor), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. She completed her residency in Pediatrics and Pediatric Cardiology fellowship training at Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo. She attended on the outpatient Pediatric Cardiology and Adult Congenital Heart Disease service at Instituto do Coracao (InCor), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP. Her research interests include pediatric cardiology and healthcare-associated infection. In her doctoral thesis to the Program in Cardiology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, she studied risk factors for surgical site infection in patients undergoing pediatric cardiac surgery.
The way Dr. Ribeiro sees it, peer review improves the scientific quality, accuracy and reability of the information of the paper. It can detect potential problems as duplicate publication. She indicates that peer review increases scientific knowledge which can help to improve patient outcomes and there are also benefits to the reviewer, such as updating data available in one’s field and contributing to medical education.
Dr. Ribeiro indicates that evaluation exercise implies values, premises and compliance with rules. To her, a peer review must have a pedagogical character when reviewers give suggestions and encourage authors to improve their manuscripts and point out methodological flaws based on recommended guidelines in a constructive way. Objectivity, honesty, integrity and clarity are very important. She chooses to review manuscripts related to her clinical and research expertise so that she can learn more from the peer-review process.
“JXYM is an important means of disseminating scientific information in different medicine areas (wide scope) and has international collaboration and exchange. It has the potential to inspire fellow researchers and healthcare professionals,” says Dr. Ribeiro.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Chibuzor M. Babalola
Dr. Chibuzor M. Babalola, MD, MPH, is an infectious disease researcher with a diverse background spanning applied global health epidemiology, programming, and policy. Currently with the Klausner Research Group at the Keck School of Medicine Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, she leads global health initiatives at the intersections of sexual reproductive health and maternal-fetal health, aiming to improve birth outcomes in low-resource settings. Her work involves advocacy for screening and treatment of curable sexually transmitted infections during pregnancy, understanding contributors to preterm birth, and accelerating holistic prevention strategies. Dr. Babalola's interdisciplinary approach integrates academic insights with practical field experience, positioning her as a leader in addressing public health challenges globally. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Babalola’s opinion, peer review is crucial because it ensures the quality and integrity of scientific research. It serves as a checks-and-balances system, helping to identify errors, inconsistencies, or methodological flaws in research papers before they are published. Without peer review, there is a risk of publishing inaccurate or misleading information, which could have serious consequences for the scientific community and society as a whole. While not always guaranteed, a thorough peer-review process can facilitate reproducibility, a crucial aspect of validating or adapting research findings to various contexts. This promotes transparency and, more importantly, fosters equitable and balanced interpretation of our discoveries.
Dr. Babalola reckons that minimizing biases in peer review requires conscious effort and awareness. She tries to approach each review with an open mind, focusing on the scientific merit of the research. She highlights that it is essential to evaluate the manuscript objectively, considering the evidence presented and the validity of the methodology. She explains, “Self-awareness about the extremes of my personal strengths such as ‘critical thinking’ or ‘attention to detail’ keeps me focused without nitpicking. Perfection isn't the goal; instead, I endeavor to aim for fairness and relevance. Seeking input from colleagues with diverse perspectives further helps mitigate biases and ensures a balanced review process. Looking for diverse perspectives and feedback from colleagues can also help mitigate biases and ensure a fair review process.”
“To all the dedicated, upcoming, and supporting reviewers out there, your contributions are invaluable in maintaining the rigor and credibility of scholarly work. While peer reviewing may sometimes feel like an additional task on top of our already busy schedules, let's remember that each review we provide helps shape the trajectory of scientific knowledge. Just as we benefit from thoughtful reviews of our own work, our willingness to engage in the peer-review process ensures a supportive and collaborative research community. So let's continue to review with enthusiasm —and timeliness,” says Dr. Babalola.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
