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
April, 2024
Ethan Sacoransky, Queen’s University, Canada
July, 2024
Rafael Vincent M Manalo, University of the Philippines Manila, Philippines
August, 2024
Dae Young Cheon, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Korea
September, 2024
Annamaria Sapuppo, University of Catania, Italy
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)
April, 2024
Ethan Sacoransky
Ethan Sacoransky is currently a final-year medical student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. He completed his undergraduate degree in Medical Physics at the University of Western Ontario, where he researched in the biomedical ultrasound lab on creating physical models of blood flow through the carotid artery using micro-particle image velocimetry. After earning his BSc, he worked for 18 months as a meteorological scientist at the Canadian Weather Network, engaging in long-range weather forecasting and climate science research using numerical modeling. As a medical student, he has been involved in several research projects, including analyzing competency-based medical education in radiology and conducting two meta-analyses related to left ventricular thrombus. His cardiology research group examined the incidence of LV thrombus using different cardiac imaging modalities (cMRI and TTE) across various types of myocardial infarction territories. Additionally, they compared different prophylactic treatments for LVT prevention, such as triple therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy. His current research also explores the role of AI and machine learning in various clinical applications in cardiology and radiology. Connect with him on X @blizzardof96.
Ethan thinks that reviewers should possess a strong background knowledge of the topic they are reviewing, experience with reading scientific journals, and a nuanced understanding of what each section of a manuscript should and should not include. They should also have appropriate knowledge of statistics, data analysis and objectivity.
To minimize biases, Ethan points out that reviewers should put themselves in the shoes of the authors and critically analyse what information a reasonable author would and would not include. Focus objectively on the scientific material at hand, even if they do not agree with the authors' conclusions, as long as those conclusions or inferences are supported by data.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Ethan points out that data sharing is sometimes crucial to allow reviewers or readers to reproduce the findings. If data are not shared publicly, there is no way to ensure that the figures/data are accurate and reproducible. Public availability of data can help advance the scientific field, as other researchers may use the data to expand on those findings or present the data in different ways that can help advance the field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Rafael Vincent M Manalo
Dr. Manalo received his dual MD-PhD in Molecular Medicine degree from the College of Medicine at the University of the Philippines Manila with scholarship provided by the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST-PCHRD). He did most of his basic science research as a PhD student at the Biological Models Laboratory of UP Manila headed by Dr. Paul Mark B. Medina. From 2021 to 2023, he was a visiting research scholar at the Center for Genetic Medicine Research, Children’s National Hospital at Washington DC, USA where he did his dissertation on the molecular mechanisms of konzo – a debilitating food-borne neurologic disease afflicting the women and children of the Democratic Republic of Congo. His current interests involve research in the field of Neuroscience, and he is currently part of a multi-omics project on Alzheimer’s disease spearheaded by UP Manila. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Manalo believes that peer review is an important facet of integrity and excellence in medical research as it ensures that the data being presented are held to the highest standards and are properly interpreted prior to its publication.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Manalo thinks that it is important that reviewers follow reporting guidelines, such as STROBE and CONSORT, to have a uniform approach to data collection and data presentation. In the field of medicine, where data are often collated from various clinical studies for a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk, benefit or harm, having a unified approach ensures that the body of medical knowledge on a certain research question may be correctly interpreted for quality patient care. It also assists in the detection of errors and confounders and limitations during the peer-review process, and helps in the timely return of feedback.
“Peer review is an overlooked and underpaid service to improve the quality of scientific research. However, it is essential that we continue to devote our time to quality peer review so that the progress of medical knowledge may be accelerated, as poorly done research often delays the advancement of scientific discovery. A blind peer-review process ensures minimal biases in terms of data interpretation and allows a critical appraisal of methodology and data collection by experts in the field,” says Dr. Manalo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Dae Young Cheon
Dr. Dae Young Cheon is an Assistant Professor at the Cardiovascular Center of Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital in South Korea. He earned his Bachelor of Medicine from Hallym University and a Master of Science in Statistics from Korea National Open University. He works as an interventional cardiologist, specializing in the management of patients requiring ECMO and those with severe heart failure. His research focuses on cardiology, particularly in cardiovascular risk stratification including hypertension and dyslipidemia, and the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare. He has received multiple research grants and has been recognized for his work, including identifying thrombogenic factors in familial hypercholesterolemia patients using proteomics, variant angina with stressful condition and developing AI-driven tools for pre-hospital patient triage. In addition to his research, he serves on various committees within Korean cardiology societies and actively contribute to clinical and academic studies. Dr. Samo believes that peer review is an essential part of producing science, and he would argue it is the most essential part of it. Every new evidence of science must be scrutinized by peers and with feedback for it to go to the outside world to be available to the general readership.
In Dr. Cheon’s opinion, the peer-review process can suffer from biases, such as favoritism or conflicts of interest (COIs), and is often slow. The system may also struggle with transparency, as reviewers' identities are typically anonymous, which can sometimes lead to a lack of accountability. Additionally, limited reviewer expertise in specific areas can result in superficial or misinformed reviews. To improve it, standardized guidelines can enhance objectivity and transparency, also increasing the pool of qualified reviewers. And in his opinion, using AI tools to assist in identifying methodological flaws could also strengthen the process.
Dr. Cheon reckons that an objective review is one that evaluates the research on its scientific merit alone, free from personal biases, affiliations, or prejudice. To ensure his reviews are objective, he strictly adheres to journal guidelines, focus on the validity of the methods, results, and conclusions. If he has any COI, he recuses himself from the review. He also ensures that his comments are constructive, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. However, before focusing on objectivity in the review process, the most crucial factor is how objectively, logically, and cohesively the manuscript itself is written. A well-structured, logically sound manuscript provides the foundation for a fair and unbiased review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Annamaria Sapuppo
Dr. Sapuppo graduated in Medicine and Surgery in 2014 at the University of Catania, Italy and in 2020, she completed her Pediatric Residency at the University of Catania, Italy, with sub-specialization in Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Diseases. During her residency, she attended the “Metabolic Unit” at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London (UK). She has continued her clinical and research activities as Clinical Research Fellow Pediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine at the University of Catania, Italy. She also completed a master degree in Inherited Metabolic Diseases and newborn screening (University of Bologna, Italy) and a Master Degree in Neurometabolism (Barcelona University, Spain). She is a senior consultant in Pediatrics at the Pediatric Unit and Emergency Department of AOU “Policlinico G.Rodolico-S.Marco” in Catania, Italy. She published several scientific papers and participated in national and international conferences, presenting her clinical research results, mainly focused on Inherited Metabolic Diseases and Pediatric Neurology. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
JXYM: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Sapuppo: Peer review is a cornerstone of academic research, playing a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and credibility of scholarly work. At its core, peer review serves as a validation mechanism, where experts in the field scrutinize the research to assess its methodology, data integrity, and conclusions. This process is crucial because it helps to identify any errors or biases that may have been overlooked by the authors, thereby enhancing the overall accuracy and reliability of the research.
Moreover, peer review is not just about identifying flaws; it is also about providing constructive feedback. Reviewers offer valuable insights and suggestions that can help authors refine their work, making it more robust and impactful. This iterative process of feedback and revision fosters innovation, as researchers are encouraged to think critically and creatively about their approaches and findings. In addition to these benefits, peer review also plays a vital role in advancing knowledge. By filtering out subpar research and highlighting significant contributions, peer review facilitates the dissemination of valuable insights and discoveries. This, in turn, drives scientific progress and fosters a culture of continuous learning and improvement.
JXYM: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Sapuppo: A constructive review and a destructive review can have a significant impact on the development of academic work. A constructive review could provide detailed and specific comments on what is good and what needs improvement in the research field. However, it could highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the work, as a balanced critique, also offering practical and clear suggestions for improvement.
A destructive review usually gives general or unclear feedback that is not helpful for researches and often focuses only on the negatives without acknowledging any positives, without offering any suggestions for improvement. A constructive review aims to help the authors improve their work and advance their research, while a destructive review can hinder progress and damage the authors' confidence.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
