In 2023, GS 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, 2023
Catherine McManus, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, USA

February, 2023
Pedro Salomao Piccinini, Montefiore Medical Center, USA

March 2023
Cyril Page, University Hospital of Amiens, France

April 2023
Anne Peled, University of California, USA
Mona P. Tan, MammoCare, Singapore

May 2023
Katherine Black, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australia
Sabapathy Balasubramanian, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK

June, 2023
Michael Bouvet, University of California San Diego, USA

September, 2023
Costanza Chiapponi, University Hospital of Cologne, Germany

October, 2023
Gianluca Franceschini, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCC - Catholic University, Italy

November, 2023
Iram Hussain, UT Southwestern Medical Center, USA
Merima Goran, Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Serbia

December, 2023
Elena Jane Mason, Ospedale Isola Tiberina – Gemelli Isola, Italy

January, 2023

Catherine McManus

Dr. Catherine McManus is an Endocrine Surgeon at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. She has a Master of Science in Clinical Research Methods from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. Her research primarily focuses on clinical outcomes for patients with thyroid, parathyroid, and adrenal disorders using institutional and national databases. She also serves as the Associate Clerkship Director for the medical students and conducts education research that aims to enhance the experience of medical students on their surgical rotation.

In Dr. McManus’ view, it is critical to approach the peer-review process with as much objectivity as possible. For example, she avoids looking at the identity of the authors and the institution until she has fully reviewed the study to minimize any biases. If the work appears immediately familiar to her and there may be a conflict of interest at play, she will clarify with the editor prior to proceeding with the peer review. Ideally, the peer reviewer will approach the research from the perspective of providing constructive advice to enhance and improve the work and make it suitable for publication. To do this, she believes it is key to avoid using judgmental or opinionated language and to present an objective evaluation.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. McManus emphasizes that it is crucial for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest in their work. If an author has a relevant disclosure, such as a financial relationship with a company that participated in the research study, it is important that the reviewer interpret the study results through that lens. Even if the author believes that the results are not influenced by any relevant preexisting relationship, there may be unintended or unrecognized influence that the reviewer may be able to identify.

“The peer-review process serves as the foundation for incorporating high-quality evidence into the existing body of research. All stakeholders should participate in the peer-review process, ranging from those who directly contribute evidence through publication to those who don’t directly publish but incorporate evidence-based research into their clinical practice. For this system to function properly, it requires an altruistic perspective of giving back to the scientific community that does not directly credit the reviewer for their input,” says Dr. McManus.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

February, 2023

Pedro Salomão Piccinini

Dr. Pedro Salomao Piccinini is starting as a Plastic Surgeon and Assistant Professor in the Division of Plastic Surgery at Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York, NY, USA. He earned his medical degree from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and underwent training in General Surgery at the University of Texas and Plastic Surgery at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. He completed fellowships in Craniofacial Surgery at Nicklaus (Miami) Children’s Hospital and Microsurgery/Breast Reconstruction at the University of Pennsylvania and is passionate about aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, including autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction and fat grafting, as well as facial aesthetic surgery and head and neck reconstruction. He has pioneered breast implant stabilization techniques and is currently involved in research to evaluate the use of hyperbaric oxygen in preoperative patient optimization and postoperative outcomes in facelifts, body contouring and breast surgery. Connect with Dr. Piccinini on Instagram.

Reducing bias, in Dr. Piccinini’s view, is such an important part of the peer-review process. He believes that reviewers should only review articles that are relevant to the topic they are studying and have in-depth knowledge of it. This allows for fair judgment of an article on content grounds. To him, the content is more important than the form, but as peer reviewers, it is essential to focus on keeping a consistent quality control of the journal. To minimize bias in the peer-review process, it is essential to approach a manuscript without any preconceptions regarding the content. He likes to read the entire manuscript without paying much attention to the title first to see if the paper makes sense and then re-read the paper a few times over to focus on the details. In technique papers, he avoids thinking of what he would do (which technique he might use) in a certain patient and prefer to first assess what the authors have done, and then see if that makes sense on his “second read”.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Piccinini emphasizes that the author’s disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI) is very important to increase the credibility of papers, especially when dealing with devices or drugs, and even more so in breast surgery. He reckons that although we assume that most physicians submitting papers are honest and open about COI, full disclosure is necessary to guarantee transparency and allow readers of articles to draw their own conclusions. With that being said, this does not mean that merely having financial relationships with companies automatically leads to biased or uncredible data, but again, having full disclosure of any COI allows the reader to assess and draw their own conclusions about the validity of a paper and its authors.

“Peer review keeps me enthusiastic about research and surgery in general and pushes us to keep up to date and to give actionable feedback to authors. Seeing colleagues from around the world thinking outside the box to address practical problems is an especially cool aspect of peer review, which is why technique papers are so important in a surgical journal. Additionally, I find that reviewing other’s work improves my own critical thinking and article preparation skills, and sometimes, there are techniques and tactics that are applicable in my own practice. Giving back to the scientific community, and indirectly to patients who are impacted by published research, is also a very rewarding aspect of peer review,” says Dr. Piccinini.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

March 2023

Cyril Page

Prof. Cyril Page, MD, PhD, is the Head of the ENT and Head & Neck Surgery Department of the University Hospital of Amiens, France. The department covers all fields of otorhinolaryngology from otology to head and neck oncology and also laryngology, rhinology and paediatric otorhinolaryngology. The department is particularly involved in thyroid and parathyroid surgery for more than 30 years. Prof. Page started his career at the University Hospital of Amiens in 2002 as Assistant Professor in the Anatomy Department at the Faculty of Medicine. His early research focused on laryngeal nerves anatomy. He became Professor of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery in 2016. His current research focuses on different topics including management of ENT infections, thyroid surgery, head and neck oncology and otology. In 2021, his team published the first worldwide minimally invasive fully ROBOT-assisted cochlear implantation in humans.

Peer review, in Prof. Page’s view, acts as a filter to ensure that only good-quality articles should be published by determining the validity, significance and originality of studies, regardless of the popularity of the journal or the authors. Reviewers should always provide accurate suggestions for authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts.

A good reviewer, according to Prof. Page, should try to be as objective as possible, although it is impossible to be totally objective. Conflicts of interest (in particular when the authors of the submitted manuscript are known) and personal opinions of reviewers are the two major biases of peer review, both of which should be avoided. Moreover, a good reviewer must stay benevolent even when the reviewed manuscript is not suitable for publication.

“Nowadays, fame and money seem to be so important for many people, even in the academic world. Peer review is theoretically gratis and reviewers are not credited when the article is published, particularly in renowned journals,” says Prof. Page. In view of this, he thinks two problems might arise. First, renowned journals which probably have already developed a stable pool of reviewers might lack new faces and finally, all articles are being reviewed by the same pool of reviewers. Second, some good and honest non-famous journals or new emerging journals might be unable to find any reviewers and thus some articles might be published without peer review. Therefore, under these circumstances, he stresses that peer reviewing is an important part of the academic work, and must not be neglected. Reviewers should consider it as a satisfaction to have the opportunity to decide if an article can be published.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

April 2023

Anne Peled

Dr. Anne Peled is a practicing breast cancer and plastic surgeon based in San Francisco, U.S.  She is also the co-director of the Breast Care Center of Excellence at Sutter Health California Pacific Medical Center.  She has an extensive research experience focused on improving outcomes after breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction and is currently involved in research looking at novel approaches to optimize patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after breast surgery. She has a passion for educating patients and health care professionals about oncoplastic surgery and breast reconstruction options. She teaches regularly at courses across the U.S. to increase awareness around these approaches. She and her husband, Dr. Ziv Peled, have also pioneered a surgical technique to allow people to preserve breast sensation following mastectomy. Learn more about Dr. Peled here.

Speaking of the role of peer review in science, Dr. Peled believes peer review gives credibility to research and allows the public to feel more confident in the veracity of the data presented. She explains, “It also strengthens research papers by helping authors better address limitations of their data and put their findings in context. Ideally for all medical papers, there are take-home points for readers that will allow them to change their clinical practice or findings that may change clinical care in the future – a major part of the reviewers’ role is to make sure that these points come across clearly and are relevant for readers.”

Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Dr. Peled thinks it is important for having the data available in case readers have additional questions that may not have been addressed in the paper. She elaborates, “This is of particular importance around questions that may impact the applicability of the data.”

Mona P. Tan

Dr. Tan has more than 20 years of experience in treating women with breast disease. She is a strong advocate for breast conservation treatment (BCT) as she is acutely aware of the increasing contemporary data which suggest that women undergoing BCT have improved survival and local control outcomes. She therefore works towards disseminating information in support of increasing BCT rates and her works are cited by authors in renowned centres like Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center and the European Institute of Oncology. Through her years of performing breast surgery, she has conceived a system of segment-resection techniques which allow minimal surgical resection of tumours to achieve oncologically adequate margins with optimal cosmesis in a wide range of patients. Her current interest is in the integration of anatomy, radiology, pathology and surgery to achieve best outcomes for multifocal and multicentric breast cancer, a subject which she sees as the next frontier for breast cancer surgery.

Speaking of a healthy peer-review system, Dr. Tan thinks there should be honest comments about the manuscript phrased in an appropriate manner for the authors to improve on the manuscript. She points out that there will always be reviewer biases and in order to reduce that, the Editor would need to seek more reviewers, though this may not be time-efficient. On the other hand, in order to minimize author biases, she points out, “A declaration of conflict of interest should continue to be a pre-requisite for submission and publication.”

May 2023

Katherine Black

Dr. Katherine Black is a Specialist Endocrine and General Surgeon practicing in Brisbane, Australia. Her clinical and research interests cover many aspects of endocrine surgery including thyroid, parathyroid and adrenal conditions. She has most recently published on surgical approaches for renal related secondary hyperparathyroidism. Learn more about Dr. Black here.

According to Dr. Black, peer review is a crucial part of the scientific process. It involves experts in the field evaluating the validity, methodology and significance of research articles. It serves to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. Peer-reviewed publications are seen as trustworthy sources and contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge. She further points out, while complete elimination of biases in review is challenging, there are strategies that can help minimize their impact. For her, it is a process that requires self-awareness and a commitment to fairness and objectivity.

Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, Dr. Black is grateful for those who have reviewed her submissions, and would like to pay it forward. She also sees the value in research with appropriate peer review for ensuring the quality of the research that is published. In addition, she finds that being involved in reviewing helps keeping her interested and up-to-date with the latest scientific ideas in her fields of interest.

Finally, speakinf of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, Dr. Black thinks that ensures research is conducted ethically, with proper informed consent, risk assessment and privacy protection for participants. It also helps maintain research integrity. “Omitting this step can lead to serious consequences including ethical violations, legal issues, damage to professional reuptation, and hindrance to the progress and dissemination of research,” says she.

(by Masaki Lo, Wymen Chen)

Sabapathy Balasubramanian

Sabapathy Balasubramanian works as a consultant endocrine surgeon in Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. He is affiliated with the University of Sheffield as an honorary professor. His clinical interests are in the management of benign and malignant thyroid, parathyroid and adrenal tumours. In addition to teaching medical students and post-graduate surgical trainees who rotate into his unit, he teaches ‘cancer epidemiology’ in a MSc in Translational Oncology course at the University of Sheffield and helps run an educational organisation ‘CRAMSURG’ (see http://www.cramsurg.org/) that aims to encourage the training and development of skills in critical appraisal and research methodology. Dr. Balasubramanian’s research interests are in the improvement of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery, with a particular focus on parathyroid preservation and thyroid cancer epidemiology. Learn more about Dr. Balasubramanian here.

The way Dr. Balasubramanian sees it, peer review is an essential part of publishing scientific literature. He believes that a good peer review not only filters out reports that are of poor quality and/or may not be clinically relevant; but also has the potential to significantly enhance the quality of a manuscript that is eventually published. He says, “Although in the ideal world, readers should critically appraise the report and draw their own conclusions about the report’s internal and external validity; in the real world, the peer-review process gives the average reader the confidence that the report has been considered worthy of publication by experts in the field.”

In Dr. Balasubramanian’s view, an objective review sets aside an individual’s prejudices and preconceptions about a topic, and focuses on the relevance of the research question, the quality of methodology, and the generalizability of its findings. Biases about who the authors are and where the research has been done should be consciously addressed. He also points out that an objective review requires time, experience, and expertise along with a sound understanding of clinical research methodology. “If I think that I may have to rush through a review due to lack of time, I decline the invitation to review,” says he.

Moreover, Dr. Balasubramanian encourages other reviewers, “I believe that whenever possible, we should take some time out of our busy schedules to do this voluntary, yet important work. There is little recognition for this type of work, but it is a way of giving back to the field that we are interested in and potentially takes science further for the advancement of knowledge and towards the betterment of patient outcomes.”

When it comes to the extent to which Conflict of Interest (COI) influences research, Dr. Balasubramanian summarizes that COI can significantly influence all aspects of a research study – from framing the research question to the analysis and reporting. He considers that both conscious and subconscious biases have a role to play to differing extents depending on the context and the extent of conflict. He explains, “Disclosing COI helps the reader better understand the environment in which the work was based and the potential bias that the COI generates. If COI is undisclosed and comes to light later, it can significantly undermine the level of confidence in otherwise good-quality manuscripts.”

(by Wymen Chen, Brad Li)

June, 2023

Michael Bouvet

Dr. Michael Bouvet is the Director of Endocrine Surgery and Professor of Surgery at the University of California San Diego and Staff Physician and Senior Clinical Research Investigator at the VA San Diego Healthcare System. He earned his medical degree from University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. He then completed a residency in general surgery at UCSD followed by a fellowship in surgical oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Bouvet’s expertise includes performing surgery for benign and cancerous thyroid nodules; parathyroidectomy for hyperparathyroidism, whipple procedures for pancreatic cancer; minimally invasive robotic-assisted esophagectomy; and laparoscopic adrenal surgery. His research focuses on fluorescence-guided surgery for gastrointestinal and endocrine tumors. He has authored more than 450 articles and 35 book chapters. Dr. Bouvet is a Past President of the International Society for Fluorescence Guided Surgery and co-Director of the Center for Fluorescence Guided Surgery at UCSD. He is the Principal Investigator (PI) on several research grants from the NIH and Veterans Affairs and is the PI on a clinical trial of a nerve imaging agent for head and neck surgery.

Dr. Bouvet believes that peer review plays a crucial role in the scientific process by serving as a quality control mechanism and ensuring the reliability and validity of scientific research.

In his opinion, effective peer reviewers should possess a range of qualities and skills to conduct thorough and constructive evaluations of scientific research. For example, reviewers should have expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript they are reviewing, and pay close attention to the details of the manuscript, including the methodology, data, analysis, and conclusions. Moreover, reviewers should approach the review process with objectivity and impartiality, and at the same time be able to meet deadlines and provide timely feedback to authors and journal editors. He reckons that a good reviewer provides constructive feedback that helps authors improve their research. This includes specific suggestions for addressing weaknesses and enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

Dr. Bouvet emphasizes that it is critically important for authors to disclose any potential Conflict of Interest (COI) in their research. A COI exists when a person's financial, personal, or professional interests or relationships could potentially bias their objectivity or decision-making in the context of research. Authors must provide full and transparent disclosure of such conflicts to maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of their research.

“Peer reviewers play a vital role in the advancement of scientific progress. Their dedication, expertise, and commitment to upholding the quality and integrity of research are essential to the scientific community and society as a whole,” adds he.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

September, 2023

Costanza Chiapponi

Prof. Dr. Costanza Chiapponi is in charge of the departments of Endocrine Surgery at the University Hospital of Cologne and at the Evangelisches Klinikum Köln Weyertal (Cologne, Germany). Her research interests concentrate on clinical outcomes for patients with benign and malignant pathologies of the thyroid, the parathyroid, the adrenal glands and neuroendocrine tumors. She is fellow of the European Board of Surgery (FEBS endocrine surgery), member of the Chirurgische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endokrinologie (CAEK), the International Association of Endocrine Surgeons (IAES) and the European Society of Endocrine Surgeons (ESES). Learn more about Prof. Chiapponi here.

In Prof. Chiapponi’s opinion, peer review is the quality control of research publishing. It is subjective and partially influenced by the experience, interests, and current projects of the reviewers, but it provides feedback and fosters exchange between researchers. It is a valuable tool for ensuring the quality of scientific communication.With the constantly growing number of journals and publications, there is an increasing demand for peer reviewers. Peer review is mostly anonymous, unrewarded, and time-consuming. Consequently, several invitations to review might be declined, leading to delays in the publication of manuscripts. In order to motivate researchers to participate in the review process, some journals have started to publish the names of reviewers alongside the final manuscripts. Platforms like Publons, which track peer review and journal editing work, allow researchers to claim credit for their reviews. Additionally, some journals offer publishing fee reductions or waivers for their reviewers.

Prof. Chiapponi reckons that being offered the opportunity to review a manuscript should be regarded as an acknowledgement of one's expertise in the field, and reviewing for prestigious journals should be seen as an honor, though peer reviewing is often anonymous. She thinks that it serves as a way to connect with the academic community and to give back. Moreover, reviewing provides an opportunity to learn and stay updated in one‘s field of interest. Despite the perpetual time constraints, she tries to accept to review 2-3 manuscripts per month in her specific field of interest, which is endocrine surgery.

Institutional review board (IRB) approval is an essential requirement for research that cannot be omitted. Prof. Chiapponi points out that it ensures that research meets ethical standards, complies with institutional regulations and policies, and protects research participants.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

October, 2023

Gianluca Franceschini

Prof. Gianluca Franceschini is Associate Professor of General Surgery and Head of the Oncoplastic Surgery Unit for the treatment of breast cancer at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica, Rome, Italy. His current research focuses on breast cancer surgery with an emphasis on oncoplastic breast surgery, techniques of mastectomy with reconstruction and the use of biomaterials in breast-conserving surgery. He is Principal Investigator of some trials and research projects on breast cancer treatment and Member of the Editorial Board for several international scientific journals. Prof. Franceschini has been the winner of some international awards for high-quality scientific publications. He was included among the most influential scientists in the world in the "World's Top 2% Scientists" ranking, published by Stanford University and Elsevier for his scientific production in the year 2021. He has been engaged in the fight against breast cancer for over 20 years by participating in the activities of the non-profit organization, “Susan G. Komen Italia”, of which he is a Founding Member. Learn more about Prof. Franceschini here.

Prof. Franceschini thinks that peer review is crucial as it acts as a quality control mechanism ensuring that research work meets rigorous standards before publication. Through peer review, errors and biases are minimized improving the credibility and reliability of the research. The collaborative aspect of peer review encourages constructive feedback leading to improvements in methodology, analysis and overall scientific rigor. The system also facilitates the exchange of knowledge and ideas creating a dynamic intellectual environment; Furthermore, it protects against ethical concerns such as falsification of data or plagiarism. Ultimately, this process preserves the integrity of research, contributes to the advancement of knowledge and builds trust in the scientific community.

The current system of peer review, in Prof. Franceschini’s opinion, has some limitations, which include potential bias, lack of transparency and susceptibility to errors. Reviewers may have unconscious biases and the process may favor established theories over innovative ideas. Limited resources and time constraints can lead to inadequate assessments and the anonymity of reviewers can hinder accountability. Additionally, the system may have difficulty detecting plagiarism or misconduct. To improve this system, he points out that implementing double-blind and open peer review can mitigate bias and increase transparency. The use of innovative technological tools such as artificial intelligence for initial screening can speed up the process. Furthermore, establishing standardized reporting guidelines can improve the integrity of the review process. Incentivizing reviewers with recognition and structured training can also improve the quality and efficiency of peer review. Overall, a multifaceted approach involving transparency, technology and incentives is essential to improve the existing peer-review system.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Prof. Franceschini highlights that it is important for authors to adhere to reporting guidelines when preparing the manuscript as this improves transparency, methodological rigor and reproducibility in research. By following standardized structures, the authors ensure comprehensive reporting of key study components, facilitating accurate interpretation and validation of results. He reckons that adherence to reporting guidelines also aids reviewers in evaluating the study's quality, minimizing bias, and streamlining the peer-review process. Ultimately, rigorous compliance with reporting guidelines increases the reliability and credibility of scientific publications, helping to improve the quality of research.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

November, 2023

Iram Hussain

Dr. Iram Hussain is a board-certified endocrinologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA. She specializes in thyroid nodules, thyroid cancer, fine-needle aspiration biopsies, ethanol ablation, and radiofrequency ablation of thyroid lesions. She earned her medical degree at King Edward Medical University in Pakistan, internal medicine residency in Austin, Texas, and fellowship at UT Southwester. She has an additional Endocrine Certification in Neck Ultrasound (ECNU) and is also a Certified Clinical Densitometrist (CCD). Dr. Hussain has served on faculty at UTSW since 2015 and plays a key role in the education of fellows in diagnostic neck ultrasound and image-guided fine needle aspiration. She is also the Vice President of the North American Society of Interventional Endocrinologists (NASOIE), and one of the first endocrinologists to initiate a thyroid radiofrequency ablation program at an academic center in North America. Connect with her on Twitter @DrIramHussain.

GS: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Hussain: Peer review is essential in the publication of scientific articles – it acts as a quality control measure to identify articles that are scientifically robust and clinically relevant, and filters out articles that may have flaws with regards to methodology, interpretation of data or those that may not add significant knowledge to the existing literature. It is vital for the reviewer to be objective and unbiased, and also to be an expert in the subject being reviewed. To judge the scientific merit and content of an article, it is significant to have in depth knowledge of the subject and familiarity with the existing literature. Comments should always be constructive with the intent of improving the quality of the work, and should be devoid of personal opinions and biases.

GS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?

Dr. Hussain: When a paper is submitted for publication, it is our duty to read it with care and consideration, and to assess what value it brings to the scientific community. Although peer review is anonymous, it is essential to scientific integrity, and often contributes to significant improvement in the quality of research being published. Reviewers deserve a great deal of credit for the work that they do behind the scenes.

GS: Why do you choose to review for GS?

Dr. Hussain: An invitation to review an article is both an acknowledgment of one’s expertise and an opportunity to comment on the latest research in the field. I have mostly been contacted to review articles about thermal ablation/radiofrequency ablation of thyroid nodules, which is a significant clinical interest of mine, so it is an interesting learning experience to read the most recently submitted articles by colleagues who share similar interests. It is important to remain objective and see how each article contributes and adds to the existing body of literature.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Merima Goran

Assistant Professor Merima Goran works at Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, in Belgrade. She is general surgeon and oncology subspecialist, as well as Assistant Professor of surgery in Medical School, University of Belgrade. Her clinical interests cover many aspects of surgical oncology, but narrow fields of interest are breast cancer, thyroid cancer and parathyroid disease, skin melanoma and soft tissue sarcomas.

Limitations of the current peer-review system, according to Dr. Goran, include bias and expertise in the field under review. The authors should point out the methodological errors in the paper and make a proposal for improving the quality of the paper. Only well-reviewed and methodologically correct papers have scientific value. Paper should be sent for review only to authors whose narrow field of interest corresponds to the topic of the paper.

Advances in science and new scientific discoveries motivate Dr. Goran to peer review despite it being anonymous. She believes that this is the obligation of scientists who also write and publish papers. In this way, they will achieve a better quality of scientific and research work.

Dr. Goran believes it is crucial for authors to share their research data. As a clinician, she knows that sharing experience is very important in treating patients. Clinicians learn through quality scientific research. Also, good clinical practice guidelines are based on quality papers.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

December, 2023

Elena Jane Mason

Dr. Elena Jane Mason is an attending Breast Surgeon practicing in Rome, Italy. After graduating from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, she completed her training in General Surgery at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS with a two-year focus on Breast Surgery. She is now a PhD candidate in Gender Diseases. She is currently employed as a consultant Breast Surgeon in Ospedale Isola Tiberina – Gemelli Isola in Rome, and works pro bono with Susan G. Komen Italy, a non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance breast cancer awareness across the country. She is a member of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) and the Italian Association of Breast Surgeons (ANISC). Her recent publications have focused on oncoplastic breast surgery and DCIS, while her current field of research includes pregnancy-associated breast cancer and artificial intelligence in surgery.

GS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Mason: I believe the peer-review system to be a crucial step in the long road to publication, as it promotes a healthy and collaborative research. However, while keeping the service free of charge is essential to guarantee integrity, the current system is faced with great limitations. Most researchers providing peer reviews are also full-time clinicians and researchers, making their daily schedules often too full to accommodate further workload. Personally, I appreciate all the hard work my fellow researchers put into reviewing my papers before they go into publication, and feel compelled to provide a similar service when the Journal presents to me a paper written by a colleague. But I am often divided between the urge of accepting the review, and the fear of not having enough time to do a proper job. I find myself rejecting many requests just out of lack of time. I hope to see a growing appreciation for peer reviews in the medical community, and that a higher awareness will lead to the defining of dedicated windows of time for this precious activity.

GS: Why do you choose to review for GS?

Dr. Mason: As a clinician and researcher, I believe in peer-reviewed, open-access journals. However, because of their nature, these journals are more exposed than journals with publication fees to potential controversies. I offer my service hoping to provide an unbiased, thorough review in order to protect the quality of papers published in open-access journals, and enhance the merits of a system that provides unconditional free access to Science.

GS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?

Dr. Mason: In my experience both as a researcher and as a reviewer, I have often realised that, among the many merits provided by a thorough peer-review, the simple fact of having someone reading your research paper for the first time helps in pointing out many (big or small!) inaccuracies that can accumulate, when you read the same paper over and over again making small changes, without you even realising. Apart from the thorough examination of the intrinsic quality of a paper, which is of course the first goal a reviewer should achieve, I honestly believe that simply looking at a research paper with fresh eyes provides a great deal of refurbishment!

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)