In 2024, 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, 2024
Hamza N. Gokozan, The Ohio State University, USA
February, 2024
Tânia Rodrigues, Santa Maria Health School, Portugal
March, 2024
Prakasit Chirappapha, Mahidol University, Thailand
April, 2024
José Ignacio Rodríguez-Hermosa, Trueta University Hospital, Spain
May, 2024
Aris I Giotakis, Hippocration Hospital, Athens, Greece
July, 2024
Eun Jeong Jang, Dong-A University, Korea
August, 2024
José Luis Campos, Jesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Spain
September, 2024
Andrea Marongiu, University of Sassari, Italy
October, 2024
Seung Won Lee, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea
January, 2024
Hamza N. Gokozan
Dr. Hamza N. Gokozan is a triple board-certified pathologist (Anatomic Pathology/Clinical Pathology/Cytopathology) and an assistant professor of pathology at The Ohio State University College of Medicine. Shortly after his graduation from Pamukkale University Medical School in Turkey, he traveled to the US in 2013 for his post-doctoral research studies at The Ohio State University which was followed by AP/CP residency, chief residency, and cytopathology fellowship at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU). Upon completion of his training, he served as an assistant professor of pathology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City for three years. He has been publishing in the field of medicine, including ones in high impact pathology journals such as Modern Pathology, American Journal of Surgical Pathology, and Cancer Cytopathology, where he has also been contributing as a peer reviewer. He serves in USCAP and ASC annual meeting abstract review boards, and chairs the website committee of Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology. His research interests include integration of ancillary studies to daily cytopathology practice, quality improvement in cytopathology, digital pathology and tumors of endocrine/head and neck organs. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Gokozan sees subjectivity as the main limitation of the current peer-review system. Reviewer opinions may be influenced by where the publication is from, or who the submitter is. He suggests double-blind peer review to mitigate it. Another limitation is the reviewer experience. He explains, “I understand it may not be always the case due to reviewer pool availability, but personally appreciate my work being assigned to a reviewer who demonstrated a ‘true expertise’ in the field to evaluate my work. I also believe that reviewers should be rewarded for their time and expertise to advance science. Issuing Continuing Medical Education credits and promoting the reviewers who went above and beyond are few ideas already adopted by many journals!”
Speaking of the qualities a reviewer should possess, Dr. Gokozan reckons that he/she should have subject matter expertise demonstrated by written evidence of scholarship or clinical experience, an open mind for papers challenging current status quo, scientific rigor to evaluate the conclusions made in the paper based on the presented evidence, and time availability to submit a critical review on a timely fashion.
“I see peer review as a critical component of scientific publishing and an integral part of contributing to scientific advance. Remember that you are the gatekeepers of quality since peer-reviewed publications are regarded as the most trustworthy sources of scientific information,” says Dr. Gokozan.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Tânia Rodrigues
Tânia Marisa Pinto Rodrigues completed her PhD in Nursing Sciences in 2022 at the University of Porto's Abel Salazar Institute of Biomedical Sciences, a Master's Degree in Rehabilitation Nursing in 2013 at the Porto School of Nursing and a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing in 2005 at the Jean Piaget Northeast School of Health. She is an Adjunct Professor at the Santa Maria Health School, Researcher at the Research and Projects Center at the Santa Maria Health School and Researcher at the Research Center for Health Technologies and Services. She has published 5 articles in specialized journals and 2 book chapters. She has supervised 4 master's dissertations and co-supervised 3. She works in the areas of Medical and Health Sciences with an emphasis on Nursing. Her areas of interest are breast cancer, rehabilitation, independence, confusion, musculoskeletal injuries, occupational health and wound care. Learn more about her here.
According to Dr. Rodrigues, peer review is a crucial process in the scientific community because it guarantees the quality, reliability, and rigor of published work. It also ensures access to accurate and relevant information for the development of knowledge and decision-making. She thinks that this process is important because it contributes to: improving the quality of the work, as experts in the field evaluate the work, identify flaws, suggest changes that can improve the clarity, accuracy and relevance of the research; increasing reliability, ensuring impartiality; detecting plagiarism and misconduct, ensuring the integrity of the research; disseminating knowledge, selecting and publishing high quality research; strengthening the scientific community, and promoting sharing and collaboration between researchers, debate and the exchange of ideas. It benefits authors and the scientific community by making publications more robust.
To Dr. Rodrigues, the limitations of the current article review system include: 1) time, from submission to final decision, delaying its dissemination; 2) bias, due to the author's affiliation, nationality, among others, which can lead to the rejection of quality work and the acceptance of poor quality work; 3) lack of transparency, as it is a confidential process, which prevents the disclosure of the reviewer and the specific reasons for rejection, making it difficult for authors to learn; 4) lack of reproducibility, due to inconsistent reviews, making it difficult to compare results; and 5) workload, due to the fact that reviewers are volunteers, without pay, leading to the refusal of reviews. She believes that improving the peer-review system for scientific articles involves: 1) speeding up the process from submission to acceptance; 2) reducing bias by using pre-defined and transparent evaluation criteria, and double-blind review by not identifying authors and reviewers; 3) increasing transparency by publishing the names of reviewers and their opinions; 4) improving reproducibility with more robust and reliable evaluation systems; and 5) recognizing the work of reviewers by providing certificates and publishing the names of reviewers in published articles.
“Encouraging reviewers is important for scientific evolution. Their hard and dedicated work in reviewing articles is what makes it possible to guarantee the quality and reliability of the research, to identify flaws and suggest improvements, increasing the quality of the articles, ensuring impartiality, and making the work more robust. Their work is essential for the progression of knowledge. They are the pillar of the peer-review system, guaranteeing the integrity of research, driving scientific progress, and benefiting society as a whole,” says Dr. Rodrigues.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Prakasit Chirappapha
Dr. Prakasit Chirappapha received his Diploma in Thai Board of General Surgery and Diploma in Thai Sub-Board of Surgical Oncology from Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Afterwards, he was an official visitor at the Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in 2008 and a research fellow at European Institute of Oncology (EIO), Milan in 2012, where he conducted oncoplastic breast surgery studies. Dr. Chirappapha served as committee and secretariat general in the Thai Breast disease Society (TBS). Currently, he is an Associate Professor in the Breast and Endocrine Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand. His research primarily focuses on breast surgical oncology and oncoplastic breast surgery (breast reconstruction, mastopexy, and lipofilling).
Dr. Chirappapha thinks that a constructive review is the kind of review that encourages improvement. It focuses on the work and gives actionable advice or suggestions that motivates and informs researchers how to get better at what they do. Examples of this are reviews that comment on improving behaviour, refining processes, working on weaknesses, or adopting new perspectives. A destructive review, on the other hand, does not create creative thinking and tends to be negative, personal, and lacks guidance on how to enhance performance.
In Dr. Chirappapha’s opinion, addressing Conflict of Interest (COI) is crucial because it can introduce bias into research. It is essential for authors to disclose any COIs in their work to transparently reveal how their financial relationships with companies could influence the study's results. This is important even if the authors are confident that their findings will be unaffected.
“I review for GS because it is a quality journal and has a high level of reliability. It has been acknowledged and used as a reference in an international level,” says Dr. Chirappapha.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
José Ignacio Rodríguez-Hermosa
Dr. José Ignacio Rodríguez-Hermosa, MD, PhD, with more than 25 years of experience, is the Head of the Endocrine Surgery Unit of the Department of Surgery at the Trueta University Hospital in Girona, Catalonia, Spain. The Endocrine Surgery Unit covers all fields of thyroid, parathyroid and adrenal surgery. The Trueta University Hospital is the reference center for all endocrine oncological pathology and covers a population of 1 million inhabitants. He is a researcher at the Surgery Research Group of the University of Girona and also at IDIBGI-CERCA (Girona Biomedical Research Institute). Since 2010, he is an Associate Professor of the Department of Medical Sciences of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Girona. In the last 5 years, he has been part of the Ethics Committee of the Trueta University Hospital in Girona. His latest publications focus on the laparoscopic approach to adrenal pathology, both 2D laparoscopy and 3D laparoscopy.
Dr. Rodríguez-Hermosa indicates that there are several important things in the preparation of a manuscript. There must be no conflicts of interest in the research group. The design of the study should be appropriate. In addition, the results must be correct and consistent with those of other groups. Finally, the statistical study must have an impact and the conclusions should be consistent.
“Although peer reviewing takes up a lot of our time and the review of scientific articles is not remunerated, it is a personal satisfaction, given that the journal sends it for evaluation to experts on the topic,” says Dr. Rodríguez-Hermosa.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Aris I Giotakis
Dr. Aris I. Giotakis is an Otorhinolaryngologist and Biologist currently working in Athens. After completing his residency training in 2019 at the Univ.-ENT Clinic in Innsbruck, Austria, he continued as a consultant for three years at the same department. His research and clinical interests focused on rhinology, head and neck cancer and salivary gland diseases. Projects worth mentioning are immunofluorescence image cytometry in chronic rhinosinusitis and oropharyngeal cancer, correlation of computed tomography with skeletal nasal obstruction, functional rhinologic procedures and molecular markers in head and neck cancer. The latter allowed him to fulfill his PhD in 2016. After achieving his habilitation (Ass. Professor) in 2021 in Austria, he continued his professional career at the First Univ. ENT Clinic in Athens. He has more than 40 publications in PubMed, 27 of which as a first or corresponding author, and he is reviewer in more than 25 journals.
Dr. Giotakis thinks that peer review is a small, still necessary, link in the long science-chain. It is one of the last checkpoints before publication, with the last being the Editor. It is also a clear view and unbiased interpretation of one’s work, with the latter being often profited from this process. In his opinion, journals should put a great value and effort on finding proper reviewers. Otherwise, science is in jeopardy.
According to Dr. Giotakis, a reviewer should have conducted research, analyzed results and written manuscripts on his/her own, in order to be able to review a manuscript. Furthermore, he reckons that a reviewer should be familiar with the subject written. Occasionally, reviewers might not be able to assess everything in a manuscript properly. Therefore, the more reviewers assess a manuscript, the better.
Speaking of what motivates him to do peer reviewing, Dr. Giotakis says, “One of the main reasons is my former Director in the Univ.-ENT Clinic in Innsbruck, Austria, Prof. Herbert Riechelmann. With his substantial motivation, he really did a great job in training me and several other colleagues in solid research and scientific writing. I am trying to do the same with my comments, whenever I get the chance. I also have to mention two reviewers who reviewed my manuscripts in the past, who did the same. Another reason is to ensure high-quality scientific writing. I am putting a lot of effort into writing my texts, and I am trying to improve low-quality manuscripts if the research is solid. Furthermore, it is one of my duties as an academic, among patients and surgery, education of colleagues and students, and conducting and publishing research. Lastly, my father, Prof. Ioannis Giotakis, also ENT, always motivated me to follow his example and perform peer reviewing.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Eun Jeong Jang
Dr. Eun Jeong Jang currently serves in Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea. She is an Assistant Professor at Division of Liver Transplantation and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreas Surgery. Her main clinical interests include hepatobiliary surgery and liver transplantation, with a particular focus on robotic surgery. She has experience in performing robotic surgeries for liver, pancreas, and liver donor procedures, which are also her current research focuses.
In Dr. Jang’s opinion, the existing peer-review system, while foundational to scientific publishing, has several limitations. One primary issue is the potential for bias, which can manifest as favoritism towards established researchers, institutions, or particular theoretical perspectives. This is especially problematic in the context of cutting-edge research, where the specificity of the content often makes it possible to infer the identity of the authors or the institution, even in a double-blind review process. This issue is exacerbated when reviewers are selected based on their expertise in a narrow field, as they may be more likely to recognize the work of their peers. While this recognition can potentially compromise the objectivity of the review, it is also an unavoidable aspect of ensuring that the review is conducted by someone with the necessary expertise. Thus, there exists an inherent tension between the need for expert evaluation and the risk of bias in the peer-review process. To mitigate these challenges, she believes it is essential that reviewers should consistently prioritize fairness and impartiality in the reviews.
From Dr. Jang’s perspective, reviewers should approach the review process with a commitment to fairness, objectivity, and constructive criticism. They must carefully assess the scientific rigor, methodological soundness, and originality of the work, while being mindful of their own potential biases. Additionally, adhering to deadlines is extremely important, as timeliness is crucial; delays in the review process can impede the progress of scientific research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
José Luis Campos
Dr. José Luis Campos, DVM, MSc, PhD, is a researcher in the Microsurgery Department at the Jesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Spain. The department specializes in all areas of experimental microsurgery, including vascular and nerve anastomoses, ocular surgery, robotic microsurgery, and the application of supermicrosurgery techniques in lymphatic vessels. He focuses on the study of secondary lymphedema and has been training specialized surgeons in lymphatic-venous anastomoses and vascularized lymph node transplantation in experimental animal models for over 7 years. Dr. Campos began his career as a veterinary surgeon in 2012. He teaches in various Master's programs both nationally and internationally and actively participates in scientific dissemination at surgical conferences worldwide. His early research focused on validating animal models for the study of secondary lymphedema. His current research interests include lymphedema treatment using biomaterials, studying the lymphatic system in experimental animals, and robotic supermicrosurgery.
According to Dr. Campos, peer review serves as a critical quality-control mechanism in scientific publishing, ensuring that only studies meeting high standards of validity, significance, and originality are published. This process operates independently of the journal's reputation or the authors' prominence, thereby upholding academic integrity. Reviewers are tasked with providing detailed and constructive feedback to help authors enhance their manuscripts, thereby increasing the clarity and impact of the research. While achieving complete objectivity is challenging, a good reviewer should strive to minimize bias. Conflicts of interest, especially when reviewers know the authors, and personal opinions are common sources of bias that must be consciously avoided. Furthermore, a competent reviewer should maintain a constructive and respectful attitude, even when a manuscript does not meet the criteria for publication. In such cases, the reviewer can offer valuable insights that guide authors in improving their work, ultimately contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Campos strongly believes that sharing research data is essential in today's scientific landscape. Transparency in data sharing not only allows for the replication and verification of results but also fosters collaboration among researchers, accelerates the advancement of knowledge, and drives innovation. When data are made available, other scientists can build upon that work, developing new ideas and addressing questions that may not have been initially considered. Moreover, data accessibility promotes trust in scientific findings by enabling more thorough and open evaluation by the community. In a world where science must address complex challenges, data sharing becomes a fundamental pillar for collective progress.
“I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to all reviewers who tirelessly work behind the scenes to ensure the quality and rigor of scientific research. Your efforts, though often unseen, are crucial to the advancement of knowledge. Being a reviewer is an act of intellectual generosity and a commitment to scientific excellence. To all those who dedicate their time and expertise to this task, I encourage you to continue, knowing that your work has a profound and lasting impact on the scientific community. Every constructive review not only enhances a manuscript but also contributes to the development of better researchers and strengthens our field,” says Dr. Campos.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Andrea Marongiu
Dr. Andrea Marongiu is a Nuclear Medicine specialist and researcher at the Unit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy, University of Sassari, Italy. He received his medical degree from the University of Sassari and completed a residency in Nuclear Medicine at the same University. He is a member of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (AIMN) and the Italian Association of Medical Endocrinologists (AME). His research focuses on thyroid cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, myeloma and degenerative diseases of the central nervous system. He has been awarded some prizes in the national congresses of AIMN for scientific contributions orally presented in the specific sections. He is an official teacher of "Nuclear Medicine and Radiobiology" to medical students and medical graduates at the University of Sassari.
Dr. Marongiu thinks that reviewers should be impartial, humble, and scientifically curious. They should be critical but constructive, and should provide useful feedback to the authors, helping them improve their work. Furthermore, reviewers should accept to review scientific manuscripts on topics in which they have adequate experience.
In Dr. Marongiu's opinion, reviewers should review the manuscript completely anonymously without knowing the authors. They must evaluate the main aspects that characterize a scientific study, such as, among others, originality (taking into account any other studies on the topic already published and reported in the literature by the same author or by different authors), the current nature of the study, the correctness of the study design, the type of study (prospective or retrospective), the modernity of the equipment possibly used, and the clinical impact of the study. The study should give a clear message in the diagnostic and therapeutic field. Furthermore, the study should include an exhaustive update of the bibliographical references.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Seung Won Lee
Prof. Dr. Seung Won Lee received his Bachelor's degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Seoul National University in 2011. He then earned his MD from CHA University in 2015, followed by a PhD from the same university in 2018. Previously, he served as the chief of the Goseo Public Health Center and then as the Chair of the Data Science Department at Sejong University. Since 2022, he has served as an Associate Professor in the Department of Precision Medicine at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine. His research areas include Medical AI, Medical Big Data, and Digital Health. Learn more about him here.
According to Prof. Dr. Lee, peer review is a fundamental pillar of the scientific process, serving several crucial functions. Firstly, it acts as a filter, ensuring that published research meets high standards of methodology, analysis, and interpretation. This helps maintain the integrity and reliability of scientific literature. Secondly, the process often leads to significant improvements in manuscripts. Reviewers can identify weaknesses, suggest additional analyses, or point out alternative interpretations, all of which can enhance the final publication. In addition, peer review provides a level of validation for research findings. While it is not infallible, it does offer some assurance that the work has been critically examined by experts in the field. He also sometimes spots errors in methodology or analysis that authors might have missed. In rare cases, peer review can also help detect fraudulent or unethical research practices. Finally, the process fosters a dialogue between researchers, promoting the exchange of ideas and potentially sparking new research directions.
In Dr. Lee’s opinion, on one hand, some reviewers may have unconscious biases towards certain methodologies, theories, or even institutions or authors. And the process can be slow, delaying the dissemination of important findings. It is because reviewers often do not receive formal recognition for their time and effort. Interview like this may help this issue. On the other hand, he reckons that the quality of reviews can vary greatly depending on the reviewer's expertise and dedication. This variability means that reviewers might not catch all errors, especially in highly specialized or interdisciplinary research. To improve the system, implementing more widespread use of double-blind or even triple-blind reviews to reduce bias could be carried out. A better system for recognizing and rewarding high-quality peer review is also needed. As an AI researcher, Dr. Lee thinks cautiously utilizing AI tools to assist in initial screenings or to check for statistical errors can be helpful, freeing up reviewer time for more in-depth analysis.
Lastly, Dr. Lee would like to say a few words to encourage his peers, “Your work is the unsung hero of scientific progress. Every hour you spend carefully examining a manuscript, every thoughtful comment you make, and every flaw you catch contributes immensely to the advancement of our collective knowledge. I admit the task can sometimes feel thankless. However, know that your efforts ripple outward, improving the quality of published research, guiding authors towards stronger work, and ultimately benefiting society through more robust scientific findings. Also, together, if we have a chance to do, let us actively promote and implement a robust reward system for reviewers, such as offering academic credits, financial compensation, or formal recognition in career advancement processes. Let us commit to this crucial aspect of scientific progress.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
