In 2023, TRO 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.
April, 2023
Yasmine Kanaan, Howard University, USA
August, 2023
Takashi Mizowaki, Kyoto University, Japan
November, 2023
Sérgio Araújo Andrade, University of Itaúna, Brazil
April, 2023
Yasmine M Kanaan
Dr. Yasmine Kanaan is an Associate Professor at Howard University College of Medicine and Howard University Cancer Center in Washington DC, USA. She has extensive collaborative research efforts in directions that delineate molecular differences in breast cancers amongst the two ethnic groups (African Americans and European Americans). The aims of this will help identify ethnicity-specific markers for breast cancer progression and in developing a more tailored treatment approach leading to better management of breast cancer in African American women. Dr. Kanaan's Lab is focusing on 1) researching to refine the diagnostic criteria for the basal-like phenotype, particularly as related to cancers in African American women, while simultaneously identifying molecular features that can be used as markers and clues for further studies into the pathogenesis of these cancers and 2) the development of novel approaches for prevention and treatment of breast and prostate cancer. Connect with Dr. Kanaan on LinkedIn.
TRO: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Kanaan: The main limitations of the existing peer-review system are the reviewers.
- Availability: It is difficult to find reviewers based on their knowledge of the materials to review and would be willing or available. This difficulty might lead the journals to use reviewers based on characteristics other than their knowledge in relevant areas.Improvements to peer review: Create incentives for reviewers and refine how reviewers are selected.
- Lack of knowledge: Lack of the reviewers’ knowledge in the area they are reviewing might lead to a misconception to detect problems/errors in the submitted manuscript, and even misunderstanding of the concept presented in the reviewed work. Some reviewers request comprehensive and detailed materials which fit a chapter in a book and not a manuscript.Improvements to peer review: Invite experts in the field of the submitted manuscript to read and offer their feedback to the journal/editor.
- Disparities in opinions between reviewers. Some journals assign 3-5 reviewers to review the same manuscript which makes it very difficult to submit a paper that will be liked by all the reviewers and reduce the probability of accepting the paper.
Improvements to peer review: Limit the number of reviewers to 3.
TRO: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Kanaan: The reviewing process can be difficult for the researchers who must go through rounds of editing and answering reviewers’ comments before a decision is made in the form of acceptance or rejection. Sometimes the peer review is constructive criticism and offers suggestions, positive feedback/critique, and solutions for potential improvement on how to make the manuscript better; whereas destructive criticism sometimes is disrespectful, offers no help, and mocks the author’s flaws. But sometimes destructive criticism can have some truth to it and it is the responsibility of the author to decide if the criticism is valid and take the positive side of the criticism.
TRO: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would COI influence research?
Dr. Kanaan: COI is a critical concern. As research becomes more collaborative nationally and internationally, it becomes more difficult to find reviewers without COI. Reviewers can see the names of the authors and their institutions, that reviews preferentially accept or reject articles based on personal interest, feel threatened and competition to their scientific fame when reviewing a new scientific and innovative finding, and thus lead to biased peer review.
Improvements to peer review: Blinded reviews, in which reviewers do not know the demographic of the authors of the manuscript they are judging could eliminate some biases. The anonymized reviewing process remains opaque and more often it is hard to do this because papers often refer to prior work or to an institution where the research occurred.
TRO: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Kanaan: I am a faculty member with a challenging academic workload including teaching, mentoring, research, and serving in different departmental and institutional committees. These responsibilities sometimes discourage me from participating in peer review. Yet, since my institution acknowledges peer review as a performance metric, I give my time and effort voluntarily when I have a chance to do so because it is an important element to strengthen my CV and fulfil the requirements for my academic career, promotion, and science advancement.
(by Brad Li, Teresa Lin)
August, 2023
Takashi Mizowaki
Dr. Takashi Mizowaki, is a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan. He specializes in Radiation Oncology, especially in prostate cancer and brain tumors. He is also an expert on high-precision external-beam radiation therapy, including stereotactic irradiation, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). In addition, he has been involved in the development of an integrated IGRT system named Vero4DRT (MHI-TM2000) and OXRAY, which realized not only moving-tumor tracking radiotherapy under real-time continuous monitoring but also a new irradiation technique (Dynamic SwingArc irradiation). He has published over 300 publications. He is the Managing Director of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Mizowaki emphasizes the importance of peer review in science. It ensures and improves the quality of scientific papers and contribute to the future development of science. Though peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, he thinks it would be good for his own learning, which motivates him to go on peer review.
Furthermore, Dr. Mizowaki thinks that without an institutional review board (IRB) approval process, it is difficult to confirm the ethical and scientific content of the research.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
November, 2023
Sérgio Araújo Andrade
Dr. Sérgio Araújo Andrade, is Professor of Dentistry at the University of Itaúna, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Additionally, he is a researcher associated at the Optics and Photonics Research Center at the University of São Paulo, Brazil and the Biological Chemistry Center at the Federal University of São João del Rei, Brazil. He graduated in Dentistry in 1996, has a Master's degree in Biotechnology and Entrepreneurship and PhD in Biotechnology Applied to Health, with lines of research focused on the screening/diagnosis of oral lesions and the development of technological products in the health area. In 2016 he was awarded 1st place by the British Medical Journal in conjunction with the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel of the Brazilian Ministry of Education, for his research in screening/diagnosis of oral lesions, including oral cancer. He published as co-author a chapter of the official book of the World Federation of Laser Dentistry in 2018. He is responsible for the process from ideation, prototyping, through the Licensing Agreement to registration with the Brazilian Health Surveillance of a patent for a product intended for measurement and classification of oral lesions. His research focuses on the areas of oral pathology, screening and diagnosis of oral lesions, biophotonics, laser, fluorescence, oral cancer, bioethics, smoking, electronic cigarettes, innovation, research and development of technological products for health. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Andrade thinks that the main qualities associated with a good reviewer are discernment to act only on topics within their domain, ethics, impartiality and agility in the review process so that science flows at a pace that current times require.
According to Dr. Andrade, as peer review is a subjective process, it is subject to even unconscious bias. Furthermore, as there is no established system for valuing reviewers, who become anonymous figures within the process, many researchers with great knowledge are not interested in the review process, making science slower. There is a need for studies that create a mechanism for personal and curricular appreciation of reviewers because, in most published articles, there is a large contribution from reviewers that make that article more appropriate to scientific principles.
Peer review is a vital and indispensable process for scientific publications. Dr. Andrade reckons that without a well-established peer review process within a scientific publication system, there is no way to guarantee the minimum requirements necessary for a scientific publication.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
