In 2023, AMJ 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.

February, 2023
Jeffrey Ng, National University Hospital, Singapore

May, 2023
Eleanor Liu, Northern Care Alliance NHS Trust, UK

June, 2023
Lakshmi Kannan, Pikeville Medical Center, USA

August, 2023
Nilnetre Mahathanaruk, Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand

October, 2023
Lori M. DeShetler, The University of Toledo, USA

November, 2023
Jacob E. Hoerter, University of Louisville, USA

December, 2023
Salam Bennouar, Blida 1 University, Algeria

February, 2023

Jeffrey Ng

Dr. Jeffrey Ng is currently the Clinical Director of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine at National University Hospital, Singapore. In 2018, he received training at Samsung Medical Centre, Seoul, South Korea, for interventional pulmonology under the supervision of Prof. Kim Hojoong. He has been pursuing his interest in combined EBUS EUS-B FNA for complete mediastinal staging in lung cancer and other clinical applications as part of delivering patient-centric care. As part of therapeutic bronchoscopy work, whether within or without ICU, rigid bronchoscopy, airway stenting, thermal ablative and cryotherapy are part of his expertise. He has been a serving executive member of the Singapore Thoracic Society since 2015 and has been involved in organizing continuing medical education activities. In 2023, he will be a member of the local organizing committee for the 27^th Asia Pacific Society of Respirology (APSR) Congress held in Singapore.

AMJ: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Ng: Peer review ensures novelty, appropriateness of method, clarity, validity of conclusion and relevance of scientific publication. This process harnesses aggregated independent assessment of relevant structured criteria with the incorporation of delayed intuitive judgment to facilitate optimal decision-making. Peer reviewers and the process are crucial to ensuring and safekeeping the ethical value, quality and robustness of scientific publications. If the process is pursued with diligence and consistency, there is greater assurance that publications will serve the greater good. Moreover, there is positive synergy when reviewers gain critical insights through the rigors of reading and critical evaluation of the latest works.

AMJ: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Ng: Reviewers have to be positive and always provide constructive comments to improve research and publication work. However, at appropriate times, they need to exercise their right to reject kindly. In the practice of balance, they also need to manage work and life so as not to work themselves into a detrimental singularity. In contemporary times, Cal Newport describes practices leading to deep work, batching and scheduling time to work without distractions. His ideas of digital minimalism may help reviewers manage distractions from modern-day digital technology. In ancient times, Seneca described being able to work in spite of the noisy and busy environment of ancient Roman cities. Together, they may provide valuable insights into how best to manage a continuum of time, self, work, and life balance.

AMJ: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Ng: I feel happy after reviewing an article that addresses my interest and passion. I am not sure of the exact reason, and I am still in the midst of processing this down to fine granularity. It may be because reviewing articles gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I have contributed to the improvement, addresses my need for purpose and gives me enjoyment from reading well-written work.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

May, 2023

Eleanor Liu

Dr.Eleanor Liu is a Gastroenterology consultant at the Northern Care Alliance NHS Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. She obtained her medical degree from the University of Leeds, UK, and completed her Gastroenterology and General Internal Medicine specialty training in Manchester, UK in 2023. Her area of interest within Gastroenterology is Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), and during her specialty training, she completed a 2-year advanced IBD fellowship. Her research interests within IBD include women’s health and reproductive issues, dysplasia in IBD and early diagnosis and outcomes. Recent research projects include a questionnaire study looking at the knowledge, attitudes and contraceptive preferences in women of childbearing age living with IBD, and a study looking at healthcare professionals’ knowledge and decision making in managing IBD in pregnancy. She is currently a committee member of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) IBD clinical research group.

In Dr. Liu’s opinion, peer review is an essential part of academia and scientific publishing. It ensures that published work is valid and authentic, and promotes a culture of research integrity. The feedback she has received on her work from peer reviewers is invaluable in improving her work for publication. Furthermore, the process of peer review can inspire future research ideas by generating new research questions, which in turn continues the advancement of research in that field.

Dr. Liu reckons that a good peer reviewer should possess several important qualities. Firstly, it is essential that they have relevant expertise in the field so that they are able to provide a valid unbiased review with the appropriate background and knowledge of pre-existing research in the field. Reviewers should be effective at communicating feedback efficiently and constructively, whilst also providing suggestions for improvements. Lastly, we should recognize that all reviewers are individual and will have a slightly different approach to the peer-review process. “Although peer review can be time-consuming, it is an extremely rewarding task and I would encourage new reviewers to persevere with the process as it can be quite daunting at the beginning,” she adds.

Additionally, Dr. Liu believes it is vital for authors to declare Conflict of Interest (COI) so there is full transparency. COI can also apply to reviewers and editors; and can be financial and non-financial; personal or professional interests. Almost all medical journals require authors to declare potential COI, but less so for reviewers. By declaring COI, the risk of bias is minimized, thus promoting a culture of research integrity.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

June, 2023

Lakshmi Kannan

Dr. Lakshmi Kannan has been the Director of the Division of Nephrology at Pikeville Medical Center in Pikeville, Kentucky since January 2023 and an Adjunct Faculty Member at the University of Pikeville's Kentucky College of Osteopathic Medicine since July 2021. She obtained her medical degree from Stanley Medical College, Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR University, India, in March 2012. After completing Residency in Internal Medicine at Monmouth Medical Center (2016-2019), she pursued a Fellowship in Nephrology at the University of Virginia Health System (2019-2021). Dr. Kannan’s passion for research during clinical practice and medical education has been a driving force throughout her career. Before her residency in the US, she engaged in research with the Howard University gastroenterology group, focusing on identifying biomarkers for colon cancer and pre-cancerous lesions. During her Nephrology fellowship, she collaborated on a study of the circadian rhythm of extracellular vesicles in kidney diseases, based on 24-hour urine collection. Her research interests encompass various aspects of kidney diseases, including acute kidney injury, tubulointerstitial nephritis, glomerular diseases, and diabetic kidney disease. Currently, she is actively engaged in a cross-sectional observational study with the University of Pikeville Kentucky College of Osteopathic Medicine. This study investigates the use of ECMO and SCUF for volume management in patients with COVID-19 and diabetic kidney disease in the Eastern Kentucky Region. Connect with Dr. Kannan through Twitter.

From Dr. Kannan’s point of view, a healthy peer-review system is a crucial component of maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific research. It functions as a robust quality control measure to identify and rectify methodological flaws, data misinterpretations, and writing deficiencies in scholarly publications. This process transcends mere grammar and formatting, extending to evaluating references, ethical protocols, results, and interpretations. It is vital to recognize that each published paper can significantly influence future research and professional practices. Peer review serves as a primary defense against compromised research quality within scholarly journals. Editors heavily rely on this system to make informed decisions about accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Effective peer review provides authors with constructive feedback, helping them refine their work by identifying strengths and weaknesses. This necessitates thorough comprehension of the manuscript, assessing its novelty, significance, scientific rigor, and presentation. Peer review is a cornerstone for upholding the trustworthiness and excellence of scientific contributions. It acts as a deterrent against academic misconduct and contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge. She adds, “To ensure a robust peer-review system, preventing conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers is paramount. Reviewers should conduct meticulous, systematic, and clear evaluations that benefit all stakeholders. Embracing modern electronic editorial systems and streamlining the process allow reviewers and authors to focus on the evaluation process itself.”

According to Dr. Kannan, an effective reviewer should possess the following essential qualities. First, a strong grasp of the subject matter is paramount, ensuring the reviewer comprehends the nuances of the research being evaluated. Second, objectivity is vital, allowing the reviewer to assess the work impartially and without personal biases. Third, attention to detail enables the identification of methodological flaws, inconsistencies, and gaps in the research. Fourth, excellent communication skills are necessary to provide clear and constructive feedback to authors and editors. Fifth, time management is crucial to meet review deadlines while conducting a thorough evaluation. Lastly, ethical integrity ensures that the reviewer upholds confidentiality, avoids conflicts of interest, and acts with professionalism throughout the review process.

Balancing the demands of a scientist/doctor is indeed challenging. Dr. Kannan shares, “Allocating time for peer review requires careful time management. I prioritize by setting dedicated periods for reviewing, factoring it into my overall schedule. Additionally, utilizing efficient review tools and establishing clear boundaries help ensure that I can contribute effectively to the peer-review process without compromising my primary responsibilities.”

Speaking of the importance of institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Kannan stresses that obtaining IRB approval is crucial for research to ensure ethical and legal standards are upheld. The IRB evaluates research protocols to safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects involved. If this process is omitted, ethical concerns may arise, leading to potential harm to participants and damaging the credibility of the research. Informed consent, privacy, and appropriate research methods are rigorously assessed by the IRB. Without this oversight, the research may face legal repercussions, loss of funding, and publication barriers due to ethical violations, ultimately undermining the integrity of the scientific community.

(By Wei-En Fan, Brad Li)

August, 2023

Nilnetre Mahathanaruk

Dr. Nilnetre Mahathanaruk, MD, currently serves as an instructor and a consultant at Ramathibodi hospital, Thailand. She is specialized in laryngology and also a co-founder of Voice and Swallowing clinic at Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department, Ramathibodi Hospital. She has high interests in the scope of professional and transgender voice and is currently working in conjunction with voice training center for holistic professional voice care. Apart from the medical field, she is also working in the field of education. She is a certified instructor of Innovative Teaching Scholars Programs from Center for Professional Development, Stanford University.

AMJ: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Mahathanaruk: Peer review is a critical process in confirming the accuracy and reliability in the research area. Feedback from the process widens your point of view and can provide you with notices beyond your imagination. It can both confirm what you already know, correct what you misunderstand, and enhance your thinking capacity at the same time. In comparison with the developmental cycle of PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act), peer review plays in “Check” part in order to confirm the correct knowledge and increase the quality of the work to be published.

AMJ: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Mahathanaruk: First, and most importantly, reviewers should know the importance of their role. Publications may have significant impact to the people of the society once they are published. Being a reviewer means you bear a responsibility of those publications too. If what is published turns out to be inaccurate, unreliable, or even false, you are also responsible for the blame. Secondly, understanding the article objective or even finding its true worth are the main goal of reviewing one’s article. Recent educational forum seems to focus on innovation while confirmation of current strategy and pitfalls or failure are considered not important. In real life, people seek new knowledge so much that sometimes they forget that the easiest and safest way may be what had been done for ages ago. And pitfalls and failures are the most valuable and basic thing one needs to know before one develops. Therefore, even if an article does not show any innovation, it may have some value in serving educational purpose. Lastly, reviewers should always put themselves in the author’s shoes. To be purposefully tough without actual benefit in the publication does not do anyone any good. The duration is of critical value, reviewer needs time in order to review effectively but the authors are waiting impatiently as well. Never leave the article unread until the last minute and review in a hurry. The reviewing result may not be as it should be. Remember - reviewers are responsible for the publications themselves as well.

AMJ: 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. Mahathanaruk: What you are doing is the most crucial part in publication. Doing some good things behind the scene is honorable. Your review helps the authors to become better, colleagues to gain reliable knowledge, and thus the society to receive good care under evidence-based practice.

AMJ: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?

Dr. Mahathanaruk: Yes, I do think following guidelines make it easier for authors to provide good works. The guidelines merely give you guidance, a scope of what you need to present, what the reviewers and readers expect from you for a reliable result. It also benefits new reviewers in pointing out what they should review. Most of the guidelines have some similarities and to understand the point of guidelines is more important than just to follow it blindly.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

October, 2023

Lori M. DeShetler

Dr. Lori DeShetler is an Associate Professor and Assistant Dean for Assessment and Accreditation in the Department of Medical Education at The University of Toledo. She oversees accreditation, CQI, program evaluation, and curriculum mapping for the MD program, and college assessment. Dr. DeShetler chairs the Curriculum Evaluation, Faculty Rules and Regulations, and Item Review Committees. She successfully led the medical school through its LCME accreditation visit in 2021 and subsequently developed a CQI dashboard to monitor accreditation elements. She serves on the AAMC Curriculum Committee, is faculty of the Harvard Macy Institute “A Systems Approach to Assessment in Health Professions Education” course, and is an Ohio credentialed Teacher Evaluator. Her research interests include attitudes and knowledge of health profession students, program evaluation, and assessment. She is currently collaborating on studies regarding attitudes and knowledge toward the transgender population, emotional language in medical student feedback, and third-party resource use among medical students. Connect with Dr. DeShetler on LinkedIn.

In Dr. DeShetler’s opinion, the existing peer-review system is limited by many factors including the number, availability, and expertise of volunteers in addition to the methods journals use to attract and develop a robust pool of reviewers. Professionals are inundated with day-to-day responsibilities, which makes it difficult to also balance service and scholarly activity. However, the peer-review process is crucial to upholding the integrity of published research. Therefore, she thinks that to address a limited number of peer reviewers, the process must be efficient and provide flexibility for the reviewer while also enabling the author to receive constructive feedback in a timely manner. To further expand the network, opportunities to serve as a peer reviewer could be shared via professional organizations and social media platforms, and institutional leadership can encourage faculty to participate. Peer reviewers serve to reciprocate the responsibility and contribute to the research community while gaining knowledge and staying current with the given topic.

Dr. DeShetler points out that reviews are written by humans and thus, some degree of subjectivity is inherent. However, to maintain the utmost level of objectivity, a reviewer should recognize their own biases to limit the impact they have on the review. It is vital for reviewers to thoroughly read the manuscript and recommend ways it can be improved. An objective review should consider the existing literature and what the paper will add to the conversation, relying on scientific evidence rather than personal opinions. Reviewers should maintain a positive tone, provide clear explanations for their critique, and offer specific suggestions to enhance the manuscript.

According to Dr. DeShetler, authors have an ethical obligation to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI) to assure readers that there are not competing interests or influences on the research. “Such COI may be financial, personal involvement with an organization, or benefits related to the project. COI has the potential to cause research outcomes that are different than what may have resulted if the conflict did not exist. Reporting COI is critical for transparency and trust that a fair process was followed to support the conclusions of the published material,” adds she.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

November, 2023

Jacob E. Hoerter

Born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky, Dr. Jacob E. Hoerter sought to follow in the footsteps of his late grandfather John, a clinician scientist. He studied biochemistry and molecular biology at his father’s alma mater, Bellarmine University, before receiving his Doctor of Medicine at the University of Louisville. He is a senior resident in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, Dr. Hoerter is currently applying for fellowship in Head and Neck Oncologic Surgery and Microvascular Reconstruction. His research interests began in basic science but have shifted during his training in translational research and head and neck surgery. Presently, his academic efforts are in clinical head and neck oncology, practice management, quality improvement, and clinical education.

Dr. Hoerter thinks that peer review is critical for the integrity of the ever-growing body of scientific literature. The idealist in him believes science to be the greatest truth in our world; the realist, however, recognizes that science is studied, authored, and published by humans and is inherently subject to many biases. Through quality and honest peer review are we able to strive toward this ideal and approach the closest possible objectivity in scientific literature.

True objectivity is difficult to maintain as we are all subject to implicit biases, conscious and otherwise. In Dr. Hoerter’s opinion, an objective review is blinded to author name, education, affiliation, and all other demographic factors. It should be aware of relevant existing literature, but open to novel perspectives and findings. Finally, it should rely on the assumption of ethical acquisition and reporting of data as attested by the authors with critical review of study power, scientific method, and statistical analyses. He attempts to ensure objectivity in his reviews by blinding them when not already performed by the journal and adhering to the aforementioned opinions. He tries his best to maintain objectivity in the presence of imperfect or atypically styled writing as many authors publish in English despite it being a foreign language, a feat he greatly respects and commends.

Disclosures are pertinent to the context of a review and represent an author’s self-awareness and integrity in the research process. Dr. Hoerter indicates that including them in a review is of pertinence to appreciate both the expertise and special circumstances these conflicts bring, while exploring the potential influence of unrecognized bias. A conflict of interest could compromise an investigation at its foundation or be a relevant but uninfluential footnote in the manuscript – and it is of vital importance to consider in an objective review.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

December, 2023

Salam Bennouar

Dr. Bennouar Salam is an associate professor in Medical Biochemistry at the University Hospital Center, and the Faculty of Medicine of Blida 1 University, Algeria. She graduated as a Doctor in Pharmacy with specialized medical studies in biochemistry at the Badji Mokhtar University, Annaba (2010). She was head of the central biological analysis laboratory, EPH Souk Ahras (2011-2015). Her clinical interests include the area of nutrition-body composition, vitamin d, obesity, biochemistry of cardiometabolic diseases and metabolic syndrome and biological diagnostics. She is trained in critical reading of scientific articles and biostatics. She received the Laureate of the Charle E Ragus Nutrition Award attributed by the American Nutrition Society-2022 for the most cited article in 2021. Learn more about her here.

In Dr. Salam’s opinion, the review process for scientific articles serves a triple purpose: for the authors, for the journal and for the scientific community as a whole. A relevant review would enable authors to improve the methodology and editing of their manuscripts, enable the journal to maintain (or improve) its quality and scientific reputation, and contribute to the selection for publication of articles of a high methodological level.

Dr. Salam points out that in the process of reviewing scientific articles, two main biases are inevitable. Firstly, a subjective evaluation, in favor or against the article or the author. To minimize subjective opinions, double-blind evaluation is crucial, in order to avoid any conflict of interest by excluding reviewers with a direct relationship with authors or institutions, but also by avoiding judging the article by its author, origin, academic or institutional status. Secondly, an inaccurate, superficial, and non-contributory scientific evaluation. To minimize this source of bias, the selected evaluators should not only be experts in the article's specific research field, but also well-trained experts in biostatistics and in the critical reading of scientific articles.

“The act of scientific review remains a noble and honorable activity. Through a voluntary, sincere and faithful review, you share your knowledge with authors, you contribute to the improvement of the methodology and scientific quality of manuscripts, and you participate in the screening of studies that will be published. On the other hand, the reviewer always benefits, since he or she will always be at the cutting edge of scientific research,” says Dr. Salam.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)