In 2024, 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.
January, 2024
Devang Desai, University of Antwerp, Belgium
February, 2024
Jas Singh, McGill University, Canada
March, 2024
Lucía Jiménez-Gonzalo, Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain
January, 2024
Devang Desai
Dr. Desai is a Consultant Urologist and Director of Urology with special interest in Reconstructive Urology and Minimally invasive uro-oncology. Having finished his urological training in Australia, he went on to undertake a year in minimally invasive urology with special emphasis on robotic surgery and thereafter a GURS and AUA approved fellowship in reconstructive urology. Dr. Desai is based in Toowoomba and his practice involves a mix of uro-oncology and reconstructive urology alongside endourological procedures for stone disease. He has completed a Masters in Urology and is a keen researcher. He holds an Associate Professor position with University of Queensland, University of Southern Queensland and Griffith University and is a reviewer for Urological journals. Now he is undertaking a PhD course in inflammatory urethral stricture disease with the University of Antwerp, Belgium. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Desai believes that peer review is a transparent and non-biased process to evaluate the research/trial is conducted in accordance with human ethics and research, whilst making sure that the results are reliable and assist in improving healthcare.
The limitations of the current review process, in Dr. Desai’s opinion, are the lengthy and cumbersome process, and the difficulty to evaluate statistical outcomes without raw data. Moreover, he points out that sometimes it is difficult to keep completely non-biased while reviewing.
“The journey of advancing research is very rewarding as it improves clinical outcomes and makes a real difference in how we manage our patients,” says Dr. Desai.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Jas Singh
Jas Singh serves as an Assistant Professor of Urology in the Division of Urology at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He completed medical school and urologic surgery residency training at the University of Manitoba Max Rady College of Medicine followed by subspeciality fellowship training in Urinary Tract and Pelvic Reconstruction at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. He is board certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and board-eligible with the American Board of Urology. His research is focused on exploring clinical outcomes in patients undergoing urinary tract reconstruction. Specifically, he is interested in the spectrum of genitourinary cancer survivorship with improving reconstructive surgical outcomes following abdominal and pelvic surgical and radiation therapy for malignancy. Dr. Singh has special expertise in urogenital fistulae having published extensively on vesicovaginal, ureterovaginal, rectourethral, and urethrocutaneous fistula disease. He is currently conducting research to better understand the role of hyperbaric oxygen and urinary tract anti-proliferative agents on postoperative outcomes. Also, he is exploring factors associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive and robotic surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Singh believes that peer review is integral to the maintenance of integrity and quality within research and science, before it is published in the expanding body of literature available to the public. In his opinion, critical review by experts in the field allows for submitted research to undergo identification of inconsistencies and errors in study design and methodology so that they may be corrected before the misinterpretation of data and clinical findings. The purpose of peer review is not to negatively assess the work of others but to ensure that sound scientific methodology is incorporated and to enhance the overall message of the research findings. Communicating new findings, whether positive or negative, is essential to advancing knowledge and its dissemination.
Dr. Singh indicates that the existing peer-review system is nowhere near perfect. Despite efforts to enhance objectivity such as blinded review and offering incentives to reviewers to provide timely reviews, the system continues to suffer from systemic constraints. First, reviewers are subject to their own bias particularly when dealing with research in highly specific areas where only a handful of experts propagate the majority of research. Competitiveness may motivate some reviewers to offer negative reviews to maintain competitive advantage in an academic system that often rewards quantity over quality. One way to curtail this behavior includes utilizing open review, where reviews are published open access along with the final manuscript. Second, peer review is predominantly performed on a volunteer basis without remuneration which offers little motivation for some reviewers to provide their critical expert analysis due to time constraints. Most reviewers currently provide their analyses out of appreciation and respect for the scientific process and maintaining quality in the scientific literature, but this is beginning to change due to the burden of performing unpaid work. Some journals offer incentives such as limited free access to their content in exchange for providing peer-review services while others offer certificates of acknowledgement for doing this work. For now, it needs work to continuously improve the process both for those submitting research for review and for the reviewers themselves.
Currently, data sharing is becoming increasingly predominant and often required by journals during the submission process. In Dr. Singh’s view, this is a move in the right direction as it seeks to improve ethical transparency and enhance the assessment of research validity by allowing reviewers and other researchers to examine the raw data to ensure sound methodology. It also allows reviewers to examine if the results communicated have been subject to fabrication or erroneous interpretation. It also potentially allows for new conclusions to be drawn not previously reported by the original researchers.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Lucía Jiménez-Gonzalo
Dr. Lucía Jiménez-Gonzalo is an Assistant Professor at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid. She got her PhD in Psychology in June 2023 with the highest grade Cum Laude. During her PhD, she has conducted a research stay at Zürich University Hospital, Switzerland. She has co-authored thirty-six publications in scientific journals and has an h-index of 8, with 904 citations on Google Scholar. She is a member of the high-performance research team on the stress process and development of psychological interventions for the improvement of people’s well-being at the Rey Juan Carlos University, headed by Prof. Andrés Losada-Baltar. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Jiménez-Gonzalo thinks that peer review is a cornerstone in science and research. However, it has some limitations to be noted. Firstly, the lack of incentives, along with the researchers’ limited time, makes it difficult to dedicate the necessary time and effort in the review process. The existing peer-review system is still based on altruism and cooperation. Although noble, these problems and the increasing number of scientific journals make it difficult for editors to find enough researchers willing to carry out this task. In her opinion, to enhance peer review, transparent processes should be established and incentive programmes for reviewers should be developed, not necessarily in terms of economic compensation, but in terms of visibility, accountability and benefits related to the editorial.
In addition, Dr. Jiménez-Gonzalo points out that the burden of being a doctor is heavy, especially in those who also carry out teaching activities. Peer review is an important responsibility, but it can also be very demanding. In order to find out time to do peer review, planification and prioritization of tasks is key. “I always try to organize my day as much as possible and prioritize tasks according to their relevance and urgency. Assigning time blocks is also a useful task, for example, setting aside two hours a week for reviewing. Stablishing limits and not accepting more reviews than one can conduct is also important, as well as communicating one’s availability to journal editors and decline request when necessary. I also find it especially useful to ask for help to other colleagues or undergraduate students,” adds she.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Jiménez-Gonzalo indicates that disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI) is a fundamental ethical practice in scientific research. Disclosing COIs ensures transparency and honesty. It allows readers, reviewers and editors to assess potential biases. It also builds trust in the scientific community, so that readers can evaluate research with awareness of any affiliations or financial interests. Finally, it allows informed decision-making for editors, reviewers and readers, allowing them to make informed judgments about the study’s validity and reliability. In summary, COI disclosure is critical for maintaining scientific integrity. While COIs can potentially affect research, robust processes help safeguard against undue influence. Researchers, reviewers, and journals collectively uphold the ethical standards that underpin credible scientific advancement.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
