In 2024, APC 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.

March, 2024
Nestoras Mathioudakis, Johns Hopkins University, USA

April, 2024
Simon Lebech Cichosz, Aalborg University, Denmark

June, 2024
Joshua P. Raff, Montefiore Medical Center, USA

August, 2024
Lionel Chia, MOMA Therapeutics, USA

March, 2024

Nestoras Mathioudakis

Nestoras Mathioudakis, MD, MHS, is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where he holds joint appointments in the Divisions of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism and Biomedical Informatics & Data Science. He completed his medical training, residency, and fellowship at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Mathioudakis’s research interests include health informatics applications in diabetes prevention and management, with a particular focus on the use of machine learning/artificial intelligence applications. He has authored over 100 publications in diabetes and has contributed to consensus guidelines in the field. He is an active NIH-funded clinical investigator with several ongoing randomized controlled trials in diabetes and prediabetes. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Mathioudakis’ opinion, peer review is a fundamental component of both research and scientific communication. It serves several critical functions. Primarily, it ensures that research findings presented to the public and the scientific community are the outcome of rigorous investigation, thereby confirming the reliability and validity of the conclusions. In an era, rife with misinformation, peer review acts as a critical safeguard, helping to ensure that the information disseminated to the public is factually accurate. Furthermore, it maintains academic integrity by requiring that prior work be properly acknowledged and cited. This not only fosters an environment of respect and recognition among researchers but also contributes to the progressive accumulation of knowledge within specific research domains.

Dr. Mathioudakis points out that the current peer-review system faces significant challenges. He indicates that for academics in medical fields such as himself, peer review tasks must be balanced with other responsibilities such as patient care, research, and administrative duties. Often, this means that peer review encroaches on personal/family time. In a typical week, he may receive up to 10 peer-review requests, compelling him to decline most to maintain his primary professional responsibilities. He follows a policy of accepting as many peer-review requests as the number of papers he submits to journals. When time is limited, he prioritizes those requests that are most closely related to his field of research. Despite this, the bulk of his peer-review work is conducting during evenings and weekends. In addition to the time commitment, he thinks that there is considerable variability in review quality, partly because reviewers are unpaid and often must fit this work into already crowded schedules. This can lead to rushed reviews and substantial delays, which in turn can jeopardize timely publication and affect subsequent funding opportunities.

“Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the challenges faced by the current peer-review system,” says Dr. Mathioudakis, who reckons that offering direct compensation to reviewers might incentivize them to accept reviews, which could lead to more efficient review process, but it could also introduce conflicts of interest or biases and potentially lead to higher journal publication or subscription fees. Alternatively, research funders could earmark specific portions of grants to support peer-review activities, enabling academic institutions to provide dedicated time for faculty to conduct peer reviews without affecting their financial resources. Such changes could help maintain the quality and timeliness of peer reviews, ultimately supporting the scientific community more efficiently.

“Peer reviewers truly are the unsung heroes of the scientific world. While they may not receive public acknowledgment in publications, their contributions are pivotal in shaping high-quality, impactful research. To all peer reviewers: take pride in knowing that your efforts help refine the science that can profoundly affect patient care and advance our understanding of medicine. Though often behind the scenes, your role is fundamental to scientific progress,” says Dr. Mathioudakis.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

April, 2024

Simon Lebech Cichosz

Simon Lebech Cichosz is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Science and Technology at Aalborg University. He has a background in biomedical engineering, and earned his PhD in 2016, specializing in predictive modelling for diabetes. His research focuses on the integration of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to improve the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes and other chronic conditions. He is particularly interested in leveraging these tools to develop more personalized healthcare solutions. Learn more about him here.

According to Dr. Cichosz, peer review, while not a perfect model, is a foundation of the scientific process, improving the integrity and quality of research. It provides an evaluation of a manuscript by experts in the specific field, which helps to validate the study's methodology, accuracy, and significance.

When asked to review a manuscript, Dr. Cichosz tries to approach the process with a positive and constructive attitude. His objective is to assist the authors in enhancing their work by identifying areas for improvement and suggesting alternative or complementary perspectives on their findings. It is important to be fair, realistic, and respectful throughout the review process. He believes that a respectful and constructive peer review contributes significantly to the advancement of high-quality science.

“Peer reviewing, despite being anonymous and non-profitable, is motivating for me because it helps me become a more reflective researcher. Engaging with a variety of research work and critically assessing others' manuscripts provides valuable insights that enhance my own research practices,” says Dr. Cichosz.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

June, 2024

Joshua P. Raff

Joshua P. Raff, MD, is a board-certified medical oncologist / hematologist. He received his medical degree at Tel Aviv University in 1997 and completed his Internal Medicine residency and Oncology & Hematology fellowships all at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, NY. Since completing training in 2003, he has been in a private practice, which joined White Plains Hospital in 2013. They became part of the Montefiore Health System in 2015. He serves his term as Oncology & Hematology Section Chief from 2010-2015, and he is the founder (2010) and Director of the Digestive Cancer Program at the Cancer Center. Currently, Dr. Raff is the principal investigator of many industry and collaborative group studies, and he has launched and published two investigator-initiated studies: the pancreatic cancer early detection program and life-story narrative medicine program. He is also the assistant program director for the nationally accredited program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC).

According to Dr. Raff, while science is often thought of in terms of discovery, the reporting of discovery is also important. Peer review is one important element of the reporting system to help standardize and control how science is reported and published. Peer review can help to improve and “sharpen” the quality of the presentation, and help minimize any bias or misinformation. In short, peer review adds to the reliability of the information.

Dr. Raff reckons that as human beings, we are always accompanied by biases and preconceived notions. He would consider a blinded review as an important component of an objective review. The challenge for a reviewer is that they are being asked for their opinions which are subjective in nature; but they have to choose which opinions are relevant to the paper.

“Health is a Question of Balance”, Dr. Raff quoted Dr. Paul Brenner's book title from 1980, “and so is medical practice”. He indicates that he is most satisfied in his professional life if he can balance his rigorous clinical work with other projects, including clinical research, program development, and peer review. He adds, “So, it's not so much of an issue of how can I find time, it's ‘how can I not find time?’ Ensuring my schedule has blocked administrative time for non-clinical work is required. Support from my administration is critical and appreciated. Of course, I need to find a balance outside of work, as well.”

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

August, 2024

Lionel Chia

Dr. Lionel Chia is a scientist in the New Target Discovery Group at MOMA Therapeutics, where he uses functional genomics to identify novel genetic interactions that can be targeted for therapeutic development in cancer. He completed his early work on vaccine development before focusing on the High Mobility Group A1 (HMGA1) protein in pancreatic and prostate cancers while working in Dr. Linda Resar’s lab at Johns Hopkins University. His research on HMGA1 proteins uncovered a new druggable pathway, which is now undergoing further validation. Previously at Foghorn Therapeutics, Dr. Chia leveraged gene-trafficking technology to develop therapies targeting chromatin regulatory systems in cancer. At MOMA Therapeutics, he is continuing to focus on developing therapies for cancers that rely on molecular machines in cells. His work aims to address unmet needs in cancer treatment and has been recognized for its impact on advancing new therapeutic strategies in the field. 

In Dr. Chia’s opinion, reviewers must pay close attention to detail to spot any errors or inconsistencies that could undermine a well-executed study. To effectively evaluate a manuscript, reviewers should have deep expertise in the field. A thorough understanding of the subject is essential for providing meaningful feedback and accurately assessing the quality of the work. This expertise enables reviewers to critically analyse the research in its entirety—examining the methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions to identify strengths and weaknesses. However, expertise can sometimes lead to complacency, making reviewers less open to new ideas that challenge established norms. He believes that reviewers must remain open-minded and approach new research with curiosity. Rather than merely passing judgment, reviewers should aim to support the authors in improving their work, offering constructive criticism and positive feedback to help the manuscript make a greater impact on the scientific community. Lastly, impartiality is crucial. Reviewers must provide fair, unbiased evaluations to ensure a just assessment of the work.

According to Dr. Chia’s experience with the peer-review system, he thinks that a few challenges stand out:  

1. Bias and subjectivity: One common issue is that reviewers may favor manuscripts from established authors or research that aligns with their own work, or even discredit a competitor's study regardless of its quality. This can result in an unfair evaluation, especially for innovative or controversial work that challenges existing norms.
2. Variability in review quality: The quality of reviews can be highly inconsistent, depending on the reviewer’s expertise, time commitment, and thoroughness. Some reviews are very superficial, while others provide detailed, valuable insights.

Thus, he puts forward a few ways to improve the system:

1. Double-blind review: Implementing a double-blind review process, where both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous, would help mitigate bias and promote more objective assessments.
2. Standardized review criteria: Introducing a structured scoring system for evaluating key aspects of a manuscript could help reduce subjectivity and provide a more consistent review process.
3. Reviewer training programs: Offering formal training for reviewers would equip them with the skills and tools needed to conduct more thorough, high-quality evaluations, ultimately benefiting both the authors and the broader scientific community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)