In 2023, GPM 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.
July, 2023
Suleiman Abuhasanein, Uddevalla Hospital, Sweden
August, 2023
Juliana Jewel Kling, Mayo Clinic, USA
November, 2023
Devon Evans, University of Manitoba, Canada
July, 2023
Suleiman Abuhasanein
Dr. Suleiman Abuhasanein graduated from medicine faculty in Damascus University in 2007. He works as a consultant urologist in Sweden, specializing in uro-oncology. Currently, he is responsible for the urinary bladder cancer section within the urology department at Uddevalla Hospital, part of the NU Hospital group in western Sweden. His expertise lies in minimally invasive endoluminal transurethral surgery. He is currently pursuing his PhD at Gothenburg University in Sweden, with a primary research focus on the early diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer. His research encompasses several key themes. Firstly, he has studied the evolution of the approach to investigating macroscopic hematuria over time, with a particular emphasis on understanding how reducing the time to diagnosis and treatment can impact tumor characteristics in bladder cancer patients. Additionally, he is conducting research on CT urography, aimed at improving the diagnosis of bladder cancer with the ultimate goal of potentially omitting cystoscopy. Furthermore, his ongoing project revolves around the investigation of a newly developed urine-based mRNA tumor marker. This marker holds promise as a triage test in the initial evaluation of patients who present with visible blood in their urine (macroscopic hematuria). Connect with Dr. Abuhasanein on LinkedIn.
GPM: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Abuhasanein: Peer review plays a crucial role in the scientific process by serving as a quality control mechanism for scholarly research. Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of scientific research and helps validate the findings and conclusions of a study. Furthermore, authors receive feedback from peer reviewers, which often leads to improvements in the clarity, methodology, and overall quality of their manuscripts. Peer review can help resolve disagreements or controversies in the scientific community. When conflicting studies or interpretations arise, experts can critically evaluate the evidence and provide insights into the validity of different claims. Overall, peer review acts as a critical filter that ensures that only high-quality, reliable, and scientifically valid research becomes part of the scientific literature, fostering the advancement of knowledge and the trustworthiness of scientific findings.
GPM: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Abuhasanein: A healthy peer-review system is characterized by several key principles and practices that ensure the integrity, quality, and fairness of the peer-review process. Firstly, the peer-review process should be transparent, with clear guidelines and procedures made available to both authors and reviewers. Secondly, reviewers should be independent and impartial, free from conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluations. Thirdly, reviewers should possess expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript they are evaluating. A healthy peer-review system should aim for timely reviews. Delays in the review process can hinder the dissemination of research findings and impact the progress of science. Reviewers should provide constructive and specific feedback to authors. Comments should focus on improving the quality of the manuscript and its scientific rigor. Moreover, the peer-review process should be confidential to protect the integrity of the review and the privacy of both authors and reviewers. Reviewers should not disclose information about the manuscript they are evaluating.
GPM: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Abuhasanein: The responsibilities of a scientist or doctor can be quite demanding, and allocating time for peer review can pose a significant challenge. Nevertheless, peer review plays a crucial role in contributing to the scientific community and advancing our collective knowledge. One effective strategy I've employed to manage this responsibility is to be discerning about the peer-review requests I accept. I prioritize reviewing manuscripts or proposals that closely align with my areas of expertise and research interests. This approach allows me to allocate my time more effectively while still fulfilling my peer-review commitments. Furthermore, I view peer review as an opportunity for continuous professional development. Engaging in peer-review activities not only benefits the broader scientific community but also enhances my own critical thinking skills and keeps me informed about the latest developments in my field. By recognizing the value of peer review, being selective in my choices, and viewing it as a chance for growth, I have found ways to effectively balance my responsibilities as a scientist or doctor with my commitment to peer review.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2023
Juliana Jewel Kling
Dr. Jewel Kling is a Professor of Medicine, Chair of the Division of Women’s Health Internal Medicine, Assistant Director of the Women’s Health Center and Dean of the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine AZ campus at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. She completed medical school and a master’s in public health at the University of Arizona Tucson and Internal Medicine Residency at Mayo Clinic Arizona, followed by a Chief Internal Medicine fellowship year. Her clinical and research interests are in menopause, sexual health, LGBT care, education, as well as efforts to expand the discipline of Sex and Gender specific medicine. Dr. Kling is recognized as an institutional and national expert and leader in menopause. She speaks at national meetings on topics related to menopause and hormone therapy and has published extensively in the field. She is a North American Menopause Society (NAMS) Certified Menopause Practitioner, a fellow and board member of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health (ISSWSH), and board member of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex and Gender Health Collaborative. She is also part of the transgender and intersex specialty clinic committee at Mayo Clinic Arizona and has been a past co-chair of the LGBTI Mayo Employee Resource Group.
In Dr. Kling’s opinion, peer review is critical to assuring scientific research is of high quality. Our expert peers hold us accountable for our work, asking tough questions and confirming scientific validity of our manuscripts.
Dr. Kling always feels grateful when people take time to give detailed and granular feedback. She believes this shows they care about the manuscript and science. Thoughtful and constructive questions and recommendations almost always lead to improved, more sound manuscripts.
Personally, Dr. Kling relies heavily on peer-reviewed literature to inform her about evidence-based clinical practice and education pursuits, and at the same time she is thankful to those who take time to review her submission. Thus, she is willing to give back to the scientific community with her time to peer review, even though peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
November, 2023
Devon Evans
Dr. Devon Evans, BScH, MD, MPH, FRCSC, FACOG, is an Assistant Professor and Head, Section of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (MIGS) at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He completed his BScH and MD at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and residency training in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Manitoba. He undertook fellowship training in endometriosis and MIGS at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He also completed an MPH in Clinical Effectiveness at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He now runs Manitoba’s Pelvic Pain and Endometriosis Clinic that offers medical and surgical care for pelvic pain, endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, and myofascial pain and sensitization. He collaborates with clinicians and epidemiologists internationally on research focused on endometriosis and standards of care in gynecology and is an active member of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada Gynecology Clinical Practice Committee. Connect with Dr. Evans on LinkedIn or learn more about him here.
Dr. Evans believes that peer review is a critical component of academic publication of any kind. Engagement of unbiased reviewers with knowledge/expertise in the field allows for critical appraisal of the rationale, methodology, presentation, and interpretation of conducted research and elevates the value of the academic contribution. Without peer review, a journal’s publications are at risk of catastrophic misrepresentation or misinterpretation and bias that could ultimately generate harm.
In Dr. Evans’s opinion, a peer reviewer must engage with academic content in such a way that they acknowledge the time and effort that authors have devoted to their submission. While it is critical to appraise the content and presentation of the work, it is counterproductive and damaging to set out with the intent to deconstruct an author’s work and attack the authors. While they have an obligation to protect society from potentially dangerous or unethical content, as clinician scholars, we also have an obligation to help get important work in front of readers who need to see it to advance science and clinical care. As peer reviewers, they must keep these principles in mind and avoid destructive reviews that may unnecessarily block publication of information that contributes to a body of literature despite not being of perfect quality.
“Academic work often can feel underappreciated. It is important for current and prospective reviewers to remember that the work they are doing is valuable. We can only advance science and clinical care through collective efforts internationally, and we each can have a role in that forward progress if we take the time to make contributions like peer review,” says Dr. Evans.
In addition, Dr. Evans reckons that Conflicts of Interest (COIs) must be declared in any academic or clinical setting where information is being presented. The magnitude of influence that a COI could have on research is so significant that it could unacceptably bias the work to the point of rejection of publication. As both reviewers and consumers of scientific information, they must never forget the importance of disclosure of COIs, regardless of whether it is true or potentially perceived conflicts.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
