In 2025, 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.
Sara Perelmuter, Weill Cornell Medicine, USA
Gregory W. Kirschen, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Sara Perelmuter
Sara Perelmuter is a third-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine and an emerging leader in sexual medicine. With over 15 peer-reviewed publications, she serves as President of the Sexual Medicine Research Team and sits on the Board of Directors for the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR). Her work intersects academic medicine, advocacy, and innovation: she consults in the FemTech space and is a founding member of a women’s health nonprofit focused on equity. Passionate about breaking stigma around female sexual and reproductive health, she drives progress through research, education, and improved access. Follow her on Instagram.
Sara reckons that a reviewer carries responsibility not only to the science but to the communities the research will ultimately serve. In sexual and reproductive health, this means evaluating both scientific rigor and inclusivity: assessing methodological soundness and whether outcomes are meaningful, while also questioning if language pathologizes normal female sexual variation or if the study population reflects diversity in age, race, gender, and lived experience. Given the field’s history of marginalizing women’s health, reviewers must act as gatekeepers of accuracy and equity—ensuring progress is both evidence-based and justice-oriented.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Sara stresses that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential, especially in fields like sexual medicine, where corporate or cultural influences have historically distorted care. A disclosed COI does not invalidate research but demands closer scrutiny—particularly in FemTech, where commercialization of women’s bodies is a concern. Disclosure provides context, letting reviewers and readers assess whether conclusions are evidence-driven or agenda-based. To her, it is “feminist accountability”, ensuring trust in research that shapes women’s health.
“I prioritize peer review because I believe that shaping the research landscape is an extension of advocacy. I see reviewing as an act of feminist scholarship—scrutinizing claims that could shape clinical care, policy, or public understanding of women’s health. Yes, time is a challenge, especially as a medical student, but when I choose to review, I do so with full presence. I set aside protected time, treat it as seriously as clinical responsibilities, and use it as a learning opportunity. My involvement in research isn’t just about publishing—it’s about helping to build a discipline I want to see flourish: one that centers patient voices, dismantles stigma, and refuses to accept that "data-free" zones in female health are acceptable,” says Sara.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gregory W. Kirschen
Gregory Kirschen MD, PhD is a clinical fellow in Maternal Fetal Medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. His research areas include uterine myometrial biology in the context of labor and metabolic disease, complex pharmacology in pregnancy, and kidney disease in pregnancy. His recently published work investigates the intersection between human myometrial smooth muscle and angiotensin system signaling, and he has just received funding through the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine to study the impact of obesity on human myometrial structure and function.
GPM: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Kirschen: A reviewer should seek not only to evaluate the merit of the work they are reviewing, but also to elevate the work through suggestions for enhancing innovation, rigor and reproducibility, and relevance. We should all work to minimize bias by letting the work speak for itself rather than judging it based on the laboratory or institution from which it was produced, and also to not let our view of the work be swayed by preconceived notions or dogma in the scientific field. Finally, I am a strong proponent of publishing null or negative data to counteract publication bias and also to save other researchers time and resources investigating areas that have previously been shown not to be fruitful.
GPM: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Kirschen: Limitations of the existing peer-review system include constraints on time and a paucity of expert reviewers who are willing and able to volunteer for the process. I feel the peer review process is often drawn out far longer than it needs to be, and I am sure many can relate to having articles stuck in “peer review limbo” for countless months while editors search for appropriate reviewers to evaluate the work. I always aim to submit my peer review within 1-2 weeks of accepting an invitation to be respectful to the authors who put in so much effort, time, and money for the advancement of science, as well as to the journals who work tirelessly to maintain a rigorous yet efficient peer review process.
GPM: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Kirschen: I do feel that it is important for authors to conform to reporting guidelines in preparing their manuscripts. Such guidelines exist to ensure transparency, completeness, and reproducibility of scientific work. I support a standardized approach to scientific reporting, which can facilitate transfer of information between scientists, reviewers, and the public. Standardized reporting guidelines do not necessarily stifle creative license or stylistic freedom on the part of the authors, who should still be able to write in their own style or form.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
