In 2022, ABS 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, 2022
Claudio Fuentes Sánchez, University of La Laguna, Spain
June, 2022
Sandhya Limaye, University of Sydney, Australia
August, 2022
Christodoulos Kaoutzanis, UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, USA
October, 2022
Weichuan Dong, Case Western Reserve University, USA
February, 2022
Claudio Fuentes Sanchez
Dr. Claudio Fuentes Sánchez, MD, PhD, is the head of the Radiation Oncology Department at the University Hospital of the Nuestra Señora de Candelaria in Tenerife and an Associate Professor of Clinical Oncology at the University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. In addition, he currently serves as a Consultant Editor of the Clinical and Translational Oncology, as well as a member of the European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group (IGRG) and the International Society European of Pediatric Oncology Radiotherapy Group (SEOP-R). His current clinical and research interest mainly focuses on treating breast cancer and tumors in both elder and youth patients with new radiotherapy techniques.
For Dr. Fuentes, peer review is considered to be the most reliable method for evaluating scientific articles prior to publication. By having multiple reviewers per article who are also experts in relevant field, peer review can help reduce bias, allowing reliable and high-quality articles to be published. In his own words, “Being a reviewer is almost like a profession itself, and it is a key component to the advancements in the medical field. For that reason, it is extremely important to follow a rigorous methodology when evaluating.”
When Dr. Fuentes reviews an article, he will first focus on its innovation and how it can contribute to a field of interest in oncology at the time. Furthermore, he will examine whether the methodology is correct and rigorous, as well as whether the objectives and conclusions made from the research is clearly presented. In addition, he considers that title of the article is very important, especially whether it fits the presenting work. As he said, “The title is the entrance door to the reader, it is very important, as it adjusts the expectations to what is exposed later.” He also focuses the ethical aspects and other more specific ones, including a retrospective or prospective study, systematic review, case presentation, along with formal aspects such as whether the references are up to date and correctly cited, etc.
In Dr. Fuentes’ opinion, the criticisms from reviewers must always be constructive and they must always keep in mind that the objective is improving the paper, all the while considering the effort made by the authors. He believes that a good review is a complex process that should ideally result in the publication of better articles that are of interest to the scientific community in its entirety.
Although peer review is an unpaid and time-consuming job, Dr. Fuentes thinks it is like life itself, with many of its most important things usually not related to personal gains. “We climb steps and take the paths that open up for us, so it’s a good way to show appreciation for all the professionals that preceded us and made those doors open. And if nothing else, it’s another way of contributing to science and helps me stay up to date in the exercise of my profession.”
In terms of following reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA during the preparation of manuscripts, Dr. Fuentes believes that, depending on the article, a guideline can be helpful in improving the clarity of the article considerably and ensuring good methodology. In fact, he thinks informing the writers that if any guideline has been followed should be part of the methodology used in the development and presentation of the article itself, and would undoubtedly be of interest to the reviewer to know.
June, 2022
Sandhya Limaye
A/Prof. Sandhya Limaye is a specialist Immunologist at Concord Hospital in the Sydney Local Health District, Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Sydney, Australia, and the Director of Wellbeing at Concord Hospital. She has a longstanding interest in medical training and wellbeing, and has served as the Network Director of Physician Training and Director of Assistants in Medicine in recent years. Clinically, Sandhya has a subspecialty interest in immune-mediated lung disease and systemic inflammatory disease including granulomatous mastitis. She enjoys attending national and international specialty meetings and has most recently presented a clinical poster at the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy meeting, as well as an oral presentation and 5 poster abstracts at the Australasian Doctors’ Health Conference in 2022.
Peer review plays a crucial role, in A/Prof. Limaye’s view, in facilitating the publication of high-quality research. Evaluation by a team of peers allows critical analysis of research findings and methodology by experts in the field. Constructive peer review should identify areas of potential improvement and also assess the scientific validity of any conclusions made. Successful peer review enables authors to improve the quality of their manuscript which benefits the readership and can have positive impacts on further research or patient care.
According to A/Prof. Limaye, a quality peer review must be non-biased with no conflict of interest. When reviewing a paper, she firstly reads the article in its entirety and considers its research question, educational value and clinical relevance. Robust scientific methodology is essential. To ensure objective analysis, she reviews the current evidence base of the topic in question, particularly any recent publications to ensure her knowledge is up to date and evidence-based.
Speaking of the importance for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval, A/Prof. Limaye indicates that such procedure is vital to ensure diligent adherence to mandatory requirements prior to undertaking any study. This ensures all aspects of the impact of the research work are considered by an independent body. Omission of this process may lead to unwanted consequences for the study participants or processes, and may create obstacles when submitting for publication.
“I have personally benefitted from the peer-review process which has allowed me to improve the quality of my publications. Reviewing a submitted manuscript gives me the opportunity to critically appraise a work and also encourages me to review and refresh my knowledge on a particular topic. Reviewing papers with novel findings often provides new insights into disease processes,” says A/Prof. Limaye.
August, 2022
Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
Dr. Kaoutzanis has been an Assistant Professor of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, USA, since 2019. He obtained his medical degree at St. George’s, University of London, England. He then completed his general surgery residency at St. Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and followed this with plastic surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. He then completed a microsurgery fellowship at the Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, NYU Langone Health in New York City. Dr. Kaoutzanis has expertise in both aesthetic and reconstructive surgery, and uses some of the latest and most advanced techniques. His clinical interests include reconstruction of acquired, congenital, oncological and traumatic defects ranging from the head and neck to the breast, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and extremities. He also performs the whole spectrum of transgender surgery, as well as cosmetic surgery of the face, eyes, neck, breasts, abdomen, body, and genitalia. Dr. Kaoutzanis has authored over 60 original publications in peer-reviewed journals and several textbook chapters. He has presented both nationally and internationally, and his work has received national and international recognition with several awards. He has a special interest in clinical outcomes research aiming to improve safety, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Connect with Dr. Kaoutzanis on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram.
To Dr. Kaoutzanis, peer review is necessary as it allows for assessment of the validity, quality, and originality of each article submitted for publication. It is extremely important and a critical element of the scholarly publication process because it acts as a filter for content, thus upholds the integrity of science and quality of the journals.
In Dr. Kaoutzanis’ view, constructive review is feedback that focuses on problem-solving. It is respectful and delivered in a non-judgmental way aiming to enhance the quality of research. As such, it is specific and actionable, and typically will help the authors improve their work. Destructive review, on the contrary, is negative feedback that focuses on blaming and can undermine or even offend the authors. It may not impact the authors’ reputation and prestige directly, but it can certainly degrade their ideas and research achievements. Such criticism can be vague, non-specific, sometimes irrelevant to the specific topic, and typically will not help the authors improve their work.
On the prevalence of research data sharing, Dr. Kaoutzanis highlights that it is critical for various reasons, and does benefit the researcher, research sponsors, data repositories, the scientific community, and the public. It encourages collaborations between researchers, which can result in important new findings within the field. It also allows researchers to build upon the work of others rather than repeat already existing research. In addition, sharing data with the peers and the public not only encourages better transparency, but also incentivizes researchers to better manage their data and ensure their data are of high quality.
“Being selected as a reviewer is a great honor for a scientist and a researcher as it is concrete evidence of their expertise in the field and the veneration among peers. Although reviewers have to volunteer their valuable time, it should be done with pride and should not be taken lightly because peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. In fact, most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications. With the growing number of scientific articles published each year, the quality of the peer-review process has a direct influence on a journal’s reputation, impact factor, and standing in the field. As such, peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers,” says Dr. Kaoutzanis.
October, 2022
Weichuan Dong
Dr. Weichuan Dong is a Research Scientist in health geography at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, USA. His research employs geospatial, epidemiologic, statistical, and machine learning approaches to understand social and environmental determinants of health, health disparities, and healthcare access, with the larger goal of identifying policy- and systems-level solutions to make health equity a reality. His research is currently focused on risk factors and disparities in cancer diagnosis, surgery, mortality, and clinical trial enrollment, and impact of healthcare policies (e.g., Affordable Care Act) on cancer outcomes. Connect with Dr. Dong on LinkedIn and Twitter.
A healthy peer review system, in Dr. Dong’s view, should ensure the quality and integrity of the research published in the journal. The reviewers should be experts in their field and have the necessary knowledge and experience to provide an informed and critical evaluation of the research. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback that is helpful to authors in improving their research. Sometimes, the contribution of reviewers to an accepted paper could surpass that of some co-authors. However, nowadays, it is increasingly difficult to have researchers take on peer review tasks. To encourage researcher to take on review tasks, journals may consider providing recognition and credit for reviewers, such as acknowledging them in the journal, or offering incentives, such as discounted publication fees. In summary, creating a supportive and collaborative culture can help encourage researchers to take on the important responsibility of peer review for scientific journals.
In general, Dr. Dong believes peer review can be a valuable learning experience, allowing one to gain insights into the latest research trends and techniques in the corresponding field. Additionally, performing peer review prompts one to think critically, which is very different from doing literature reviews on published papers where the main goal is to collect evidence of a specific topic.
“I chose to review for Annals of Breast Surgery (ABS) specifically for the following reasons. As a health geographer focusing on cancer disparities research, I urge myself to be exposed not only to topics related to geography and statistics (such as geospatial analysis and machine learning), but also to cancer-related topics like prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship care. The recommended paper for review from ABS covers all three topics of my interests – geography, machine learning, and treatment (surgery), for which I could not decline such an offer for review,” says Dr. Dong.
As a reviewer, Dr. Dong urges authors to disclose any potential Conflicts of Interest (COI) related to their research. Disclosing COI is essential for maintaining transparency and ensuring that the research is evaluated based on its scientific merit rather than external factors. The extent to which a COI can influence research depends on the nature of the relationship and the specific research being conducted. In some cases, a COI may have little or no impact on the research, while in others, it could potentially bias the findings or interpretation of the results. For example, if an author has a financial interest in a product or technology being studied, they may be more likely to report positive results or downplay any negative findings. This could potentially compromise the integrity and accuracy of the research.
