In 2023, 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.
August, 2023
Armin Edalatpour, University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, USA
October, 2023
Amanda L Amin, Cleveland Medical Center, USA
December, 2023
Chandler Hinson, University of South Alabama, USA
August, 2023
Armin Edalatpour
Dr. Armin Edalatpour currently serves as a Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics. His research is mainly focused on patient outcomes as well as postoperative pain control. Prior and ongoing research projects include patient outcomes after alloplastic and autologous breast reconstruction, optimizing pain control after breast surgery via regional blocks and ERAS protocols, and use of other pain control modalities such as CBD in reducing postoperative pain control and PONV. Connect with Dr. Edalatpour on Instagram (@arminaps) or Twitter (@arminaps).
As the number of predatory journals continues to rise, Dr. Edalatpour thinks that peer review publications have become increasingly important. As several publications have shown, patients have started to turn to publications online in order to get medical information. Non-peer review articles that are open access create an environment where false information can easily be disseminated. The peer-review process allows for honest review of the scientific work by others in the field, therefore, ensuring verified and correct information being published.
In peer review, Dr. Edalatpour reckons that constructive review is one that points out the weakness within the manuscript and gives suggestions and avenues to help improve the manuscript. Bashing or criticizing a manuscript without providing constructive feedback is malignant and not productive. In addition, he would like to thank all the reviewers for volunteering their time and helping science move forward.
Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Dr. Edalatpour holds the opinion that authors should not be required to submit their research data for every manuscript they submit for publications. However, the data should be available and authors should be willing to share the data when requested by the reviewers.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2023
Amanda L Amin
Amanda L. Amin, MD, MS, FACS, FSSO, joined University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center in 2021 as Section Chief of Breast Surgery in the Division of Surgical Oncology and the Department of Surgery. Her other roles are Co-Director of the Breast Cancer Program for UH Seidman Cancer Center and the breast program director for the NAPBC accreditation. She is the inaugural recipient of the Nancy and Donald Maltby Master Clinician in Breast Health. Dr. Amin is board certified in general surgery and is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons and the Society of Surgical Oncology. She belongs to multiple societies including the American College of Surgeons, Society of Surgical Oncology, American Society of Breast Surgeons, Association for Academic Surgery, Society of University Surgeons, Central Surgical Association, and Association of Women Surgeons. Dr. Amin is dedicated to improving existing and developing new therapies for the management of high-risk and malignant breast disease through pioneering research. She is particularly interested in opportunities for de-escalation of surgical intervention for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). She has published research findings in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Annals of Surgical Oncology, Surgery, Annals of Breast Surgery and Journal of the American College of Surgeons, among other major medical journals. In addition, she has contributed chapters to textbooks on high-risk breast disease and served as a manuscript reviewer for multiple high-impact medical journals. Connect with Dr. Amin on Twitter @amandaaminmd.
Dr. Amin reckons that peer review is vital to the scientific community. This is an unbiased analysis of project by a person that has some medical knowledge on the subject. Good peer review makes the project stronger by bringing in new perspectives and clarity that authors may sometimes miss being so close to the subject content.
In Dr. Amin’s opinion, a constructive review highlights how the new project adds to the literature. It encourages authors to bring new or different perspectives when appropriate to provide clarity to the readership. Destructive review can be a biased assessment where the reviewer pushes their agenda, highlighting the negative aspects of a project in a critical or derogatory way.
“Disclosing Conflict of Interest is crucial to the integrity of the research we do. If authors have a financial interest in the success of the project, even more attention should be paid to the scientific validity of the outcomes to ensure safety and applicability to the target population,” says Dr. Amin.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
December, 2023
Chandler Hinson
Chandler Hinson is a third-year MD candidate at the Frederick P. Whiddon College of Medicine at the University of South Alabama. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Biomedical Science at the University of South Alabama where he teaches courses on global health, epidemiology, and biostatistics. Prior to South Alabama, he received his undergraduate in Global Health at Georgetown University, a Master’s in Control of Infectious Diseases from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and a Healthcare MBA from George Washington School of Business. His research focuses on patient reported outcomes within breast surgery (both reconstruction and augmentation) and burn reconstruction. He is interested in pursuing further research in health equity within breast reconstruction, especially with a focus on disadvantaged populations within Alabama. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Chandler believes that peer review is a fundamental and integral aspect of the scientific process. At its core, it often acts as a quality assurance mechanism by subjecting research manuscripts to the scrutiny of experts within the relevant field. This rigorous evaluation helps identify and rectify any methodological flaws, errors, or weaknesses in study design, data analysis, and result interpretation. This allows for high-quality research to be identified and published. Beyond quality assurance, peer review plays a pivotal role in validating research findings, instilling confidence in the reliability and validity of reported results. Peer review also acts as a deterrent against scientific fraud and misconduct, contributing to the overall integrity of the scientific community. In essence, he believes peer review is a cornerstone of scientific advancement, upholding standards of excellence, transparency, and ethical conduct in research.
In Chandler’s opinion, balancing the demands of being a physician in training with the responsibility of engaging in peer review for academic journals requires self-discipline and a strategic approach. Setting realistic goals and understanding his own personal capacity is crucial to avoid overcommitting, ensuring the quality of his reviews remains high. He recognizes that if he was the author submitting a manuscript, he would want his reviewers to have the time and capacity to analyze and provide high-quality feedback on his manuscript.
In addition, Chandler indicates that securing institutional review board (IRB) approval is of paramount importance in research due to its pivotal role in ensuring ethical standards and legal compliance. The IRB serves as a crucial oversight body, safeguarding the well-being of human subjects involved in research endeavors. Ethical considerations, such as protecting participants from harm, obtaining informed consent, and maintaining confidentiality, are rigorously assessed through the IRB approval process. Beyond ethical and legal implications, the absence of IRB approval can have far-reaching consequences for researchers. Funding agencies and journals often require evidence of ethical review before providing financial support or publishing research findings. Omitting the IRB approval process may result in serious repercussions, including legal action, loss of funding, rejection by journals, and potential damage to the researcher's professional reputation and institutional standing. In essence, IRB approval is a foundational step in conducting responsible and ethical research, and its omission can jeopardize the integrity of the research process and outcomes.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
