In 2024, 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.

January, 2024
Berenice Mahoney, University of Worcester, UK

February, 2024
Ara A Salibian, New York University, USA

March, 2024
Délio Marques Conde, Federal University of Goiás, Brazil

June, 2024
Al Hassanein, Indiana University, USA

August, 2024
Wai Ip Li, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China

September, 2024
Crystal D Chu, University of Virginia, USA

January, 2024

Berenice Mahoney

Dr. Berenice Mahoney, a Chartered Psychologist, Chartered Scientist, Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society (BPS), Office for National Statistics UK Approved Safe Researcher, is a Principal Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Worcester, UK, and Social Science Lead MBhB Programme, Three Counties Medical School, UK. She also sits on the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Psychology Working Group. Her research focuses on patient experiences of living with long-term conditions and those of their healthcare practitioners. Prior and on-going research includes patient experiences of implant loss following oncologic mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction, and patient and clinician experiences when breast cancer presents without detectable breast lesion and positive axillary lymph node. Dr. Mahoney has published in the British Journal of Surgery Open, Annals of Breast Surgery, and peer-reviewed international health focused Psychology, and Social Science journals. Learn more about her here.

In Dr. Mahoney’s opinion, researcher knowledge and skills, and increasingly ones that are transdisciplinary, are essential for evaluating the rigor and value of empirical research, including case studies, and literature reviews of all types. Reviewers increasingly need to be committed to providing transparent and supportive feedback, essential for growing reviewers’ knowledge in ways that translate to diverse healthcare contexts. Especially in a climate of growing public skepticism about science and how this is used to inform healthcare policy and practice, reviewers need to be flexible and unafraid to challenge when claims are made that cannot be supported by the evidence presented in manuscripts.

Human health and healthcare are increasingly paradoxical according to Dr. Mahoney, “We have more, know more and can allegedly do more to improve these but clearly this is not the case.” Peer reviewing for her is a way of openly interrogating evidence that is part of these paradoxes. As a trained psychologist, “criticality” is at the core of what she does professionally, and whether anonymous or not, her payback is contributing to critical discussions around how they do research, challenging assumptions that do not seem to “work” and that is her “profit”.

“Working with an international, open access, peer-reviewed journal that seems committed to multidisciplinary and interprofessional working fits my professional and ethical values as a behavioural and social scientist. Ultimately, I can see ABS fully embracing more transdisciplinary ideas around the global health issue of breast health and care and that stance is one that is much needed given the increasingly ‘messy’ nature of human health and healthcare,” says Dr. Mahoney.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

February, 2024

Ara A Salibian

Dr. Salibian is a board-certified plastic surgeon and fellowship-trained microsurgeon specializing in general reconstructive surgery and reconstructive microsurgery. His clinical interests include the entire spectrum of breast reconstruction such as implant-based procedures, with a particular focus on microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction. He also has a specific interest in extremity reconstruction and surgical treatments for lymphedema, including microsurgical approaches such as lymph venous bypass (LVB) and vascularized lymph node transplants (VLNT). Dr. Salibian's research focuses on improving outcomes in breast reconstruction with both implant-based and autologous (microsurgical free tissue transfer) techniques. He has published and presented extensively in the areas of nipple-sparing mastectomy, prefectural breast reconstruction, single-stage and tissue-expander based breast reconstruction and microvascular breast reconstruction. He also has an interest in using advanced imaging technologies, such as ultra-high frequency ultrasound, to improve outcomes in reconstructive microsurgery and super microsurgery for lymphedema. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Salibian indicates that peer reviewer should have a broad and in-depth fund of knowledge in their respective areas of expertise, and, moreover, be able to comprehensively evaluate, analyze and assess research in these areas. It is critical for reviewers to be able to provide constructive criticism of submitted studies to help identify concerns that may in turn assist researchers in improving the quality of their work. He also points out that reviewers should be able to succinctly, professionally and effectively communicate these recommendations in a more global effort to elevate the quality, accuracy and broad applicability of published, peer-reviewed data.

“Peer reviewers are the cornerstone of health-sciences research, assuring the quality and credibility of published research to be held up to the highest standards in the field,” says Dr. Salibian.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

March, 2024

Délio Marques Conde

Dr. Délio Marques Conde, MD, PhD, is a Breast Surgeon and Professor at the Federal University of Goiás (Universidade Federal de Goiás), School of Medicine, Goiás, Brazil. In addition to teaching medical students and residents in Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Surgery, and Gynecological Oncology, he has been guiding practical activities for over twenty years. He works on research and mentoring master's and PhD students. Dr. Conde is a reviewer for several international journals and is on the editorial board of the Brazilian Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (RBGO), Mastology, and Translational Breast Cancer Research (TBCR). He is interested in all breast cancer-associated topics, highlighting high-risk breast cancer, breast cancer surgery, surgical approach to the axilla, and systemic treatment. Lately, Dr. Conde has focused his studies on hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Li-Fraumeni, highlighting the impact of such syndromes on risk reduction strategies and treatment.

ABS: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Conde: Peer review is a fundamental part of science, contributing to scientific progress. It allows other scientists to critically evaluate a study's findings and make constructive suggestions. Over the years, I have realized how much peer review has positively contributed to scholarship, offering new perspectives on a given topic. Reviewers are also authors who seek to stay up-to-date and curious about new findings in their respective areas. It is a process, a cycle in which everyone benefits and contributes to the excellence of science.

ABS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Conde: When reviewing a paper, the reviewer needs to remember that the manuscript is the product of several researchers' efforts to make it come to fruition. After this consideration, the manuscript must show the necessary scientific rigor and coherence throughout all sections and the potential impact of those findings on people's lives, which is our primary goal. A study does not necessarily need to be innovative. Each study can add new knowledge through a new technique, methodology, or investigation of different populations. A current example is the urgent need for diversity in genomic studies, in which participants of European ancestry predominate. In this way, the body of scientific evidence grows.

ABS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Conde: Although peer review is often anonymous and non-profitable, I see an opportunity to expand scientific knowledge. It is also a way of sharing all the accumulated knowledge. In each review, the most experienced people transfer a small quantity of the knowledge they acquired. Furthermore, we are constantly updated with scientific news, staying active and interested in learning. After several years as an author and reviewer, I believe that peer review contributes substantially to improving the quality of studies and scientific progress.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

June, 2024

Aladdin H. Hassanein

Aladdin H. Hassanein, MD, MMSc, FACS, is an Associate Professor and Director of Research in the Division of Plastic Surgery at Indiana University in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. He trained in general surgery at the University of California San Diego, completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at Harvard/Boston Children’s Hospital, and obtained a Master’s in Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School. He also trained in plastic surgery residency at Harvard in Boston and completed a Reconstructive Microsurgery fellowship at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. His clinical expertise includes breast reconstruction and lymphedema. His area of clinical research is concentrated on breast reconstruction outcomes and lymphedema. His NIH-funded translational laboratory focuses on novel therapeutics in lymphedema.

“Peer review maintains the integrity of the scientific reporting,” says Dr. Hassanein, who thinks that peer review provides an opportunity to improve the scientific value of an article prior to dissemination or preventing a scientifically flawed paper from publication in its submitted form. The peer-review process is important because any publication may influence thought and affect patient care.

However, Dr. Hassanein points out that there are some limitations of the existing peer-review system.He reckons thatthe peer-review system is primarily dependent on reviewers volunteering their time, which can result in delays in a field when the pool of reviewers consists of busy clinicians and scientists. In addition, if the reviewer does not appreciate the nuances of an article, this may result in an unjustified, unfavorable review. Choosing reviewers with a keen, expert interest in the topic helps offset these limitations.

“Breast cancer is common, affecting 1 in 8 women. However, breast surgery is often grouped in general plastic surgery journals or surgical oncology journals. ABS fills a gap by providing a widely available venue focused on breast surgery including oncological and reconstructive,” says Dr. Hassanein.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

August, 2024

Wai Ip Li

Dr. Wai Ip Li, MBChB, FANMB, currently serves as a nuclear medicine physician at the Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong. He is the fellow of Asian Nuclear Medicine Board (ANMB), member of Hong Kong College of Radiologists (HKCR) and Hong Kong Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (HKSNMMI), and the assistant editor of Hong Kong Journal of Radiology (HKJR). His clinical duties focus on radionuclide therapies and diagnostic nuclear medicine scans including SPECT/CT and PET/CT with various radiopharmaceuticals, with interests in applications of molecular imaging in oncology.

In Dr. Li’s opinion, peer review plays a pivotal role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publications. He explains, “As a reviewer, our responsibility is not merely to critique the work of our peers but to uphold the standards of academic excellence. Through the peer-review process, we act as gatekeepers, ensuring that only rigorous, well-researched, and methodologically sound studies are disseminated to the scientific community and beyond.” He reckons that one of the primary functions of peer review is to provide constructive feedback to authors. This feedback serves as a valuable tool for authors to improve the quality of their work, refine their methodology, strengthen their arguments, and address any potential shortcomings in their research. By offering insightful comments and suggestions, reviewers help authors navigate the complex landscape of academic publishing, ultimately leading to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.Moreover, he indicates that peer review acts as a safeguard against plagiarism, data fabrication, and other forms of academic misconduct. By scrutinizing the research methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results, reviewers play a crucial role in detecting any ethical breaches or inconsistencies in the submitted manuscripts. This rigorous evaluation process helps maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of scientific literature, thereby upholding the reputation of the scholarly community as a whole.

According to Dr. Li, one of the fundamental aspects that reviewers should bear in mind is the necessity to approach each manuscript with impartiality and objectivity. It is imperative to set aside personal biases, preconceptions, and affiliations when assessing the quality and validity of the research presented in the manuscript. By maintaining a neutral stance, reviewers can provide an unbiased evaluation that is solely based on the scientific merit of the work. In addition to impartiality, he points out that reviewers should strive to offer constructive and actionable feedback that can help authors enhance the quality and impact of their manuscript. Rather than focusing solely on identifying flaws or weaknesses in the research, reviewers should aim to provide specific suggestions for improvement, offer insightful comments on methodology and data interpretation, and highlight areas where additional clarification or evidence may be required. This feedback not only benefits the authors but also contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge within the scientific community. Lastly, in the context of the rapidly evolving scientific landscape, he believes that the importance of timely reviews cannot be overstated. With the increasing volume of research being produced, a swift review process is essential for ensuring that high-quality research is circulated promptly to the academic community. Timely reviews facilitate a more efficient publication timeline, enabling researchers to share their findings expediently and contribute to the ongoing discourse in their respective fields. By prioritizing timely reviews, reviewers play a crucial role in expediting the review-to-publication cycle and promoting the dissemination of quality journalism.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

September, 2024

Crystal D Chu

Dr. Crystal D. Chu, PhD, RN, is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Virginia with an overall research focus on shared decision making, health equity, and patient supportive care needs across the cancer continuum. Prior and ongoing research include development of interactive patient decision aids for patients considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and patients considering high-risk breast screening modalities.   

In Dr. Chu’s opinion, healthy peer review is one that maintains high ethical standards, integrity, and transparency. It is imperative that reviewers remain critical of the research process with the emphases on creating quality care environments for patients in the future.

According to Dr. Chu, reviewers have to bear in mind that the main purpose is to allow peers to share new knowledge with the scientific community and establish mechanisms to educate the public. Feedback should only be given that provides the opportunity for the researcher to learn, enhance the writing of the paper, and is realistic to the scope of the project.

“It’s important to remember that the time devoted to reviewing manuscripts helps the larger picture of better serving patients in the future. It not only strengthens the scientific community as we can learn from each other, but the time spent to carefully review and provide meaningful critiques creates sound science. The groundwork of reviewing and publishing our science ultimately can contribute to the information that the public receives which helps improve patient engagement and decision making at the clinical level,” says Dr. Chu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)