In 2024, TBCR 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.
April, 2024
Carlos H Barrios, Hospital São Lucas, Brazil
June, 2024
Simone Nardin, University of Genoa, Italy
April, 2024
Carlos H Barrios
Dr. Carlos H. Barrios is a medical oncologist working in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Dedicated mainly to Breast Cancer patients, he has an intense clinical research agenda both in their hospital research center and Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG). The group congregates investigators and institutions from 16 different countries. He has been particularly interested in developing and fostering the cooperative group infrastructure in Latin America and he is positively enthusiastic that the rich and qualified human resources in the region will become important players in the international research scenario addressing critical issues for low and middle income countries (LMIC) that have remained outside the focus of currently conducted clinical trials, usually directed to diseases and problems of high income countries (HIC). Recognizing the significant and disproportional challenge denoted by the increasing incidence in cancer cases in LMIC as compared to HIC expected in the next few decades and huge gaps that exists health care capabilities and more importantly, in outcomes, clinical research becomes an important and vital investment to support.
“Research is vital to progress in any field and most certainly it is in medicine. Communication of research is central to the evolution of science as it allows interaction and criticism and is key to build upon the work of others. Peer review in the communication process is essential because it serves as a quality control system ensuring credibility, validity, and academic integrity of scientific research,” says Dr. Barrios. He indicates that peer review involves the evaluation of a manuscript by experts, who assess the study’s methodology, accuracy, and contribution to the field. This process helps to confirm that the research is robust, the conclusions are supported by the data, and the work is original and significant. By filtering out unsubstantiated or flawed studies, peer review maintains the trustworthiness of scientific literature and advances knowledge within the field. The initial critical review plays a critical role improving several different aspects of any manuscript, from the more formal aspects of language, format, presentation style and content to the design of the experiment, analysis of the results and the clarity and appropriateness of the proposed discussion. Uniformly, a critical peer review ends up improving the quality of the presented work.
In Dr. Barrios’ opinion, to minimize biases in peer review, several strategies can be implemented. For example, a double-blind review process, where both the reviewers and the authors are anonymized, can reduce bias related to the author’s and the reviewer’s identity. Importantly, encouraging a diverse panel of reviewers from different backgrounds and institutions can also provide various perspectives and reduce the impact of individual biases. Also, addressing the different aspects of a manuscript with different experts allows for a deeper probing on the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted work. To him, it is important to provide clear guidelines and training for reviewers and to promote consistent and objective evaluation criteria. Additionally, fostering open dialogue between reviewers and editors and considering multiple reviews for each paper can balance differing opinions and further mitigate bias. Not unusually, different opinions are generated within a group of reviewers while addressing a specific manuscript, and again, a situation where opinions vs. biases can be addressed.
According to Dr. Barrios, allocating time for peer review involves effective time management and prioritization. “As a busy professional, it's crucial to set aside dedicated time slots for reviewing tasks amidst other responsibilities. This might include scheduling specific periods during the week dedicated solely to peer review, which allows for focused and uninterrupted evaluation. It's also important to manage expectations by committing to a reasonable number of reviews each month and communicating clearly with journal editors regarding deadlines. In a very particular and personal interpretation of my review activity, viewing peer review as a form of professional development and a way to stay up to date with the latest research provides motivation and a sense of contribution to the scientific community, making it a rewarding rather than just a burdensome task,” says Dr. Barrios.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Simone Nardin
Simone Nardin graduated from the University of Eastern Piedmont under the guidance of Professor Alessandra Gennari. Currently, he is a fellow in medical oncology at the University of Genoa, under the mentorship of Professor Lucia Del Mastro and Professor Matteo Lambertini, while working at IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino as an intern in the oncology department. His principal research areas are related to breast cancer, especially issues concerning young women and early treatment. Recent projects, worthy of ESMO Breast Cancer 2024 merit, focus on adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women and the role of GnRH analogs for these patients. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Nardin’s opinion, the peer-review system is essential to ensure high standards during the publication process, as it is not feasible for editors to adequately assess the quality of every submitted manuscript. However, there are limitations, such as potential biases, lengthy review times, and variability in the quality of reviews. The blind peer-review method can help mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence between reviewers and authors. Additionally, employing advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence to assist in initial manuscript assessments could be useful as an initial step.
According to Dr. Nardin, a reviewer should possess several key qualities. Patience is crucial, as authors spend months producing and submitting their manuscripts, and reviewers must carefully evaluate all aspects of the work to suggest substantial improvements when necessary. Moreover, reviewers should have a strong understanding of the subject matter, attention to detail, and the ability to provide constructive and unbiased feedback.
Dr. Nardin believes that peer reviewing is a vital component of the scientific process, ensuring the accuracy, quality, and integrity of published research. He adds, “Contributing to this process allows me to play a crucial role in advancing knowledge within my field. This process helps me stay updated with the latest research and developments, which can inform and inspire my work, fostering continuous learning and professional growth. Lastly, it also sharpens my critical thinking and analytical skills, as I must rigorously evaluate the methodologies, data, and conclusions presented in manuscripts.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
