In 2024, SHC 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
Shugo Uematsu, Northern Yokohama Hospital, Japan
February, 2024
Atul C. Mehta, Delaware County Memorial Hospital, USA
March, 2024
Apostolos C. Agrafiotis, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Belgium
January, 2024
Shugo Uematsu
Shugo Uematsu currently serves as an associate professor at the Respiratory Disease Center of Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital. His specialty is thoracic surgery, particularly thoracic malignancies. As a front-line surgeon, he performs many types of surgeries, ranging from minimum to highly invasive. Unlike other thoracic surgeons, he also treats advanced lung cancer for which surgery is not indicated and provides palliative care. This style of practice gives him a firsthand understanding of the impact of surgical treatment on other treatments, allowing him to provide the best possible care to the patients. Moreover, these experiences have led him to study the impact of surgical treatment on patients’ prognoses and quality of life. Recently, he conducts basic research on the application of optical technology in the surgical field.
In Dr. Uematsu’s opinion, research results affect human health, and inappropriate research results may mislead other studies, crushing the inspiration of other researchers. Therefore, research articles must be valid and accurate, and must not justify accidental results. Peer review is one effective way to eliminate such inappropriate research results before they become public knowledge.
Dr. Uematsu reckons that, to evaluate the article's validity, a survey of relevant research is necessary. And to evaluate its accuracy, it is also necessary to investigate whether the cited references have been properly handled. However, when the cited references are from paid or membership journals, it is difficult for reviewers to assume the procedures and costs of obtaining them. With such limitations to scrutinizing articles that cite references that are not readily available, he suggests that the peer-review system undertakes the research cost and procedure for reviewers.
“The partner involved in the peer review may be a colleague in the article’s field or a leader in the research area. Through peer review, you will learn what aspects of the article your partner focused on. Therefore, peer review is an opportunity to brush up on your knowledge,” says Dr. Uematsu.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Atul C. Mehta
Atul C. Mehta graduated from Municipal Medical College, Gujarat University in India with the general practice of Delaware County Memorial Hospital, Drexel Hill, PA, USA. He has received fellowship training of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine in Cleveland Clinic. He got the board-certifications of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Interventional Pulmonology, etc. His research interests focus on diagnostic & therapeutic bronchoscopy, lung transplantation, emphysema. He is the founder and past-President of the American Association for Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology, and fellow of the ACCP, ACP, and the American Society for Laser Medicine & Surgery. Connect with him on X @ACM_LTx_Bronch.
In Dr. Mehta’s opinion, the qualities a reviewer should possess include thorough knowledge of the subject being reviewed, and constructive criticism without biases. He reckons that reviewers, while reviewing papers, should possess up-to-date knowledge on the subject, confidentiality, impartiality, constructive criticism to the authors, punctuality and evidence-based decision recommendation to the editor.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Apostolos C. Agrafiotis
Dr. Apostolos C. Agrafiotis is a board-certified consultant thoracic surgeon in Belgium. He was born and raised in Athens (Greece), and after completing his medical studies in his home city, he moved to Belgium where he completed his residency in General Surgery. He specialized in Thoracic Surgery in Paris (France), where he also obtained his board certification. He works currently as a consultant for thoracic surgery at Saint-Pierre University Hospital and Iris Sud Hospitals in Brussels and at the Wallonie Picarde Hospital Center in the city of Tournai, Belgium. He is a research fellow and a PhD student at the University of Antwerp. His doctoral research is focused on the genetic and molecular profile of thymic epithelial tumors. His primary clinical interests are lung cancer surgery, minimally invasive thoracic surgery, surgery for thymic tumors, chest trauma, and thoracic oncology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
SHC: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Agrafiotis: Above all, it needs to be helpful and encouraging for the writers to learn from and enhance their work without deterring future contributions. Review processes that are prompt, impartial, and unbiased are hallmarks of a robust peer-review system. Peer reviewers should provide insightful and constructive criticism of the article under consideration, and they should let the assigned editors determine if the paper's originality is sufficient to warrant publishing or not. Authors should disclose their conflicts of interest (COIs), and most importantly, reviewers should not engage themselves in a peer-review process if they feel that they have a potential COI regarding the authors and/or the institution of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers’ comments should be honest, encouraging, and professional, without being disrespectful.
SHC: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Agrafiotis: Authors can improve the quality of their manuscripts, fix their flaws, and provide more analyses with the help of constructive criticism. The timely submission of reliable scientific material and the smooth operation of the peer-review process depends on the timely completion of reviews. Reviewers play a vital role in preserving scientific rigor and quality by endorsing objectivity, analyzing procedures, evaluating literature, considering ethics, offering helpful criticism, and meeting deadlines. In my opinion, the most important element is that reviewers should engage themselves in the peer-review process free of biases and COIs.
SHC: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Agrafiotis: Peer review might take a lot of time. Reviewers have a difficult task ahead of them, particularly when they are evaluating long or complex articles. They must attentively read and analyze the manuscript, evaluate the methods, data interpretation, and results, and offer thorough input. Peer reviewers frequently balance a variety of professional and personal obligations, making it difficult to find the time to assess manuscripts in addition to other commitments. However, reviewing a paper is beneficial for the reviewer: discovering another point of view or a different way to present data can improve the reviewer’s scientific conduct. Deepening into literature research and further reading offer additional knowledge. The most important is to feel being a guarantor of scientific integrity and to honestly and objectively guide the editorial office toward the final decision. This is a very rewarding feeling!
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
