In 2024, ACR 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
Ashwani Kumar Sharma, University of Rochester, USA
February, 2024
Jasmeet Kaur, Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA
March, 2024
Yoshio Masuda, National University of Singapore, Singapore
April, 2024
Shuhei Shintani, Shiga University of Medical Science, Japan
January, 2024
Ashwani Kumar Sharma
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma is board certified in radiology with CAQ in interventional radiology and neuroradiology. He is working with University of Rochester, New York. His areas of interest are interventional oncology and other image-guided procedures. He is involved with photodynamic therapy of ductal gastrointestinal cancers and identifying the excellent candidates for PDT in that patient population, and co PI for a phase 1 clinical trial investigating the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for sterilization of deep tissue abscesses. He is also co PI in another project where they are looking for role of ultrasound elastography of liver and spleen before and after TIPS procedure. In addition, he is involved with the wellness and diversity initiative of the department and has recently published on the burnout in interventional radiology.
ACR: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Sharma: Most of us in academic world wants to have a positive impact in our field and in the process advance our career. We want our work to be appreciated by others, however, when we start thinking and living in our silos, we lose track of reality. That’s why peer review of our work is very important. Review is the feedback we receive from our peers. By constructive review one can be critical at the same time helping the author with their experience to analyze the data better, to allow the article to communicate the idea. Constructive reviews attempt to frame critique such that remarks are supportive and attentive to the needs of the author. On the contrary, destructive review is a careless, unprofessional way of undermining and rejecting someone’s work on the basis of non-existent flaws. Reviews that have arrogant, dismissive language are not very encouraging, especially to young authors. Deconstructive feedback risks altering the spirit of the peer-review process, creating something negative, confusing, or potentially damaging to the author.
ACR: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Sharma: Reviewers like teachers are the most important members of our society. In our medical education, we don’t have a formal curriculum for paper writing. Learning by doing and failing multiple times before mastering the art of paper writing is the way most people learn this art. Reviewers are doing noble job of furthering science without any incentive. Like most great people don’t get the recognition they deserve, reviewers belong to that category. These are the individuals that are pushing us forward, helping ensure that the medical evidence used to protect our communities arises from sound research practice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Jasmeet Kaur
Jasmeet Kaur currently is a second-year fellow specializing in Hematology and Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, USA. She earned her medical degree from Sri Guru Ramdas Institution of Medical Sciences in India. Following medical school, she pursued residency training in Radiation Oncology at Baba Farid University and Health Sciences, also in India. Subsequently, she undertook an Internal Medicine residency at Saint Joseph Mercy Hospital, affiliated with Trinity Health, in MI, US. Her research interests primarily lie in gastrointestinal and genitourinary oncology, with a particular focus on immunotherapy and targeted therapy.
According to Dr. Kaur, reviewers should possess various skills and abilities to evaluate and provide feedback on academic papers. For a robust peer review, a reviewer's expertise in the subject matter is crucial for accurately understanding and assessing the content. In addition to maintaining objectivity, reviewers must also focus on the content's merits and shortcomings rather than personal biases. Identifying errors, inconsistencies, or other areas that need improvement in the manuscript requires more attention to detail. Furthermore, critical thinking skills enable reviewers to analyze content critically, identifying strengths and weaknesses in arguments, methodologies, and data interpretation.
Moreover, Dr. Kaur points out that reviewers must be ethically aware, adhere to confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and ethically conduct reviews. Reviewer activity should involve effective communication and constructive criticism rather than merely pointing out flaws. It should involve offering suggestions for improvement and helping authors enhance the quality of their work. Commitment to sustaining standard of quality and excellence in the field motivates reviewers to make substantial contributions to knowledge and research through their reviewing activities.
“ACR is an excellent platform for submitting scientifically intriguing case reports or case series that can bring changes in the future of medicine,” says Dr. Kaur.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Yoshio Masuda
Dr. Yoshio Masuda works in the Ministry of Health, Singapore. He received his Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) from the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. His research interests encompass investigating and improving patient outcomes in the fields of surgical oncology and trauma surgery. He is a regular-invited reviewer for international journals and has won multiple grants in support of various projects. He is also active in presenting collaborative works in international conferences. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Masuda believes that peer review is an essential component of manuscript publication. It is important as it allows for the evaluation of a study’s validity, originality, and significance. This enables the maintenance of high standards in existing literature. Pertaining to individual journals, peer review is key in selecting manuscripts that fall within a journal’s scope.
To minimize any potential biases during review, Dr. Masuda thinks that it is the responsibility of a peer reviewer to approach each manuscript with an impartial evaluation of its scientific validity and novelty. Nevertheless, a double-blind peer review may help to reduce any potential bias.
Dr. Masuda’s passion for research stems from witnessing how such studies can translate into real-world outcomes – healthcare policies, guidelines, etc. Naturally, peer review is a crucial aspect of research. He believes that this passion motivates him to devote most of his free time into research – collaborating, analyzing, writing studies and performing peer review. He adds that it may seem tiring but if reviewers really enjoy and appreciate the importance of research, it would seem like a pastime. Moreover, there are career tracks available that cater to physicians who appreciate both clinical work and research (e.g., clinician/surgeon-scientist track). These career pathways are designed to enable sufficient time for physicians to balance both areas of work and bring about impactful change to patients.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Shuhei Shintani
Dr. Shuhei Shintani graduated from Kochi University, and now works at Department of Gastroenterology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Japan. His research area focuses on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), EUS-Elastography, and endoscopic anesthesia and drugs.
Dr. Shintani indicates that peer review acts as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring that research published in scientific journals meets certain standards of accuracy, validity, and relevance.
In addition, Dr. Shintani points out that an objective review is one that presents information, analysis, and judgment without being unduly influenced by personal biases, preferences, or external factors. “To avoid bias, I do not check the author of the paper at all, even if it is an open peer review,” adds he.
“For researchers, making time is one of the most important things. Therefore, I try to find a little free time during the day to do a little peer review,” says Dr. Shintani.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
