In 2024, MED 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
Luca Bertolaccini, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Italy
January, 2024
Luca Bertolaccini
Luca Bertolaccini is a Thoracic Surgeon at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. He is an Associate Editor (Thoracic) of the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. He was the former Associate Editor (Thoracic) of the Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, serves on several editorial boards, and is a reviewer for many scientific journals. His primary clinical interests are lung cancer surgery, minimally invasive thoracic surgery, and thoracic oncology. Dr. Bertolaccini’s research interests and leading publications focus on lung cancer surgery and biostatistics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
MED: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Bertolaccini: Peer review in medicine is crucial for maintaining research and clinical practice standards. It acts as quality control, identifying and rectifying methodological flaws and biases to ensure the dissemination of high-quality, reliable information. Additionally, it validates research findings by verifying study methodologies and conclusions, fostering trust in scientific literature. Peer feedback also aids in refining methodologies, promoting continuous improvement in research practices and advancing medical knowledge. Moreover, peer review prevents the spread of misinformation by filtering out studies lacking scientific rigor or influenced by conflicts of interest (COIs), safeguarding patient care and public health. Overall, peer review is essential for upholding the quality, credibility, and reliability of medical research and clinical practice, ensuring accurate information dissemination, and fostering continual improvement in healthcare outcomes.
MED: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Bertolaccini: Reviewers play a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process, necessitating adherence to several key considerations. Foremost, objectivity and impartiality are paramount, requiring reviewers to assess manuscripts solely on scientific merit while avoiding personal biases and COIs. A thorough evaluation of the study design and methodology ensures the clarity of research questions, the appropriateness of the methods, data analysis robustness, and the validity of the results. Additionally, reviewers scrutinize the incorporation of relevant literature to contextualize the study within existing knowledge and uphold ethical standards by verifying ethical approval and human subject protection. Constructive feedback aids authors in enhancing manuscript quality, addressing weaknesses, and suggesting additional analyses. Timely completion of reviews is essential for the efficient progression of the peer-review process and the timely dissemination of accurate scientific information. By upholding objectivity, evaluating methodologies, assessing literature, considering ethics, providing constructive feedback, and adhering to timelines, reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining scientific rigor and quality.
MED: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Bertolaccini: Objective manuscript evaluation is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of peer review and ensuring the reliability of scientific knowledge. Achieving objectivity involves several principles and practices. Reviewers must consciously set aside personal biases and COIs, focusing instead on the scientific merit of the manuscript. This entails prioritizing the evaluation of methodology and evidence, adhering to predefined criteria, and separating the work from the author's identity. Assumptions about authors' intentions should be avoided, with constructive feedback provided to aid improvement. Consistency in evaluation across manuscripts further enhances objectivity. By employing these principles, reviewers contribute to the credibility and reliability of scientific literature.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
