In 2024, CDT 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
Dzmitry Matsiukevich, Washington University, USA
February, 2024
Tamara García-Camarero, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Spain
March, 2024
Marcelino Cortés, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Spain
April, 2024
Nils Johnson, University of Texas, USA
May, 2024
Rosa Suades, Institut de Recerca Sant Pau, Spain
January, 2024
Dzmitry Matsiukevich
Dr. Dzmitry Matsiukevich, MD, FACC, is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Pediatric Critical Care and Cardiology at the Washington University Department of Pediatrics. With his background including valuable training and clinical experience in both Belarus and the United States, he is currently holding a distinguished position as a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology (FACC). His specialization lies in critical care cardiology, and he primarily focuses his academic efforts on studying the molecular mechanisms of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Through his research, he aims to enhance our understanding of HFpEF and contribute to advancements in its treatment.
Dr. Matsiukevich reckons that peer review plays a crucial role in the scientific process as it serves as a quality-control mechanism for scholarly research. It contributes to maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific research by subjecting it to expert scrutiny. It helps ensure that only high-quality, rigorous, and novel research is published, advancing knowledge and fostering scientific progress.
According to Dr. Matsiukevich, an objective review is characterized by impartiality, fairness, and a focus on evaluating the content or subject matter without personal bias or undue influence. While there are multiple algorithms and structured approach available to ensure that a review is objective, there are several steps one takes, including:
- Adopt a neutral mindset and strive to evaluate the content based on its merits.
- Carefully examine the information presented, paying attention to its accuracy, completeness, logical coherence, and supporting evidence.
- Base the review on observable facts and evidence rather than personal opinions or feelings. Provide specific examples or references to support your statements.
- Ensure that you do not have any conflicts of interest (COIs) that may compromise your objectivity.
- Clearly articulate your reasoning and support your assertions with evidence where appropriate.
By following these guidelines, one can strive to provide an objective review that is fair, impartial, and based on a thorough evaluation of the content or subject matter.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Matsiukevich thinks that it is important for authors to be transparent about any potential COIs to maintain the credibility and integrity of the research and ensure that readers have the necessary information to make informed judgments about the findings presented. Transparency helps safeguard the scientific process and encourages trust in research publications. The extent to which a COI would influence research depends on the nature and significance of the interest. A COI can arise when an author has financial, professional, personal, or any other competing interest that could potentially bias the research findings or interpretation. While not all COIs necessarily invalidate the research, it is crucial to disclose them so readers can assess the potential impacts on the validity and objectivity of the study. Additional aspects related to COI should be considered in the context of AI. When it comes to AI systems, potential COIs can arise from a variety of sources, such as financial interests, bias in data sources, or the objectives of the AI developers.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Tamara García-Camarero
Tamara García-Camarero has been a Specialist in Cardiology since 2009 and got Interventional Cardiology certified since 2012. She is currently working at Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain. With more than 40 papers in medical journals, she is a reviewer of several journals. Taking an active participation in clinical trials in the area of interventional cardiology, she has been an Instructor by the IMS of Boston (Institute for Medical Simulation) since 2014. With large simulation-based teaching background, Dr. García-Camarero is involved in over 40 programs at the Virtual Hospital Valdecilla. Her areas of interest include simulation-based teaching, intracoronary imaging techniques, cardiogenic shock, renal denervation. Connect with her on X @Tgcamarero.
CDT: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. García-Camarero: From my perspective, a reviewer should have a good and updated knowledge of the paper topic, and he/she has to be able to comply with the deadlines proposed. Reviewers should try to read the paper he/she was willing to improve it, such as pointing out ideas or thoughts that are not clear enough, images of tables that are not easy to understand or that are missing key information.
CDT: Why do you choose to review for CDT?
Dr. García-Camarero: I have been invited to do so and I think that reading the papers from a reviewer’s point of view helps me to become a better author and also to get the most of all the scientific literature I read.
CDT: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. García-Camarero: The more the data shared, the more solid the results obtained. Sometimes some authors have great research ideas but they do work in small places with not many resources to accomplish their studies. A better option is joining efforts with some peers with your same concerns to work for a common goal.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Marcelino Cortés
Dr. Marcelino Cortés, MD, PhD, works at the Department of Noninvasive Cardiology at the Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain. Accredited by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, he is also Member of the Spanish Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology. Throughout his professional career, he has combined his healthcare activity with a research vocation that has covered different topics, mainly in the clinical field: hypothermia in cardiac arrest, periprosthetic dehiscence, cardiac imaging in the guidance of invasive procedures, or imaging in the characterization of cardiomyopathies. His research activity has focused in recent years on heart failure, mainly on the therapeutic management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the elderly population, in combination with other projects that he is currently developing (study of mineral metabolism and iSGLT-2 in heart failure). All of this is complemented by various collaborations with other research teams.
CDT: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Cortés: The role of review in science is crucial. Firstly, independent review of scientific activity allows to help authors to improve their projects, providing an external view that often brings new points of view and improvements in their research. Secondly, it helps to maintain the quality and credibility of publications, all of which is necessary for the proper advancement of knowledge and science.
CDT: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Cortés: Biases in the review may exist. In order to minimize these biases, I think it is important to keep several aspects in mind. First, review those articles in which the reviewer really has a deep knowledge, avoiding reviewing manuscripts that deal with topics where the reviewer has a more superficial knowledge. Second, be completely objective when assessing the interest of the subject matter, the methodology proposed, or the discussion of the results. In addition, justify in a reasoned manner all the comments made during the review. The aim is to provide a constructive, independent and objective assessment of the revised manuscript.
CDT: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Cortés: It is true that the medical workload in our environment is high. If we add this to the scientific activity, and the time available for other activities is quite limited. However, scientific activity necessarily entails the activity of a reviewer, given its relevance. In my particular case, I am quite selective when reviewing an article, limiting myself to those manuscripts that deal with my areas of expertise. This simplifies the review, optimizing my time, and also allows other articles to be reviewed by more suitable reviewers.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Nils Johnson
Dr. Nils Johnson is an academic cardiologist and Professor of Medicine at the University of Texas in Houston where he also holds the Weatherhead Distinguished Chair of Heart Disease. His research focuses on myocardial perfusion imaging using PET and cardiac hemodynamics using invasive pressure and flow sensors. Dr. Johnson served as the principal investigator for international trials in coronary physiology like CONTRAST (NCT02184117) and DEFINE-FLOW (NCT02328820). Current projects include quantitative FFR pullbacks (PPG global registry, NCT04789317) and novel aortic valve physiology (SAVI-AoS, NCT04514250). He has lectured in 19 countries across 4 continents and contributed to over 180 publications. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Johnson thinks that in some sense each reader of a manuscript is a reviewer since she or he will reach an independent opinion of its methods and results. Formalizing a few of these "expert readings" before publication generally improves the quality of the literature.
Peer review receives little funding or acknowledgement for the actual reviewers, according to Dr. Johnson. Additionally, finding experts willing to devote sufficient time to reading a paper and writing a constructive review can be challenging. Continuing medical education credits as well as both internal and external recognition for good reviewers can improve these limitations by attracting, retaining, and rewarding reviewers.
“As an author of publications, I value the constructive input of experts that have reviewed my own papers. Reviewing manuscripts for CDT allows me to provide other authors my own expertise on their submissions,” says Dr. Johnson.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Rosa Suades
Rosa Suades is a CIBER researcher at the Institut de Recerca Sant Pau in Barcelona. She obtained her PhD at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), by which she was granted the UPF Doctoral School PhD Extraordinary Award and the FUNCAS “Enrique Fuentes Quintana” Health Science PhD Award. She did a postdoctoral stage at the Molecular Cardiology Group within Cardiology Unit, Karolinska Institute (KI, Sweden), where she was also a member of the KI Junior Faculty Steering Committee. She has received predoctoral fellowship from Carlos III Health Institute and postdoctoral grants from European Society of Cardiology and Daniel Bravo Andreu Foundation. She was the recipient of a returning Beatriu de Pinós fellowship from the Government of Catalonia. With more than 38 articles and >1500 total citations, Dr. Suades is an ad-hoc reviewer of peer-reviewed journals. She has been co-investigator of International and National-funded projects and has been awarded with several young investigator awards and travel grants. She is a member of professional societies and has co-directed undergraduate and graduate students. Through her research, she aims to enhance the understanding of the basic mechanisms underlying cardiovascular risk factors, atherothrombosis, and ischemic heart disease. Her areas of interest also include extracellular vesicles, epigenetics and non-coding RNAs, and systems biology. Connect with her on X @RSuades.
Dr. Suades believes that the mission of scholar peer-review system in science is crucial and fundamental. Appropriate and fair appraisal undoubtedly ensures novel, rigorous and high-quality research fostering knowledge progress and setting the standards regarding the integrity and reproducibility of the published articles. She thinks that the peer-review process has a bidirectional beneficial effect for the academic community; it not only improves the quality of the manuscripts, but also provides knowledge exchange, the opportunity to learn about most recent updates in the field of research, and contributes to the advancement of science. Notwithstanding, there is still room for improvement to face future challenges concerning double-blinding, lack of volunteer’s recognition, recruitment of honest and competent reviewers, and the strengthening and safeguard of public trust in science.
As for the objective review, first and foremost, Dr. Suades thinks that before accepting any reviewer activity, she would ensure that she does not have any potential competing interest that might compromise her impartiality and fairness as well as she has the time the reviewing task deserves. Equally important is carefully choosing those manuscripts that fall within her area of expertise. Then, she approaches the manuscript from a neutral position without undue bias specially when considering its novelty, significance and impact. Thorough examination of its content is focused on accuracy, bold ideas, completeness, logical coherence and solid organization, supporting evidence and merits, and robustness. Besides, quality controls, statistical methods, figures and adherence to best practices and journal’s criteria are also relevant and considered. Based on all the above, she writes up the reasoning of the overall assessment, highlighting the study strengths and weaknesses and providing a clear, constructive, precise, polite, and professional feedback, to the editors and authors, in a timely manner. From this perspective, she would like to acknowledge her mentors Prof. Lina Badimon and Prof. Francesco Cosentino for valuable advice and formal guidance in peer review received during her training.
Dr. Suades points out that she accepted Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy (CDT)’s invitation for several reasons. In her opinion, CDT is an international open access journal covering cardiovascular medicine and surgery. “I gladly invest part of my time and expertise to assist in the CTD’s peer-review process due its commitment and support of translational basic science and interdisciplinary research beyond clinically relevant studies. Besides, the review process itself allows me to reinforce my up-to-date scientific background, take a broader view of my research field, learn about new methods and approaches and the latest developments, and improve my critical thinking and my own research outputs. Moreover, I am indebted to all the outstanding reviewers for comments received during my career and I am willing to give it in exchange. Finally, I enjoy supporting the progress of biomedical science and making a positive contribution to society,” adds she.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
