In 2024, HBSN 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
Victor Lopez-Lopez, University of Murcia, Spain
March, 2024
Amedeo Lonardo, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, Italy
April, 2024
Benedetto Ielpo, Hospital del Mar, Spain
May, 2024
Andrew A. Gumbs, Grigol Robakidze University, USA
June, 2024
Ahmet Gurakar, Johns Hopkins University, USA
July, 2024
Chok Siu Ho Kenneth, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
August, 2024
Nobuyuki Takemura, Saitama University, Japan
January, 2024
Victor Lopez-Lopez
Victor Lopez-Lopez serves as an Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Murcia, Spain. He attends the HPB Surgery and Liver Transplant program in Clinic and University Virgen de la Arrixaca Hospital in Murcia, Spain. His research interests focus on minimally invasive surgery, translational research, surgical oncology, liver regeneration, extreme liver surgery, bile duct injury, liver transplantation and global surgery. He performed visiting fellowships at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, University Hospital in Zurich, New Tokyo and Ageo Central General Hospitals in Japan and Vall d´hebron Hospital in Barcelona. In 2017, he received the Health Sciences extraordinary prize for his PhD at the University of Murcia. In 2019, he completed a master in "clinical research in donation and transplant specialty" at University of Barcelona, Spain.
In Dr. Lopez-Lopez’s opinion, the review process is essential to improve the quality of manuscripts submitted to any journal. The critical analysis of the methodology and results of any research ensures the information to be more precise to readers, making it easier for them to implement those findings in their daily practice. In addition, it can help authors to improve their manuscript on what they had not considered during their study plan.
Regarding the major limitation in the existing review system, Dr. Lopez-Lopez points out that it is related to the lack of time due to the pressure of care, which means that this activity has to be performed during non-working time. Another problem is associated with the lack of recognition of reviewers. This activity is performed by professionals because of their involvement with academic surgery. Initiatives such as the one proposed by HBSN serve as recognition to value the work of the reviewer.
Speaking of the reason that Dr. Lopez-Lopez chooses to review for HBSN, he indicates that HBSN has managed to consolidate itself over the last decade as a journal with great impact on the hepatobiliary, pancreatic and liver transplant surgery community by focusing on innovative projects, well-designed studies, exhaustive reviews of relevant topics and expert opinions that are very useful for improving the scientific evidence of the daily clinical practice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Amedeo Lonardo
Amedeo Lonardo, MD, graduated in Medicine, is a specialist in Gastroenterology, Pediatrics and Internal Medicine. Qualified at the Italian National Examination for Full Professor in Gastroenterology and Associate Professor in Internal Medicine (2017), now he works affiliated with Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena (-2023) Modena, Italy. His research interests include NAFLD/MAFLD/MASLD. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of Metabolism and Target Organ Damage and Metabolites. As of 8th of April 2024, he has 300 editor records (Clarivate), 1,114 peer-review records of 807 manuscripts (Clarivate), as the Top reviewers of Biology and Biochemistry; Cross-Field; Clinical Medicine; Pharmacology and Toxicology (2019); Multidisciplinary; Biology and Biochemistry; and Clinical Medicine (2018). Dr. Lonardo has 283 publications with 12,754 citations (Clarivate), 21,135 citations (Google Scholar), becoming Highly Cited Researcher in 2022, and 2023. His H Index reaches 64 in Scopus and 74 in Google Scholar. Learn more about him here.
HBSN: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Lonardo: Reviewers’ comments provide a strong basis for making decisions on whether a manuscript should be accepted for publication or rejected. Behind a successfully published manuscript, there is invariably the hidden contribution of reviewers. These experts often contribute to a substantial extent in improving the first submission by increasing conciseness and consistency, while suggesting the most appropriate and updated references.
In the era of open access publication, the hidden workload voluntarily offered by reviewers is the true driving force behind the publication industry, which, in its turn, begets affluence, and contributes to the edification of researchers’ scientific reputation and academic careers. Having a good team of reviewers at its disposal makes a scientific journal’s fortune.
It is somewhat paradoxical that the whole pyramid of scientific publishing is based on the voluntary contribution of reviewers, without whose support the whole building would collapse. I recently handled a submission for which 20 reviewers had been invited but none had accepted. Although this may be a sign that the topic of that particular manuscript was of limited interest, it is also true that the publication industry should become more open to acknowledging the needs and rewards to be delivered in order to motivate reviewers.
HBSN: What do reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Lonardo: Probably the most fundamental aspects to be considered include the rationale behind the study, and the biological credibility of findings. It is not uncommon to read authors stating that they conducted a given study “because this had never been done before” without highlighting the logic behind their study, which does not necessarily conflict with the element of innovation.
Clearly, the devil is in the details, and it is incredible how many papers fail to describe precisely what the investigators expected to find and why (based on current views) when the study was initiated. Not to mention the innumerable manuscripts which fail to precisely define the medical condition which is being investigated. Careful reviewers will invariably suggest, in a gentle manner, how these weaker points may be improved.
When I first became interest in medical research some decades ago, it was not uncommon for young investigators to read harsh if not frankly offensive comments from reviewers’. This is exactly what we want to avoid, and reviewers must always handle authors in a constructive manner, by illustrating how to improve a manuscript rather than severely underlining its points of weakness.
HBSN: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Lonardo: Compared to other careers, scientific investigators tend to have lower salaries. However, they are often motivated by non-profit incentives, such as their love for biomedical science, or their desire to help sick people and promote general health and progress in Medicine.
While these same motivations may also apply to reviewers, these are also specifically motivated by their interest and passion for the progress of the field they are involved in and by acknowledgements that their own studies may occasionally receive. As one gets older, it becomes surprising to note that researchers know everything regarding the latest developments, while seemingly neglecting the history of the topic they investigate. In this context, learning to cite “quotation classics” may represent a useful lesson for some young investigators.
On the other hand, for expert reviewers, reading submitted manuscripts offers a unique opportunity to remain updated regarding the latest trends and achievements in one’s own research field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Benedetto Ielpo
Benedetto Ielpo is an Italian surgeon currently working in Spain in the HPB unit of the Hospital del Mar of Barcelona as Head of General Surgery unit. His main interest is in minimally invasive surgery, both laparoscopic and robotic. Certified with the European Board of HPB surgery and Surgical Oncology, he works also as Associate Professor of the Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona. He is currently the elected secretary of the Spanish Chapter of the American College of Surgeon and President and Founder of the ACIE (Association dei Chirurghi Italiani in Europa - Association of the Italian surgeon in Europe). Connect with him on LinkedIn and learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Ielpo, peer review plays a crucial role in the scientific process, ensuring the integrity, quality, and credibility of scientific research. It is important that this evaluation is well done to ensure that studies are well-conducted and conclusions are supported by the data. For reviewers, the process provides an opportunity to stay up-to-date with the latest research and to contribute to their field. It also helps them develop critical thinking and analytical skills.
Dr. Ielpo reckons that an objective review is one that evaluates a piece of work based solely on its merits, free from personal biases, conflicts of interest, or external influences. Reviewers can provide fair, unbiased, and constructive feedback that upholds the integrity of the scientific review process.
In Dr. Ielpo’s opinion, balancing the responsibilities of being a surgeon with the demands of peer review can indeed be challenging. He suggests breaking down the review process into smaller tasks (e.g., reading the abstract and introduction, reviewing methods, analysing results) and spread these tasks over several days. He adds, “In case you are not available for peer review, it is important to let the editors know it as soon as possible.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Andrew A. Gumbs
Prof. Andrew Gumbs graduated from Yale University and the Yale School of Medicine. He completed his Categorical General Surgery Residency at Yale-New-Haven Hospital. He completed a fellowship in Pancreatic Surgery at the University of Verona, a Minimal Invasive Fellowship at the University Hospitals of Cornell and Columbia Universities in New York City and a Minimally Invasive Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Fellowship at the Institu Mutualiste Montsouris in Paris, France. He is board-certified in the USA, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Prof. Gumbs has been most recently working as the Chief Surgical Officer of the American Hospital Tbilisi where he is the Director of the Advanced and Minimally Invasive Surgery Excellence Center. He is also currently a Full Professor of Surgery at the Grigol Robakidze University in Tbilisi, Georgia and an Honorary Professor of Surgery of Magdeburg University in Germany where he does his research in Artificial Intelligence in Surgery. He launched the journal Artificial Intelligence Surgery in 2021 and has been the Editor-in Chief since inception. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Prof. Gumbs’s opinion, there are currently no ways to confirm if a reviewer actually even reads the article that they are reviewing. Some studies have shown that many published articles were never even read by the reviewers or editors. Software can be used to prevent this from happening. Many programs also exist to automatically detect plagiarism and auto-plagiarism. Natural language processing could also be used to help detect deliberate errors implanted into submitted manuscripts. Another problem with the process is that some editorial boards are controlled by many of the same people. This can create a bias against authors who are not properly connected to these board members. He believes the increase in journals can help mitigate these influences. Lastly, he indicates that Open Access is a fantastic way to get clinicians and researchers the information that they need to best treat their patients.
“Reviewers need to understand how fundamentally important they are in the final decision of manuscripts, and as a result, the dissemination of information,” says Prof. Gumbs. He thinks that in many ways, they are the last line of defence from publishing a paper that can lead to immeasurable harm to future patients. We have all heard of seminal articles that were published in major journals, only to be retracted years later. If someone is not aware of this, he highly recommends watching “Bad Surgeon: Love Under the Knife” on Netflix at the same time.
Prof. Gumbs indicates that the institutional review board (IRB) was created in the aftermath of the second World War and more specifically the Nuremberg Trials. Prior to Nuremberg Code in 1945 and later the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964, many doctors abused their power and experimented on humans without their consent. Apparently, the Nazi “doctors” performed the first kidney transplants on twins in concentration camps. Despite the potential for data from these experiments to advance research in the field of transplantation, it was decided that data from these atrocities should never again be used. In essence, the need for IRB approval is to remind us of the evil that can be done in the name of so-called “research” and the imperative that we never again repeat the mistakes of the past. If the IRB process were removed, we would be effectively replicating the mistakes of the Nazi “doctors”, but also the crimes of the 30-year Tuskegee Syphilis Study where 300 black men were unknowingly infected, untreated and followed for decades to document their progression from primary all the way to tertiary syphilis and death. In short, avoiding IRB approval when indicated, in his view, is to potentially commit a crime against humanity.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Ahmet Gurakar
Dr. Ahmet Gurakar is the Medical Director of Liver Transplantation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. He is also Professor of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. His research area covers on indications for liver transplantation for Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis, changing land- scape for Alcoholic Liver Disease and Liver Transplantation.
In Dr. Gurakar’s opinion, peer review is vital to be able to achieve global scandalization and scientific roots for the propagation of science, medical knowledge and experience. “The reviewers’ hard work will ensure only the best productions to come to the surface for everybody’s benefit, in the world of medical sciences,” says he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Chok Siu Ho Kenneth
Dr. Chok Siu Ho Kenneth was the Clinical Associate Professor in 2015 in the University of Hong Kong and received his Master of Surgery in the same year and became a fellow of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) after having received the Carlos Pellegrini Traveling Fellowship award of the ACS. He received another doctoral degree (Doctor of Medicine) in 2020. He joined the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2024, the Department of Surgery as a Full Professor. He has published more than 300 articles in leading peer-reviewed journals. His H-index was 51 (Google Scholar) with citations of more than 8800. He is actively involved in promoting public health in Hong Kong and has organized various initiatives, as he is the vice-president of the Hong Kong Society of HPB Surgery, a council member of the Hong Kong Society of Transplantation, the Hong Kong Liver Foundation and the Hong Kong Society of Gastroenterology.
HBSN: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Kenneth: This is a crucial process in the renowned medical journals for several reasons: 1) Ensuring quality and accuracy: experts in the field can critically review the scientific content of the paper, methodology, accuracy of the data analysis and appropriateness of the conclusion. 2) Flaw and biases identification and rectification: experts in the field can identify the flaws in the design, data collection/ analysis and interpretation. Also, potential biases could be pointed out so that the paper can be rectified timely. 3) Maintaining scientific integrity: experts in the field can maintain the integrity of the scientific literatures by preventing fake/ unreliable researches. This is to uphold the highest standard from the medical community, and most importantly from the public.
HBSN: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Kenneth: Yes, this is inevitable, but measures can be taken to minimize these: 1) Blinding of the reviewers: review can be single-blind or double-blind so that authors’ identity cannot be known to the reviewers. 2) Reviewer selection: Ensure the pool of the reviewers is large enough and more diverse in terms of gender, race, ethnic, etc., and have to disclose one’s conflict of interest. 3) Review process could be more structural: by using a standard form for reviewers to fill in, this could decrease the chance of biases. Multiple reviewers from different centers should be included in the review process. 4) Lastly, editorial supervision is of utmost importance as this is the last gatekeeper to maintain the standard of the reviewers’ quality.
HBSN: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Kenneth: I have to screen those only in my field of expertise, and with reasonable strong scientific background journals to act as their reviewers. Certainly, I cannot serve too many journals at the same time. Most of the time, I will use my spare time to finish my task after the heavy clinical workload. I will also spend more time if I am in the editorial board of that particular journal.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Nobuyuki Takemura
Dr. Nobuyuki Takemura is a distinguished HBP (Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic) surgeon and Professor at the Department of HBP Surgery and Pediatric Surgery at Saitama Medical Center, Saitama University, Japan. After graduating in 1999 from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, he has honed his expertise under the mentorship of renowned Japanese HBP surgeons, including Prof. Masatoshi Makuuchi, Prof. Norihiro Kunido, and Prof. Kiyoshi Hasegawa at the University of Tokyo, as well as Prof. Akio Saiura at the Cancer Institute Ariake Hospital. His surgical proficiency spans a wide range of procedures for HBP malignancies, from open to laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. His research interests cover hepatocellular carcinoma, metastatic liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, portal hypertension, liver transplantation, and minimally invasive surgical techniques. Dr. Takemura also contributes to the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Liver Cancer as a role of the revision committee member, further solidifying his influence in the field.
Dr. Takemura reckons that without peer review, journals could become repositories for a wide range of articles, regardless of their quality. Peer review is crucial because it prevents low-quality or misinterpreted research from being publicly disseminated, ensuring the overall quality of the published work. This process also enhances the relative value of well-conducted research by distinguishing it from less rigorous studies.
In Dr. Takemura’s opinion, reviewers need to objectively evaluate the research to determine if the analysis is valid, the interpretation of the results is sound, the conclusions are reasonable, and if the arguments are coherent without any logical gaps. Additionally, he indicates that reviewers must assess whether the quality of the article is appropriate for the journal to which it has been submitted.
“Although peer review can be a time-consuming task for busy researchers, it also offers the opportunity to gain new insights and perspectives on your own work. Furthermore, performing thorough and proper peer reviews increases the value and impact of the research that is conducted correctly,” says Dr. Takemura.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
