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
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)
