In 2024, JOMA 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
Samuel A Schechtman, University of Michigan, USA
February, 2024
Kelly A Daly, New York University, USA
March, 2024
Gloria Molins, Teknon Medical Center, Spain
April, 2024
Brian E. Kinard, University of Alabama, USA
June, 2024
Sho Kumita, Gorinbashi Orthopedic Hospital, Japan
July, 2024
Glauco Chisci, University of Milano Bicocca, Italy
January, 2024
Samuel A Schechtman
Dr. Samuel Schechtman is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at Michigan Medicine - University of Michigan Medical School. He also serves as the Director of Head and Neck Anesthesiology and Airway Management. He is the Immediate Past President for the Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia (SHANA). Clinically, Dr. Schechtman has interest in airway risk assessment and intraoperative airway management for patients with complex head and neck pathologies. His current research interests include predictors of challenging airway management, airway management for patients with a prior history of a "challenging airway", perioperative approaches to management of complex head and neck pathologies, institutional airway management safety, management of the cannot-ventilate and cannot-oxygenate scenario, and optimizing difficult airway documentation utilizing the electronic health record. He has led institutional and international airway workshops and has presented internationally on airway management and approaches to head and neck anesthesia. Connect with him on Twitter (X) @SamSchechtman.
Throughout Dr. Schechtman’s clinical and educational experiences, he has been fortunate to have received strong and insightful guidance from mentors. As both a reviewer and researcher, he views constructive review as sharing insight and experience for others to optimize and clarify the findings and message that their work is trying to send to the scientific community. He believes it is also important to ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity, methodology, and patient safety to ensure that the findings and conclusions being drawn are valid for changes in the future.
Peer review is vital for medical research, according to Dr. Schechtman, as the work being presented can guide future practice patterns and optimize safety for patient care. Therefore, peer review needs to be regarded and held to the highest standards. In his view, peer review ensures that methods and findings are conducted safely and methodologically to support findings and draw conclusions. Peer review also is significant in ensuring that findings and conclusions are supported by results as extrapolation of data can lead to changes in practice that may not have scientific data to support them. And finally, peer review ensures that manuscripts being published include considerations of the most recent findings, results, and practices within the medical literature to optimize patient safety and outcomes.
“As a head and neck anesthesiologist, I am honored to have the opportunity to serve as a peer reviewer for JOMA. Head and neck surgery and perioperative care continue to advance at a rapid rate and ensuring that others recognize practice patterns to optimize safety remains vital. Through JOMA and the peer-review process, advances in practice patterns in perioperative care for patients presenting with head and neck pathologies can be shared throughout the world,” says Dr. Schechtman.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Kelly A Daly
Dr. Kelly Daly, M.S., Ph.D., is a research scientist at the Family Translational Research Group and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the New York University College of Dentistry. She is a clinical psychologist whose research has two major foci. She studies the neurobiological and socioemotional risk factors for, and impacts of, trauma exposure across the lifespan. She also does research in implementation science—including the dissemination of evidence-based interventions and best practice knowledge to improve public health. Related to the latter focus, Dr. Daly is currently contributing to research on dental anxiety assessment and intervention. She also teaches undergraduate dental courses on clinical and professional assessment and the science of behavior change, in addition to mentoring dental students in research methods. Learn more about her here.
JOMA: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Daly: Peer review is foundational to scientific progress. As a researcher, it is hard not to be myopic sometimes—we are so invested in every element of our current study or theory that we can lose sight of the larger context in which our project is embedded. Having independent scholars check our work, point out weaknesses and flaws, and challenge our thinking safeguards our science and ensures not only the best possible products but also the continued evolution of our ideas. Others with related but distinct expertise can offer alternate viewpoints, propose factors and relationships that may not have occurred to us, and suggest other ways to test our research questions.
JOMA: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Daly: When it comes to peer review, I work to set my ideas and beliefs aside and approach each manuscript analytically. As a reviewer, it is my job to help the authors write the strongest possible paper, regardless of my personal feelings about the topic. There are several questions implicitly guiding my reading and commentary. How convincing is this argument to me as a reader? How well-supported is this premise? Are there overt gaps in the literature review and rationale? Is there counterevidence not being considered? Do these research methods appropriately test the question posed by the authors? What does the data analysis tell me? Does this manuscript succeed in providing the information/ answering the question intended? Does the paper flow logically from one point to the next, creating a coherent whole? What recommendations can I make to help the authors bolster their argument, provide a more robust test of their hypotheses, improve coherence, or more thoroughly review the topic?
As researchers, I think we need to confront our own biases constantly. It’s essential to the job and requires regular practice. For example, as scientists, we need to be agnostic about the outcomes of our experiments. Regardless of how much we want something to work out a certain way, we need to maintain an objective curiosity and openness to whatever happens. This can be particularly challenging sometimes—take for example a trial testing the efficacy of an intervention you developed. But it is the only way we really make progress. Every result—no matter how personally disappointing or antithetical to our beliefs—moves us forward.
JOMA: 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. Daly: I am extremely grateful to everyone who engages in peer review. Again, I truly believe it is the foundation of our science. Academic publishing—moreover academic progress— would cease without it. Science is a collaborative endeavor, and I feel that each one of us has a responsibility to contribute our expertise and perspective to each other— to challenge, augment, and improve the work of others, just as we rely on others to improve our work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Gloria Molins
Gloria Molins currently works as an anesthesiologist at Anestalia, medical group at Teknon Medical Center in Barcelona (since January 2012). She has currently completed a Master’s Degree in Pain with the Spanish Pain Society; a Master’s Degree in Statistical Data Science in Barcelona University; a PhD in Medicine in Autonoma Barcelona University; and is part of the Orofacial Pain Working Group of the Spanish Multidisciplinary Pain Society, and a researcher in Regional Anesthesia in the Maxillofacial field. She has recently published articles in a wide variety of scientific journals and has been invited to join the Journal of Global Pediatrics and Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Anesthesia as a reviewer.
Dr. Molins reckons that the revision of a manuscript begins taking into consideration the efforts of the authors, and it is reviewed for positive feedback in all senses. That is, it must be a constructive correction at an academic level for both the author and the reviewer and future readers. Finally, a brief opinion and verdict is given about whether the study fits in the journal, the public to which it is directed, and the manuscript deserves to be published in this journal or another. The author is also encouraged to continue working on research.
Peer review, in Dr. Molins’ opinion, is the necessary tool for a more objective correction of the results of scientific studies, as long as it is without conflicts of interest. The reviews serve both for the authors, in order to improve the quality of their study, and for the reviewers to stay up to date on the subject.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Brian E. Kinard
Dr. Brian Kinard obtained his B.S. from the University of South Carolina Honors college and graduated from Harvard School of Dental Medicine with an Honors in Research in 2012. He then completed medical school, and general surgery internship followed by residency in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Emory University School of Medicine. He went on to complete a fellowship in orthognathic surgery with Dr. Jeffrey Posnick in Washington, DC with a focus on comprehensive diagnosis and treatment efficiency to fully address occlusion, the upper airway and facial esthetics. Dr. Kinard specializes in orthognathic surgery, also known as corrective jaw surgery, for those with acquired or congenital dentofacial deformities. His clinical and research interests include comprehensive evaluation and treatment of occlusion, possible upper airway obstructions and facial esthetics. He has authored several peer-reviewed scientific articles and textbook chapters on the diagnosis and orthognathic correction of dentofacial deformities.
Dr. Kinard thinks that peer review plays a fundamental role in upholding scientific standards and credibility, thereby advancing knowledge and ensuring the integrity of scholarly communication.
According to Dr. Kinard, limitations of the peer-review system include possible reviewer or journal biases, lengthy turnaround times, inability to ensure reviewers are subject experts, and the limitation of the reviewers in detecting all errors. To him, the peer-review process can be improved through a blinded review process, validation or reviewers and more efficient review turnaround times.
“Expert reviewers are the cornerstone of the peer-review process. Scientists and surgeons who dedicate their time for peer reviewers help improve the overall quality of research and patient care,” says Dr. Kinard.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Sho Kumita
Sho Kumita works in the Department of Anesthesiology at Gorinbashi Orthopedic Hospital. His specialty is regional anesthesia, and he is particularly interested in ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks in the oral and maxillofacial regions. His current project is to write a book on regional anesthesia in Japanese. In 2023, he published a book on ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks in the upper limb, with some images and a summary of the latest literature to discuss their effective use in clinical practice.
According to Dr. Kumita, reviewers must provide information from a neutral standpoint regarding the publication of a paper. To do this, they need to keep improving their expertise and maintain a high standard of ethics.
“Balancing the demands of being a scientist and a doctor can be challenging,” says Dr. Kumita. However, he thinks that peer review is an essential part of contributing to the scientific community. He prioritizes his tasks and sets specific time slots dedicated to peer review to manage his time effectively. For instance, he often spends early mornings reviewing papers when his clinical duties are less demanding. Unfortunately, he sometimes has to decline review requests that fall outside his expertise to ensure he can provide high-quality feedback within his field. By maintaining a structured schedule and staying focused on his areas of expertise, he can fulfill his responsibilities as a reviewer without compromising his other professional duties.
“I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all reviewers who dedicate their time and expertise to the progress of science. While reviewers' work can sometimes feel burdensome, conducting peer reviews with our hard-earned knowledge and strong ethical principles is a noble task that advances science and is deeply fulfilling,” says Dr. Kumita.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Glauco Chisci
Dr. Glauco Chisci, MD, DDS, MSc, is a Professor of Dentistry at the University of Milano Bicocca and Director of Dental Center Healthcare in Grosseto, Tuscany, Italy.
He completed the double degree in Dentistry and Medicine and Surgery: his training in Implant Surgery started at the University of Pisa with Prof. Covani in traditional Implantology and Zygomatic Surgery. Further, Dr. Chisci completed his Master degree in Implantology at the University of Genova. He practices the spectrum of oral and maxillofacial surgery. He is an expert in bone regeneration and zygomatic implants, utilizing digital scanner and guided surgery. His research is in the field of bone regeneration and third molar surgery. His research is heavily cited in the field of third molar surgery. He is passionate about teaching and serves as the Postgraduate Oral Surgery program at University of Siena. Follow Dr. Chisci on LinkedIn.
Dr. Chiscithinks that a reviewer should be humble, but very cultured in the specific field, especially in clinical research, and be able to appreciate even little innovations. He supports the idea that little innovations are the stones for bigger ones, and they should judge even methodology, not only the results of the research. On this matter, the literature systematic review is a great field of method and scientific rigor and he would suggest all the young researchers, who may lack clinical experience and patients, to begin with this experience and forge their scientific instruments.
Dr. Chisci appreciates new instruments for editorial staff to select reviewers with documented previous revisions for demanding review, and simple case reports for researchers that lack experience and could be introduced in the review process. Furthermore, the free-of-charge activity of reviewers could be a bias that may influence the quality of revision, but even money could plumb research into darkness.
In Dr. Chisci’s own experience, before accepting a new review, he makes a complete review of the matter, even if is a daily topic. In addition, he performs his own review before reading the review of others or previous reviewer that may influence his work. The anonymization of the paper is very useful in this process of minimization, as well as a fast review. He does not like reviewing work that lasts several months. He prefers a quick work instead.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
