In 2024, GPM 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
Richard Wojdat, Mathilden Hospital Herford, Germany
April, 2024
Francesco Fedele, San Raffaele Hospital, Italy
January, 2024
Richard Wojdat
Dr. Richard Wojdat is considered a figurehead in the field of gynecological surgery and is celebrated for his groundbreaking work in minimally invasive, hybrid and robotic procedures. He has more than two decades of practical experience and continues to push the boundaries of gynecological surgical techniques. His repertoire includes the skillful use of conventional and hybrid laparoscopic instruments as well as innovative approaches such as the integration of indocyanine green (ICG) for increased precision. Dr. Wojdat's expertise shines particularly in oncologically safe, radical vaginal and laparoscopic procedures, where he always places emphasis on safety and precision. His significant contributions extend to advances in endometriosis diagnosis and surgical therapy, such as groundbreaking anesthesia-free laser conization and the use of transvaginal radiofrequency technology in fibroid treatment, resulting in significantly improved patient outcomes. Currently, Dr. Wojdat is establishing a state-of-the-art diagnostic and surgical center for women's health, further solidifying its leadership position in this field. He has been recognized as one of Germany's best doctors for six years in a row and continues to promote innovation in gynecological surgery. Learn more about him here.
Peer review plays a pivotal role in the scientific community by ensuring the integrity and quality of research, according to Dr. Wojdat. He thinks that it involves the evaluation of scholarly work by experts in the same field before it is published in academic journals or presented at conferences. Peer review helps to uphold standards of accuracy, validity, and reliability by subjecting research to rigorous scrutiny. Through this process, potential flaws or biases in the research methodology can be identified and addressed, contributing to the overall credibility of scientific findings. Furthermore, he points out that peer review encourages constructive feedback and facilitates the exchange of ideas among researchers. It helps to foster a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement within the scientific community. Ultimately, peer review serves as a safeguard against the dissemination of misleading or flawed research, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific knowledge and advancing the collective pursuit of truth and understanding.
Dr. Wojdat thinks that, in peer review, complete objectivity is an illusion because we are humans and we judge emotionally, even if we want to avoid it. This is precisely why it is important to put oneself aside, but to place the work in the context of overall medical development. He adds, “How is the solution sought here and how do others solve it is one thing and what consequences does this have for the patient and the doctor are the most important questions that are waiting for an answer.”
“I chose to review in GPM because the company is known for publishing high-quality research and is committed to advancing the field of gynecologic surgery. The appreciative and practical approach of the editors is also a central factor for me. They value reviewers' contributions and work collaboratively to ensure that published research is not only sophisticated but also relevant and impactful in clinical practice. The editors' uncomplicated and goal-oriented approach is impressive,” says Dr. Wojdat.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Francesco Fedele
Francesco Fedele is a Medical Resident in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy. Previously, he held the same position at Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan. He received his surgical training at Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata in Verona, Italy from 2022 to 2024. He graduated with honors from the 6-year International MD Program Degree in Medicine and Surgery at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University of Milan in 2019. His medical studies took him to prestigious institutions worldwide such as the Fetal Medicine Foundation in London, Yale University in New Haven, Churchill Hospital in Oxford and the Alexandra Hospital in Athens. Dr. Fedele has authored over 30 publications in leading journals and has presented his research at numerous international conferences. He serves on the editorial board of multiple peer-reviewed journals and has peer-reviewed more than 20 articles, showcasing his commitment to the advancement of medical knowledge. His research interests focus on adenomyosis, the diagnosis and management of Mullerian anomalies, cervical atresia, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain, obstetrics, reproductive medicine as well as advanced laparoscopic and gynecological surgery. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Fedele reckons that an ideal peer reviewer combines both personal and professional attributes that help him to be more effective in assessing and refining scientific manuscripts. It is essential to have a modest, impartial attitude. He would expect a reviewer to possess the following traits among others. Expertise is an essential component of the peer-review process, which involves possessing comprehensive knowledge of all facets of the scientific process, ranging from manuscript writing to statistical analysis. In addition, the reviewer must maintain impartiality toward the manuscript's writers or organization. In addition, he indicates that open-mindedness without preconceptions or biases is vital in peer reviewing. Etiquette and patience are also of importance.
Peer review as it currently exists is not without its limitations, according to Dr. Fedele. A comprehensive, impartial, and equitable peer-review system is essential for its well-being. He thinks that one major problem is the small number of people who are qualified to perform peer review in relation to the large number of papers that require review. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimal standards of quality may be published after being reviewed by peer reviewers who lack expertise. This restriction might be addressed by hiring reviewers with extensive experience in the fields under review and by having websites that disclose papers that were withdrawn after publication as a result of flawed peer review. To him, the most popular kind of review is by far single-blind; however, this has significant drawbacks that need to be addressed because the reviewer's anonymity could lead to bias when evaluating papers that address matters that conflict with their personal interests. Promoting open publication of reviewer comments and double-blind peer reviews would be beneficial in resolving this issue. Additionally, because reviewing is frequently done by "volunteers" who take time out of their busy schedules to do it, the current process can be slow. Furthermore, there is no direct communication between authors and reviewers during the lengthy back-and-forth process of a manuscript under the current system.
Dr. Fedele indicates that the substantial rise in publications, which means that scientists are receiving an increasing number of requests for reviews, is another drawback of the current systems. The current system does not give much credit for reviewing, so this work is not very appealing. This frequently results in brief and meaningless reviews, which irritates the writers and eventually prompts them to publish in a different journal. Standardizing review forms, providing both objective and subjective feedback, and creating a review template that directs the reviewer through the process, promotes clear statements, and enables quick reviews are some of the things that can help improve the process. Keep in mind that reviewing is a labor-intensive process that merits respect. “I would like to encourage authors to take on the role of reviewer because it provides additional tools to help them improve their own publications and keeps them up to date with the latest literature,” adds he.
Clinical work in the hospital takes up most of his daily time, however despite his many professional duties, Dr. Fedele finds time to review scientific papers. “I have my own approach to reviews: the weekend is the most scientifically creative time. Usually, I read the article for the first time, write down my notes and then put it aside. Until I start writing the review, I had enough time to think about the content and to reflect on it,” says he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
