In 2024, JMAI 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.
February, 2024
Daniel J Campbell, Thomas Jefferson University, USA
March, 2024
Marco Bombieri, University of Verona, Italy
April, 2024
Steven Smoke, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, USA
May, 2024
Daniel J. Rubin, Temple University, USA
June, 2024
Valentina Roquemen-Echeverri, Oregon Health & Science University, USA
July, 2024
Thomas F. Heston, Washington State University, USA
February, 2024
Daniel J Campbell
Daniel J Campbell, MD, is an Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery resident physician at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, USA. He has a longstanding interest in surgical education. He has published extensively on the quality and utility of online video education materials for patient education within the field of otolaryngology. His recent investigations explore the interface between patient education and artificial intelligence. Specifically, he has published on the utility and safety of large language models (i.e., ChatGPT, Google Bard, etc.) as it relates to patient surgical education within otolaryngology. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Campbell’s opinion, peer review acts as the moderator between the investigator and the scientific community. While a constructive review provides the investigators the directions and ways to improve their work to the point where it can be useful to the scientific community, a destructive review, on the other hand, completely shuts down scientific investigation without allowing room for improvement.
“I choose to review for JMAI because I foresee artificial intelligence (AI) as being a cornerstone to the future of medicine. These early investigations into the utility and safety of AI will serve as a cornerstone for more complex and larger scale future investigations,” says Dr. Campbell.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Marco Bombieri
Dr. Marco Bombieri is a postdoctoral researcher in Artificial Intelligence at the University of Verona, Italy. He completed his PhD in 2023. His doctoral research delved into extracting procedural knowledge from medical-surgical textbooks automatically. The aim was to leverage this extracted knowledge to automate surgical interventions, utilizing advanced methodologies based on large language models. He focuses his research primarily on natural language processing, particularly within the medical domain, as well as ontologies and knowledge management techniques, all with practical applications in robotics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Bombieri’s opinion, peer review involves experts in the field critically evaluating research manuscripts before they are accepted for publication, and thus, it plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific research. This process helps to identify errors, weaknesses, or biases in the study, assess its significance and novelty, and provide authors with constructive feedback to improve their work. Overall, peer review is essential for maintaining scientific inquiry standards and promoting knowledge advancement within a particular domain.
“Peer review is a dynamic process at the heart of academic discourse,” says Dr. Bombieri. He reckons that what is truly fascinating is the opportunity it offers the researchers to engage deeply in the latest studies, making them not just passive consumers of knowledge but active participants in shaping the quality of academic research. Peer review is an opportunity to critically evaluate colleagues' work, identify strengths and weaknesses, and offer constructive feedback to strengthen research and advance knowledge.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Bombieri points out that adherence to reporting guidelines is paramount for authors preparing manuscripts. These guidelines serve as standardized frameworks that ensure transparency, reproducibility, and clarity in research reporting. By following these guidelines, authors provide sufficient detail about their methods, results, and interpretations, enhancing the credibility of their work and facilitating the critical appraisal and replication of their findings by other researchers.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Steven Smoke
Steven Smoke, PharmD, is an informatics pharmacist at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center in Newark, NJ. He received his Doctor of Pharmacy from Rutgers University and completed a PGY-1 pharmacy residency at Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center. He previously worked as an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist for 10 years. He has authored several peer-reviewed publications on antimicrobial pharmacotherapy and artificial intelligence in pharmacy. Connect with him on X @steven_smoke.
In Dr. Smoke’s opinion, reviewers should consider the wide-ranging perspectives of potential readers. This includes experts in the field, researchers from other disciplines, and even the general public. The reviewer's goal is to ensure the paper is clear, concise, and accessible to this wide audience. Additionally, reviewers should ensure the research methods are sound and the conclusions are measured.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Smoke reckons that transparency is a fundamental principle of science, and sharing data ensures that research is open to scrutiny, allowing for independent validation of results. This not only enhances the credibility of the findings but also enables other researchers to build upon existing work, fostering collaboration and accelerating scientific progress. Furthermore, data sharing promotes reproducibility, which is essential for establishing the robustness and reliability of scientific knowledge. By making their data available, authors contribute to a more open and collaborative research environment, ultimately benefiting the entire scientific community and society as a whole.
Lastly, Dr. Smoke would like to say a few words to all the other reviewers, “I want to express my sincere gratitude for your tireless dedication to advancing scientific progress. The work we do is essential for maintaining the rigor and integrity of research. We play a critical role in ensuring that scientific findings are sound, reproducible, and ultimately contribute meaningfully to our understanding of the world. While our contributions may not always be in the spotlight, know that your expertise and careful scrutiny are invaluable to the scientific community.”
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Daniel J. Rubin
Dr. Rubin is a Professor of Medicine, Deputy Section Chief and Director of Clinical Research in the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism and Interim Co-Director of the Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University. He earned a Master of Science in Epidemiology with a concentration in Biostatistics at the Boston University School of Public Health. His research focuses on predicting and preventing readmissions among people with diabetes as well as inpatient and post-discharge diabetes management. He has conducted a broad range of clinical research, including retrospective cohort studies and clinical trials using qualitative methods, biostatistics, and machine learning. Dr. Rubin has been continuously supported by a variety of funders, including the NIH, the American Diabetes Association, and industry. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Rubin, peer review serves many purposes in the publication process. First, it improves the accuracy, validity, and quality of research. Second, peer reviewers improve manuscripts and potentially the research itself before publication, inviting authors to consider alternative approaches and language. Third, peer review can filter out lower-quality research, helping journals make decisions about which manuscripts to publish. Fourth, peer reviewers can help hold authors accountable to ethical standards.
In Dr. Rubin’s view, reviewers should consider several points while reviewing papers, such as appropriateness of the manuscript for the journal, interest to readers, likelihood of citation by other authors, the strengths and weaknesses of the research, the clarity of writing, and adherence to ethical standards.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Valentina Roquemen-Echeverri
Valentina Roquemen-Echeverri is a third-year PhD candidate at the Artificial Intelligence for Medical Systems (AIMS) Lab within the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Oregon Health & Science University. She holds a B.Sc. in Physics and has industry and academic experience in machine learning and data science. Her research focuses on the creation of glucose dynamics simulators for people living with diabetes using physiology-guided artificial intelligence techniques. She also holds experience in computational cardiology with heart murmurs detection and heart sounds segmentation using machine learning. Learn more about her here.
“Peer review acts as a cornerstone of scientific progress by ensuring the quality, significance, and methodological soundness of research,” says Valentina. She thinks that when a researcher is immersed in an investigation, it is common to overlook some mistakes or methodological problems. Some are easily addressed, while others can invalidate the entire investigation. This is where the peer-review process becomes invaluable. A fresh perspective on the research can identify these mistakes, but it can also validate the significance of the investigation. Peer review ultimately helps ensure the quality and impact of scientific findings.
Valentina reckons that it is important to remember that peer review is a collaborative process. Reviewers act as mentors, guiding researchers to strengthen their work and contribute meaningfully to the scientific community. A reviewer should not be looking for destroying an investigation. Instead, a good reviewer focuses on offering constructive suggestions for improvement, while identifying flaws with objectiveness, critical thinking and open-mindedness. This can involve recommending alternative approaches, clarifying confusing sections, or suggesting additional analyses to solidify the research's foundation.
“While groundbreaking discoveries often grab the spotlight, the meticulous evaluations conducted by reviewers are the bedrock on which those discoveries stand. Reviewer's expertise, objectivity, and commitment to constructive criticism ensure the quality, rigor, and significance of the research that shapes our understanding of the world,” says Valentina.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Thomas F. Heston
Dr. Thomas F. Heston is on the clinical faculty at the University of Washington School of Medicine and at Washington State University. His research focuses on blockchain technology, statistical fragility, and generative language models. Currently, he is working on developing alternative metrics of statistical fragility to improve the interpretation of biomedical research results. He is a Fellow of the American College of Nuclear Medicine and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. Dr. Heston's recent publications include work on prompt engineering in medical education and the use of large language models in evaluating acute chest pain. His ongoing research aims to contribute to the understanding of statistical and clinical significance in biomedical studies, bridging technology and medical practice. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Heston’s opinion, the existing peer-review system, while valuable, is constrained by the limited availability of diverse perspectives. A significant challenge arises from the specialized nature of expertise among reviewers. For instance, one reviewer might excel in statistical analysis but lack depth in clinical applications, while another may possess extensive clinical knowledge but have less familiarity with research methodologies. This disparity often results in peer reviews that fail to provide a comprehensive, 360-degree assessment of the research. The issue is further compounded by the typically small number of reviewers assigned to each paper. With only a handful of individuals evaluating the work, their personal biases and areas of focus can have a disproportionate impact on the review's outcome. This limitation means that important aspects of the research might be overlooked or overemphasized, depending on the specific expertise and perspectives of the chosen reviewers. He indicates that one potential improvement would be to implement a more robust post-publication review process. This approach would allow for a wider range of experts and practitioners to contribute their insights and critiques after the initial publication, providing a more comprehensive and ongoing evaluation of the research. Such a system could help balance out the limitations of the initial review, allowing for the identification of overlooked strengths or weaknesses, and fostering a more dynamic and inclusive scholarly discourse. This post-publication review process could complement other potential improvements, such as expanding the initial reviewer pool or implementing multi-stage reviews, ultimately leading to a more thorough and fair assessment of research over time.
“When reviewing papers, it is crucial for reviewers to maintain a balanced and constructive mindset,” says Dr. Heston, who thinks that the primary goal of peer review is not just to critique, but to foster and encourage high-quality research within the scientific community. This requires a dual focus from reviewers, that they must rigorously evaluate the research while also providing encouragement and constructive feedback to the authors. On the evaluation side, reviewers need to carefully assess several key aspects of the research. They should ensure that the fundamental research idea is valid and contributes meaningfully to the field. The methodology employed should be appropriate for addressing the research question at hand. Reviewers must also scrutinize the conduct of the study, confirming that it adheres to rigorous standards and best practices. Finally, the analysis of the data should be thorough and accurately interpreted. However, the manner in which this evaluation is communicated is equally important. Reviewers should strive to provide constructive and encouraging feedback. This approach motivates researchers, particularly those who may be early in their careers or venturing into new areas of study. Constructive feedback not only highlights areas for improvement but also acknowledges the strengths of the work and suggests pathways for enhancement. “By striking this balance, reviewers can contribute to the robustness of published research while also nurturing a positive research culture. This approach encourages more individuals to engage in high-quality research, ultimately advancing the field and benefiting the broader scientific community,” adds he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
