In 2024, CCO 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
Daniel Breadner, Schulich School of Medicine, Canada
May, 2024
Claudia Collà Ruvolo, University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy
June, 2024
Hooman Yarmohammadi, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
July, 2024
Byoung Hyuck Kim, Seoul National University, Korea
September, 2024
Francesco Mariani, La Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
January, 2024
Daniel Breadner
Dr. Dan Breadner, MD, FRCPC, is clinical researcher, medical oncologist and assistant professor at the London Regional Cancer Program at the Schulich School of Medicine. He treats lung and gastrointestinal cancers and has a research interest in translational and clinical research focusing on targeted therapy, liquid biopsies and immunomodulation. Connect with him on X @DrDanBreadner.
When reviewing clinical research, Dr. Breadner tries to both assess the validity of the paper and edit the manuscript to make it better. When editing, he would keep himself engaged on every point, allowing him to analyze the details better. Of course, it is important to assess the methods and to critically analyze the manuscript, but he would like to think that all papers he recommends for publication are stronger after the review.
Dr. Breadner thinks it is important to consider peer reviewing to be a part of the job. Noting that manuscripts may not be published by the first journal they are submitted to, he sets a minimum of two peer reviews for each manuscript he submits. He adds, “Without reviewers’ knowledge, dissemination would stop, so it is fair. The harder aspect is that reviewing requires focused time, so it competes for time with the other projects that often get done outside of normal workhours.”
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Claudia Collà Ruvolo
Dr. Claudia Collà Ruvolo completed all her studies at the University of Naples “Federico II” in Italy. Throughout her residency program, she had the opportunity to travel extensively. In her second year, she undertook a research fellowship in Montreal, Canada, where she delved into the field of Urology Oncology. This experience honed her biostatistics skills, equipping her with the ability to analyse data, produce results, and write and revise entire manuscripts effectively. Subsequently, she spent a year in Belgium focusing on robotic surgery training. Working at a leading European training centre, Dr. Ruvolo gained hands-on experience in procedures such as radical prostatectomy and radical or partial nephrectomy. Her recent projects center around robotic surgery in the field of urology, particularly emphasizing, surgical techniques, training process and comparing new robotic platforms available in the market. Connect with her on X @collaruvolo_c.
Dr. Ruvolo thinks that the peer-review process is crucial for ensuring the quality of publications. Furthermore, it plays a key role in enhancing the knowledge of reviewers themselves on specific topics. However, in her opinion, the role of the reviewer should be more clearly defined to enhance the quality of the review process.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. In Dr. Rovolo’s view, the review process should be bolstered to emphasize its significance in the context of a curriculum vitae (CV). Therefore, high-quality and substantial numbers of reviews should carry varying degrees of importance when considering one's experiences on a CV.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Hooman Yarmohammadi
Dr. Hooman Yarmohammadi is an interventional radiologist with an academic and scientific interest in the identification of more efficient methods for the treatment of pancreas and liver cancer. His long-term goal is to translate basic knowledge of tumor metabolism and tumor microenvironment into clinical treatments that will improve the treatment response and overall outcome of liver and pancreas cancer patients. He joined the division of interventional radiology and image-guided therapies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2013 after finishing an interventional radiology fellowship at Johns Hopkins Medical Institution. Several of his research projects have focused on the effect of glycolytic metabolism inhibition on tumor treatment response. He learned that intra-arterial injection of Bumetanide into N1-S1 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a rat model significantly improved tumor response. These preclinical studies have translated into a phase I/II clinical trial for patients with HCC, funded by the Radiology Society of North America (RSNA) Research Scholar Award. In regard to pancreatic cancer, supported by the Society of Interventional Radiology’s Dr. Ernest J. Ring Academic Development Grant, his team has developed an Oncopig pancreatic cancer model and successfully treated its tumors with new locoregional therapies. Connect with him on X @HoomanYarMD.
CCO: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Yarmohammadi: Peer review is crucial in distinguishing credible research from less reliable studies. It is a cornerstone of scientific integrity and advancement, especially in fields like oncology research. Peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring that studies are rigorously evaluated by experts in the field before publication. The process of peer review helps validate the findings and the methodology.
CCO: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Yarmohammadi: The current peer-review system, while extremely vital to scientific research, has multiple limitations. Firstly, the process can be time-consuming, often leading to delays in the dissemination of the study. Secondly, the quality of the reviews can be inconsistent, as it heavily relies on the expertise and availability of volunteer reviewers. This inconsistency can result in varied standards of critique and potentially overlook significant methodological flaws and biases. Finally, the peer-review system is susceptible to conflicts of interest and biases, which can affect the objectivity of the review process. Reviewers may have subconscious biases towards certain research topics or even the authors themselves, leading to an uneven playing field.
Several improvements can be implemented. One approach is to streamline the review process using advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to assist in preliminary assessments, thereby reducing the burden on human reviewers and expediting the process. Enhancing reviewer training and establishing clear guideline can also improve the consistency and quality of reviews. Another critical improvement is increasing transparency in the peer-review process. Adopting open peer-review models, where reviewers’ identities and their comments are disclosed can promote accountability and reduce bias.
CCO: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Yarmohammadi: My motivation stems from two key factors. Firstly, I find that reviewing articles allows me to continuously learn and stay updated with the latest advancements in oncology research. Each manuscript offers new insights, methodologies, and perspectives that enrich my own knowledge and practice. Secondly, I am driven by a commitment to maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. By critically evaluating research, I can help ensure that only accurate and high-quality information is published. This is crucial in preventing the dissemination of incorrect or misleading findings, which can have significant implications for patient care and future research. Engaging in peer review is a way for me to contribute to the scientific community and uphold the standards of our field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Byoung Hyuck Kim
Dr. Byoung Hyuck Kim, M.D., Ph.D., is an esteemed Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Seoul National University College of Medicine, as well as at SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center in Seoul, Republic of Korea. He completed his M.D. at Seoul National University College of Medicine, followed by a Ph.D. in Radiation Oncology from Seoul National University. His research focuses on novel radiosensitizing and immunosensitizing strategies, particularly for gastrointestinal, lung, and breast cancers, as well as radiotherapy for benign diseases. He has published extensively in prestigious journals such as the Clinical Cancer Research and Radiotherapy and Oncology, with key papers addressing advanced radiotherapy techniques and their clinical applications. Dr. Kim is actively involved in several clinical trials, including exploratory studies on low-dose radiotherapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic cancer and efficacy evaluations of low-dose irradiation for Alzheimer's disease and osteoarthritis. A list of his works can be found here.
According to Dr. Kim, a good reviewer should be an insightful detective, uncovering the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript. They need the analytical precision of a scientist, ensuring every detail is accurate and logical. Fairness is essential, as they provide constructive feedback to authors. They must be unbiased and maintain confidentiality. In addition, they must ensure accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality, providing constructive feedback while avoiding bias.
“In CCO, there were good papers covering topics of interest, and I decided that revising and publishing them would benefit many readers,” says Dr. Kim.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Francesco Mariani
Francesco Mariani is a PhD candidate from La Sapienza University of Rome and a research fellow at Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna. His interests in research include Bayesian inference, statistical decision theory and statistical methodologies in the design and analysis of clinical trials. His recent projects regard: sample size determination in the design of clinical trials through the use of hybrid Bayesian-frequentist approaches; implementation and evaluation of model and algorithm-based designs for Phase 1 drug combination trials; and Covariate Adjusted Response Adaptive designs. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Francesco’s opinion, a peer-review system is healthy as long as a balance between authors and reviewers is maintained. On one hand, authors should not take advantage of the subjective opinions that reviewers may have; on the other hand, reviewers, who should be experts in the field, should be free from conflicts of interest, both regarding authors and the work itself.
Francesco believes that reviewers should keep in mind that their opinion has an influence on other people’s work. “Reviewing a paper is an opportunity to learn, discover and hopefully get new ideas that somehow influence our future research,” adds he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
