Over the year, many JHMHP reviewers have made 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.

March, 2023
Aaron L. Schwartz, University of Pennsylvania, USA

April, 2023
Warren Smedley, University of Alabama, USA

May, 2023
Jay M Brenner, SUNY-Upstate Medical University, USA

July, 2023
Larry R. Hearld, University of Alabama, USA

October, 2023
Saurav K Aryal, Howard University, USA

March, 2023

Aaron L. Schwartz

Aaron Schwartz, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy and the Department of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, USA. Apart from being an economist and physician by training, he also serves as a primary care physician at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center and a core investigator at the VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion. Dr. Schwartz's research focuses on understanding and improving healthcare value, now with a focus on insurer coverage policy. Learn more about him here.

The way Dr. Schwartz sees it, peer reviewers serve a key role in promoting the quality of scientific publications. They serve as checks in the publication process to ensure that scientific writing is accurate, clear, and reproduceable. Often, they point out important errors and omissions in submitted manuscripts or make suggestions regarding how a paper might be improved. Ultimately, it is up to the editor to decide whether and how this feedback must be addressed to satisfy publication standards.

“Be firm but kind,” says Dr. Schwartz when he is expressing what he thinks reviewers should bear in mind while reviewing papers. He believes that if there are substantial scientific shortcomings in a paper, one should make that clear in his/her review. However, there is no need to cast blame or criticism at the researcher. There is no place for invective in a review. Also, remember that it is ultimately up to the editor regarding how they will use the review feedback.

“Having the opportunity to think critically about the creation of new science is the core job of a researcher. Whether that task is performed for your own research or for others, it should be a task that you enjoy. As long as I am able to meet my other commitments while also reviewing scientific papers, I am happy to do so,” says Dr. Schwartz.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

April, 2023

Warren Smedley

Dr. Warren Smedley is a senior healthcare executive with over forty years of experience in healthcare administration, leadership development, and service line management. He does advisory work specializing in oncology operations, health system strategy, quality improvement, market research, and practice transformation services. Previously, Dr. Smedley was the Service Line Administrator for the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Digestive Disease Center at UAB. While at UAB, he co-authored a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) grant to implement an innovative patient navigation program, for which UAB received the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Innovators Award. He holds a Doctor of Science in Healthcare Leadership and has completed Master of Science degrees in Healthcare Administration and Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety. His doctoral dissertation was on The Adoption of New Cancer Drugs in Non-Academic Cancer Centers. Connect with Dr. Smedley on LinkedIn.

JHMHP: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Smedley: In 1982, architect Buckminster Fuller identified that knowledge was doubling at an accelerating rate and, in collaboration with IBM, predicted that the doubling of knowledge would occur every 12 to 14 hours by 2020, fueled largely by the “Internet of Things.” Fuller’s predictions were accurate. Now, with generative AI, knowledge can be doubled even faster than the current 12 to 14 hours; well beyond the scope of humans to intellectually manage it. The need for trusted information is greater than it has ever been in the history of mankind. As we experienced in the early days of the Covid pandemic, misinformation spread rapidly, and many people were led astray from the authentic scientific examination of the facts. Maintaining a robust, thoughtful, and intentional peer-review process is a must for securing trustworthy knowledge upon which to make important academic, scientific, and societal decisions.

JHMHP: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Smedley: Peer reviewers should be seasoned experts in their area of study and should be able to approach peer-review assignments from perspective as objective and academic as possible. Peer reviewers need to be able to leave their political agenda and social worldviews “at the door” when reviewing scientific literature. Peer reviewers should also be willing to offer appropriate critical assessment of the manuscript they are reviewing, looking closely for flaws in methodology, literature review, theoretical frameworks, discussion, and conclusions.

JHMHP: 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. Smedley: Thank you for your service to creating, testing, and maintaining a trustworthy source of academic knowledge to advance academic and scientific progress. Your investment of a few hours of thoughtful concentration helps to assure that our sources of literature can be trusted to provide a firm foundation in a future that will undoubtedly be filled with much false and misleading information.

JHMHP: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?

Dr. Smedley: The process of peer review is to insure and maintain the integrity of the literature. Reviewers should absolutely disclose COI and abstain from contributing peer reviews of literature for which they may have a biased perspective. Research that is tainted by poor academic and scientific integrity, hurts the quality of the literature, and diminishes the reliability of the journal, ultimately slowing the advancement of academic and scientific knowledge. I do believe that some level of oversight rests with the journal to do a reasonable job of assessing a potential reviewer’s qualifications and potential COI. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has an excellent model for identifying and managing COI in potential guidelines panel participants, as well as journal contributors or reviewers. They check for COI before giving assignments to participants and resurvey participants on an annual basis.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

May, 2023

Jay M Brenner

Dr. Brenner is a Professor of Emergency Medicine at SUNY-Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York, USA. He serves as Vice Chair of Research in the Department of Emergency Medicine. He is the medical director of the Upstate Community Hospital Emergency Department and the Geriatric Emergency Medicine Care Unit found within it. He also serves as the Chair of the American College of Emergency Physicians Ethics Committee. His research interests focus on protecting vulnerable populations, including patients who are discharged against medical advice, incarcerated, foreign-language speaking, undocumented, having nonconvulsive seizures, suffering from mental health and/or substance use disorders, geriatric with neurodegenerative diseases, or somehow otherwise impaired.

JHMHP: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Brenner: Peer review is essential for the development of credible, impactful science. If something that I publish does not live up to the criticism of my peers, then it is not worthy of dissemination. We live in a time where science has come under attack from those who would question its validity. We need to stand up to that fear-mongering in the name of careful, responsible discovery of new scientific facts.

JHMHP: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?

Dr. Brenner: I attempt to read a manuscript through the first time to glean its overall message and then another time slowly and methodically dissecting every component to the level of grammatical inconsistencies. I try to ignore the authors or their nationality if possible, and keep aware of my own personal biases. For example, I know that I am particular about grammar and diction. I am careful, though, not to throw the baby out with the bath water per se if a quality study is simply not written up well.

JHMHP: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Brenner: Good question. There is non-monetary value in reviewing manuscripts. It is both helpful to me as I grow as a researcher and scholar learning others’ methods and useful to the community of scientists.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

July, 2023

Larry R. Hearld

Dr. Larry R. Hearld is a Professor of Health Care Management in the Department of Health Services Administration at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. He is also an Associate Director with the UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), where he concentrates on the provision of training programs and serves as the Director of the Dissemination, Implementation, and Improvement Science Core (DIISC). His formal theoretical training is in management/organizational studies and he is generally interested in the antecedents and consequences of organizational change in health care, with special emphasis on implementation science in health care. His research utilizes a range of methodological approaches, including effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs, mixed methods, and quasi-experimental designs. He currently teaches a course in implementation science and previously taught courses in research methods, evaluation, and organizational behavior. Learn more about Dr. Hearld from here and connect with him on LinkedIn.

According to Dr. Hearld, peer review plays two primary, related roles in science. First and foremost, peer review ensures that the research is conducted with rigor. Second, peer review improves opportunities to replicate the research by fostering transparency in the research process. Rigor and replication, in turn, enhance the trustworthiness of the research and stakeholder confidence in research findings.

Dr. Hearld points out that reviewers should keep in mind, while reviewing papers, their role as a reviewer. He emphasizes that peer review plays a pivotal role in science and the approach to reviewing should reflect that significance. “It is all too easy to forget this in the flood of other things competing for our time and treat this as a perfunctory professional obligation,” says he. He suggests reviewers can try to combat that in several ways. First, reviewers should try to put themselves in the position of the authors – “What would I like to see in a review if it was my work being reviewed?” The best reviews, in his experience, are constructive, not destructive. Constructive reviews go beyond simply pointing out shortcomings and flaws and make recommendations for how to improve the work. “Are there other resources that the authors can consult to strengthen the work? That undoubtedly requires more work on the part of reviewers but it is one of the most effective ways to improve the science,” he explains. Secondly, Dr. Hearld points out that in the process of reviewing a paper, the first look should not be the only look. He elaborates, “Similar to our own work, it is important to read, rest, and revisit. Again, this takes more time for reviewers and competes with other priorities, but I am consistently impressed with how many new things I notice when rereading a manuscript, whether it is my own work or as a reviewer.”

Regarding data sharing in scientific writing, Dr. Hearld thinks if the data can be shared in an ethical way, there are many benefits including more opportunities for replicating studies and an ability to combine data across studies for either meta-analyses or studies with greater power and precision. He adds, “This not only improves the trustworthiness of the research but enhances public trust in researchers as good stewards of public (and private) resources. I am hopeful that as research funders and other entities continue to encourage data sharing, along with resources to make data sharing easier (e.g., data curators and repositories), this will increasingly become the norm and not the exception.”

(by Masaki Lo, Brad Li)

October, 2023

Saurav K Aryal

Dr. Saurav Keshari Aryal is a Senior Research Scientist with the Office of Naval Research Sponsored Human Center Artificial Intelligence Institute, an Affiliate Faculty within the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and an active collaborator of the Affective Biometrics Lab at Howard University. His doctoral training focused on adaptive design of experiments, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and predictive analytics. His research examines and collaborates on interdisciplinary applications of AI and resulting biases in healthcare and environment. He has published in reputed computer science conferences including Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). He was recently awarded a $500,000 grant, in collaboration with Blocpower and Bezos Earth Fund, for a research on indoor air quality and the development of a personal-ownership framework for open-source environmental data. Connect with Dr. Aryal on LinkedIn and learn more about his work here.

In Dr. Aryal’s opinion, a constructive review is one that provides meaningful feedback aimed at improving the quality of the work. It not only identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript but also offers specific suggestions for improvement. Constructive reviews focus on helping the authors enhance their research and contribute positively to the scientific community. A destructive review, on the other hand, tends to be overly critical without providing helpful suggestions for improvement. It may focus solely on the negative aspects of the work without acknowledging its merits. Destructive reviews can discourage authors and hinder the advancement of knowledge in the field.

There are several qualities a reviewer should possess, according to Dr. Aryal:
Expertise: A reviewer should have expertise in the specific area of the manuscript under review to provide a knowledgeable assessment.
Objectivity: A good reviewer remains objective, separating personal opinions from the scientific evaluation of the work.
Constructiveness: The ability to provide constructive feedback that is helpful for authors in improving their work is a crucial quality.
Timeliness: Reviewers should be prompt in completing their reviews to facilitate the timely publication of research findings.
Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and not disclose information about the manuscript to others.
Empathy: Empathetic reviewers foster understanding and consideration of the challenges authors may face, promoting constructive and supportive feedback in the peer-review process.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Aryal reckons that it is crucial for authors to follow reporting guidelines during preparation of their manuscripts. These guidelines, such as STROBE (for observational studies), CONSORT (for clinical trials), PRISMA (for systematic reviews), and CARE (for case reports), provide a structured framework for reporting research methodologies and results. Adhering to these guidelines enhances the transparency and reproducibility of research, making it easier for reviewers and readers to evaluate the validity and reliability of the study. Following reporting guidelines also promotes consistency in reporting across studies, which is essential for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Manuscripts that adhere to reporting guidelines demonstrate a commitment to rigorous and transparent research practices, facilitating a more thorough and accurate evaluation of the work. While adherence to reporting guidelines is generally encouraged for transparent and rigorous research, there are situations where deviations may be justified. These include cases involving innovative methodologies, exploratory research, non-traditional study designs, data privacy concerns, and disciplinary differences. In such instances, authors should clearly explain the reasons for deviations in their manuscripts, maintaining transparency and allowing reviewers and readers to make informed assessments of the research.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)