In 2024, JHMHP 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
Devendra Kumar Jain, FLAME University, India
February, 2024
Padam Kanta Dahal, Central Queensland University, Australia
March, 2024
Mary Crea-Arsenio, McMaster University, Canada
April, 2024
Dinesh R. Pai, Pennsylvania State University, USA
May, 2024
Austin Porter, University of Arkansas, USA
July, 2024
Gregory Orewa, University of Texas, USA
August, 2024
Geoffrey Silvera, University of Alabama, USA
January, 2024
Devendra Kumar Jain
Devendra Kumar Jain currently works at FLAME School of Business, FLAME University, Pune, India. His research areas include macro financial risks, financial markets, climate risk mitigation, and recently focus on sustainable finance, forecasting models, and macroeconomic impact of digital currency. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Jain thinks that the qualities a reviewer should possess are reviewing the manuscript in time and understanding the core issue of the paper. Being a constructive reviewer to improve the manuscript is also required. Moreover, he indicates that it is crucial for authors to share their research data, because it helps the reviewer to authenticate the data set and methodology.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Padam Kanta Dahal
Padam Kanta Dahal is a dedicated researcher affiliated with Central Queensland University in Australia. With a background in Health Economics, Public Health, and Health Promotion, Padam specializes in conducting health economic assessments to address complex health challenges. His research interests span various areas, including workforce planning, economic evaluations of healthcare interventions, the economic impact of health policies and reforms of health insurance and payment systems, healthcare disparities and access, and pharmaceutical pricing. Padam is committed to promoting equitable and evidence-based solutions to improve health outcomes. Further, his recent projects and focuses include investigating the economic impact of health behavior change intervention to manage diabetes among vulnerable populations. Through his interdisciplinary approach and collaborative efforts, Padam strives to contribute to the advancement of public health knowledge and practice.
Padam believes that peer review serves as a quality-control mechanism in science, ensuring the validity and reliability of scientific research prior to sharing publicly. In his opinion, a reviewer should consider the scientific merit, rigorous methods and materials, and clear and concise presentation of the manuscript, ensuring the research is relevant and rigorous.
As a researcher, Padam tries to allocate time for reviewing by incorporating it into his busy schedule, balancing it with other professional duties.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Mary Crea-Arsenio
Dr. Mary Crea-Arsenio is an Assistant Professor of Global Health at the McMaster University, Canada. She is a health geographer and health system analyst. She holds a PhD in Health Geography from McMaster University and an MSc in Family Relations and Applied Nutrition from the University of Guelph. Dr. Crea-Arsenio has expertise in immigration and health policy, health of migrant workers, health systems and health human resources. She employs mixed methodological approaches, including systems mapping, geospatial analysis, appreciative inquiry and stakeholder analysis. Her current research focusing on the impact of immigration on small and mid-sized cities and how local systems create barriers to newcomer integration provides a critical understanding of key issues. Her most recent publication, a co-edited book with Dr. Bruce Newbold entitled “A research agenda for immigration settlement and adjustment”, is forthcoming from Edward Elgar Publishing. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Crea-Arsenio thinks that reviewers should be able to clearly articulate feedback and provide constructive suggestions for the authors. This includes explaining their rationale for comments, and offering specific recommendations for improvement. Providing constructive feedback can ultimately contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field. Reviewers should also meet the deadlines set by the journal and provide their feedback in a timely manner. Prompt reviews help expedite the publication process and maintain the integrity of the peer-review system.
“While I recognize the importance of peer review, I also acknowledge the need to balance it with other responsibilities,” says Dr. Crea-Arsenio. As the burden of being a health system analyst is heavy, the way she manages competing demands is by setting realistic limits on the number of manuscripts she can review within a given time frame. She also plans her peer-review commitments in advance, taking into account deadlines set by journal editors and any upcoming professional obligations. This allows her to maintain a consistent workflow. However, if she anticipates any challenges in meeting a review deadline, she communicates with the journal editor to discuss potential extensions or alternative arrangements.
From a reviewer’s perspective, in the field of global health, Dr. Crea-Arsenio reckons that timely access to data is critical for understanding and addressing pressing health challenges. Sharing data enables researchers to collaborate more effectively, accelerate research progress, and develop evidence-based interventions to improve health outcomes worldwide. It also allows other researchers to replicate findings of a study which enhance the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research. She thinks that by sharing data, researchers can leverage existing data sets to address new research questions, explore alternative hypotheses, or conduct meta-analyses that provide insights beyond individual studies. By pooling resources and expertise, researchers can tackle complex problems more effectively and generate new insights that would be difficult to achieve in isolation. However, it is important to recognize that data sharing should be done in a responsible manner, taking into account issues such as patient privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property rights. Researchers should adhere to relevant ethical guidelines and legal regulations when sharing data, and consider appropriate mechanisms for data management, storage, and access.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Dinesh R. Pai
Dinesh R. Pai, Ph.D., is an associate professor of supply chain management in the School of Business Administration at Penn State Harrisburg. He conducts problem-driven, multidisciplinary research primarily on performance evaluation and the application of data analytics to address current issues in service operations. Dr. Pai's research methods mainly include math programming, multivariate statistics, and machine learning (ML) techniques. He frequently presents at national and international conferences. Currently, he is researching several areas in healthcare, such as the Pennsylvania Rural Health Model's effect on hospital performance and the influence of health information technology on critical access hospital performance. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Pai’s opinion, before reviewers agree to review a manuscript, they must ascertain they have the expertise in the field to provide constructive feedback. In addition, reviewers must ensure they have no conflict of interest with the authors (in the case of single-blind reviews) or the research under review. In addition, they must provide objective and constructive feedback such that their reviews will improve the quality of the manuscript and help authors learn more about the field. Finally, the reviewers must be empathetic in their reviews and adhere to the editor’s timeline to finish the review process.
However, Dr. Pai indicates that there are several limitations in the existing peer-review process, which is time-consuming, inequitable, and frequently demoralizing to prospective authors. Furthermore, the review process could be viewed as disastrous by early-career researchers. Devoid of any better alternatives, the existing process, though complex, is still democratic. Many journals have already taken action to reduce the mystery surrounding publication, including desk-rejecting manuscripts that are not a good fit for the publication, offering transfer services to sister journals upon rejection, and providing updates on the process once a manuscript is submitted for review. He thinks there is room for further improvement. When a manuscript is desk-rejected, for example, providing the authors with an explanation of why it is not deemed suitable for publication could be helpful. Furthermore, it is detrimental for authors when reviewers leave depressing remarks on the manuscript. Reviewers can offer helpful criticism to authors, enabling them to polish their work before submitting it to other publications. The editorial office of a journal can work ahead of time by creating an inventory of potential reviewers in areas where they receive the most submissions. This inventory could be tapped immediately when editors receive a manuscript for review. This may reduce the turnaround time.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Austin Porter
Dr. Austin Porter serves as an Assistant Professor at the Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. He also holds the positions of Deputy Chief Science Officer and Deputy State Epidemiologist at the Arkansas Department of Health. Austin earned his B.S. in Biology from the University of Central Arkansas in 2005. He furthered his education with a Master's in Public Health, focusing on Epidemiology, and a Doctorate in Public Health, emphasizing Public Health Leadership, both from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, completed in 2009 and 2016 respectively. With over a decade of research experience, Dr. Porter's expertise lies in injury epidemiology, health disparities research, and public health practice. His work has significantly contributed to trauma systems evaluation, the clinical management of injured patients, and understanding the disparities in their treatment.
In Dr. Porter’s opinion, a constructive manuscript review offers valuable guidance to authors, ultimately enhancing their work. It is crucial for reviewers to provide detailed feedback on the points they raise, enabling authors to respond appropriately. Additionally, constructive reviews should include actionable suggestions that authors can implement to improve their manuscripts. Good reviewers elevate the quality of the paper, making it more likely to attract other high-caliber researchers to publish in the journal, thus enhancing the journal's overall quality. Conversely, a destructive manuscript review can be frustrating for authors, offering little guidance or direction for improvement. Such reviews leave researchers uncertain about how to interpret the feedback, potentially compromising the integrity of the manuscript.
The role of a peer reviewer is vital, according to Dr. Porter, for maintaining the scientific rigor and credibility of a journal. Effective reviewers not only improve individual manuscripts but also contribute to the advancement of the field by ensuring that only high-quality research is published. They help uphold ethical standards, detect potential errors, and provide an unbiased evaluation, which is essential for the growth and reputation of the scientific community.
“I chose to review for the Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy because the manuscript title I was invited to review immediately caught my interest. The manuscript fell squarely within my area of expertise, specifically in trauma systems research. I feel a strong sense of duty to contribute to the advancement of this field by providing thorough and constructive reviews. Engaging in the peer-review process not only helps improve the quality of individual manuscripts but also promotes the overall development and recognition of trauma systems research within the academic community,” says Dr. Porter.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Gregory Orewa
Dr. Gregory Orewa holds the position of Assistant Professor within the Department of Public Health and has a courtesy appointment in the Department of Management at the Carlos Alvarez College of Business at the University of Texas, San Antonio. He earned his PhD in Health Services Administration with a focus in Strategic Management from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, an MBA from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and a Bachelor's and Master's in Accounting from Kean University, New Jersey. Dr. Orewa's research primarily explores various facets of healthcare systems and the workforce with an added emphasis on investigating disparities, quality, and organizational performance within long-term care settings. His work also extends into strategic management, policy, and healthcare finance. This comprehensive approach positions him not only to address the multifaceted challenges facing healthcare systems and their workforce but also to explore these topics through a multidisciplinary lens. Learn more about Dr. Orewa here and connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Orewa indicates that a healthy peer-review system is crucial for maintaining the integrity and quality of academic publishing. It should be fair, timely, and transparent. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback, and authors should be able to challenge unfair reviews.
“An objective review is unbiased, should focus solely on the merits of the work, and be based on facts and evidence,” says Dr. Orewa. To ensure objectivity in a review, he points out that it is critical to put aside personal biases and assess the subject using standardized criteria. In his opinion, the best reviews are those that are constructive, detailed, and objective, offering specific, actionable feedback that covers all sections of the manuscript. They are evidence-based, clearly written, and adhere to ethical standards, including maintaining confidentiality. Effective reviews are also timely, helping keep the publication process on track while providing authors with valuable insights to improve their work.
In addition, Dr. Orewa reckons that data sharing in scientific research is important because it promotes transparency and fosters collaboration, allowing scholars to replicate studies and verify findings. Furthermore, making data accessible allows researchers to build upon existing work and discover new insights. This openness not only accelerates scientific progress but also increases the visibility and impact of research. However, he stresses that it is important to manage sensitive data carefully to protect privacy and confidentiality.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Geoffrey Silvera
Dr. Geoffrey Silvera is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Services Administration at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He earned his PhD in Health Policy and Administration from The Pennsylvania State University and holds an MHA and a BS in Psychology from the University of Florida. His research focuses on healthcare governance, strategic management, diversity management, and patient experience. He is particularly interested in the role of hospital leadership in improving patient care experiences and quality. Recent projects include examining hospital governing boards, the foundations of patient experience, and the role of chief information officers in the digital transformation of health care. Dr. Silvera serves on the editorial board of Patient Experience Journal (PXJ) and Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC). He has contributed to various peer-reviewed publications and often presents his findings at national and international conferences. His work aims to equip hospital leadership to cultivate more effective, equitable, and patient-inclusive care delivery systems. He is also dedicated to mentoring the next generation of healthcare administrators and leaders through his role as director of the Health Equity Leadership Academy. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Silvera credits peer review with every good thing that has happened in his academic career. Peer review is the lifeblood of science and is crucial to not only the veracity of science but also to meeting the needs of the audience reseachers are hoping to contribute to. Every conference submission or manuscript that he has submitted has gotten better through the peer-review process. He adds, “Granted, not every peer review is a good review, but when done fairly with earnest intent to improve the clarity of the contribution to knowledge, peer review always results in positive outcomes. I consider it to be the essential contribution of any scientist to be a proponent and contributor to the peer-review process because it alone ensures the quality, accuracy, and credibility of academic research.”
Dr. Silvera indicates that by having experts in the field evaluate and critique a study prior to broad publication, authors can identify potential flaws, biases, and gaps in their work. Iron sharpens iron and so too does peer review sharpen science. This process validates the research, enhances its reliability, and maintains the integrity of scientific literature, preventing the dissemination of unverified or misleading information. He believes the process is vital to the creation of science and establishes trust and confidence in academic and scientific communities.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
