In 2026, 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.
Kathryn Jane Muir, Penn Nursing, USA
Eric T. Roberts, University of California San Francisco, USA
Kathryn Jane Muir
Kathryn Jane Muir, PhD, MSHP, RN, is an Assistant Professor at Penn Nursing in the Department of Family and Community Health, and Penn Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine. She is core faculty in the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research at Penn Nursing. Her research focuses on how nursing care is organized in community-facing settings, including emergency departments, to promote timely and high-quality patient outcomes. Her work is informed by her clinical experience as an emergency department nurse and a Family Nurse Practitioner in community health. In 2025, she was recognized by the Emergency Nurses Association as the Emergency Nurse Researcher of the Year. She completed her undergraduate studies and doctoral training at the University of Virginia, and holds a Master of Science in Health Policy from Penn. Her research is funded by the NIH, the Emergency Nurses Association, and the Emergency Medicine Foundation. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
JHMHP: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Muir: Reviewers have as much opportunity to shape science as the authors behind the manuscript. Many of my highest-cited publications are due to exceptional peer reviewers who took great time and care to provide suggestions from both data analytic and writing perspectives. Balancing professional and personal workloads can make peer review seem daunting, but investing the time to do so can greatly inform scientific research programs. Additionally, I try to keep in mind how emerging technologies like large language models are transforming the peer review and publication writing landscape. It’s important for reviewers to observe how AI is being used in scientific writing and review. As peer reviewers, we have an opportunity to guide how AI can, should, or should not inform scientific writing and peer review. If a reviewer has concerns about the use of AI in a paper or sees an opportunity where it could enhance the publication writing, submission, or review process, they should reach out to journal editors to share their insights.
JHMHP: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Muir: I anchor my review first and foremost on whether the scientific question is well-described, well-founded, and a consistent thread throughout the manuscript. It is a disservice to the scientific enterprise to allow biases to guide judgments about a publication’s suitability for publication. If I know I am particularly knowledgeable about the topic I’m reviewing, I try to leverage that expertise to the fullest to provide a helpful review—one that can either enhance the manuscript or guide the editor in making a decision.
JHMHP: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Muir: As an associate editor of a journal myself, I understand how challenging it is to secure peer reviewers for a manuscript. To manage my workload, I only say “yes” to manuscripts I am enthusiastic about and/or have expertise in. I try to respond to every manuscript review inquiry—whether I can provide a review or not—to assist the editorial staff in their search for reviewers. I typically dedicate at least one afternoon per week, usually Fridays, to conducting peer reviews.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Eric T. Roberts
Eric T. Roberts is a research specialist in the Division of Rheumatology in the University of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine. He is an epidemiologist by training and a member of the Quality Informatics Lab. Generally, his research focuses on patient safety and health services research within rheumatology. More specifically, he evaluates immunosuppressive medications commonly used in rheumatology for safety and effectiveness, and assesses national quality measures as well as national health care policy with a focus on biosimilar adoption. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Roberts believes that peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific process. He notes that science works best when methods are clearly explained so that experts can evaluate and debate the implications of the findings. Peer reviewers, he explains, serve as a critical check on the appropriateness of methods, highlight relevant research the authors may have missed, and offer alternative interpretations ensuring the final published work better reflects the state of the field. The process, he adds, is especially important at this moment when science and medicine face the dual threats of waning public trust and high-profile cases of academic fraud.
According to Dr. Roberts, the first step to minimizing potential biases is to be aware of them. While journals and universities put safeguards in place against potential personal and financial conflicts of interest, individual reviewers should be aware of less obvious ones including preferences for certain theoretical paradigms, analytic methods, data sources or writing styles. This awareness, he explains, can help the reviewer differentiate between fundamental research flaws and personal preferences. He finds it helpful to remind himself that regardless of the perceived quality of an article he is reviewing, all authors have the same goal of improving medicine and public health.
“Peer review is often perceived negatively but I know that through this process my published work is of a higher caliber. Thank you to all the unnamed contributors who took the time to review my work!” says Dr. Roberts.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
