In 2024, AOB 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
Rick Kapur, Sanquin Research, The Netherlands

February, 2024
Sentot Santoso, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany

May, 2024
Moises Auron, Cleveland Clinic, USA

August, 2024
Ayoola Awosika, University of Illinois, USA

January, 2024

Rick Kapur

Dr. Rick Kapur currently serves as the Research Group Leader at Department of Experimental Immunohematology Sanquin Research, and Landsteiner Laboratory, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Trained in the Netherlands as a medical doctor (MD) as well as a biologist specialized in fundamental biomedical sciences (MSc), he gained a PhD degree in medicine (immunohematology). His lab is focused on unraveling the pathophysiology and improving the diagnostics of benign immune-hematological disorders. This includes immune responses to platelets: in immune-mediated thrombocytopenias including the autoimmune disorder immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), and immune responses towards the endothelium in adverse blood transfusion reactions: in Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). His awards include the prestigious Jean Julliard Prize of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) in 2018, and the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) RISE award in 2016. He currently has around 100 peer-reviewed journal publications, including multiple papers in high-quality journals such as Blood, Science Translational Medicine and Haematologica. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Kapur: I think it is crucial to evaluate the manuscript objectively, regarding methodology, analyses of results, conclusions and statements made in relation to referenced literature, closely linked to the goal of advancing the field. In my opinion, a good reviewer not only judges the accuracy and novelty of the work but also aims to significantly improve it with constructive suggestions. In presenting critique or suggestions, the feedback must be fully explained and detailed so the authors also understand why certain improvements are recommended and what the added value of incorporating them would be.

AOB: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Kapur: I think it is the most efficient to have an optimal and open academic dialogue between the authors and the reviewers, and to do so, it may be beneficial to have this with complete transparency by for instance co-publishing the peer-review reports and also by revealing the identity of the reviewers to the authors. In this context, full disclosure of possible conflicts of interest remains of great importance.

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

Dr. Kapur: I appreciate seeing the latest developments at this pre-publication stage, not only to observe the current status of the field but also to learn from novel scientific and clinical directions that are taken. In addition, I like the added value of the possibility of bringing new suggestions which may improve the manuscript. As part of the scientific community, we are obliged to contribute to the peer-review process, as we also expect the same contributions for our own manuscripts under review. Together, we need to ensure supporting of research integrity, transparency, openness and efficient communication aimed at promoting scientific progression.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

February, 2024

Sentot Santoso

Dr. Sentot Santoso, PhD, currently works at the Institute for Clinical Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany, Institute of Blood Transfusion, Guangzhou Blood Centre, China, and Faculty of Pharmacy, Widya Mandala University, Surabaya, Indonesia. His research areas and recent projects are antibodies against platelets which play important role on the pathomechanism of immune mediated bleeding disorders. Recent data demonstrated that these antibodies could not only react with platelets, but also with other blood cells and endothelial cells. However, little is known about the clinical consequence of this interaction. Currently, they are focusing on the characterization of several target antigens on the molecular level to dissect the functional consequences of antibody binding on different cells both in vitro as well as in vivo using murine models. In addition, they are also working on antibody-mediated severe lung edema injury, known as TRALI (Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury). Further insight into the role of antibody on the crosstalk between different cells expressing the target antigens may help them to improve the understanding about the mechanism of antibody-mediated immune disorders and TRALI. This knowledge will improve diagnostic quality as well as treatment strategy of these immune diseases.

Dr. Santoso thinks that peer review is crucial to keep high-quality standard of the published articles, and to help the authors to improve their studies. He believes that constructive review should be helpful, scientific, evidence-based, focused and solution-oriented, instead of destroying the work.

“AOB is a new scientific journal but already contains interesting and solid works,” says Dr. Santoso.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

May, 2024

Moises Auron

Dr. Moises Auron is an academic Internal Medicine and Pediatrics hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic main campus. He is a Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University. He serves as the medical director of Blood Management at the Cleveland Clinic and focuses on implementing strategies for high value care approach to blood transfusion. Among his most recent projects is the implementation of the MSBOS for surgical patients, as well as the identification of transfusions of single units of plasma disseminating the best practice of weight-based plasma dosing. He is passionate about medical education, quality and patient safety and perioperative medicine. Dr. Auron is the Governor of the American College of Physicians Ohio Chapter and is a member of the American Board of Pediatrics Subboard of Pediatric Hospital Medicine. He served in the AABB Patient Blood Management Standards Committee. Connect with him on X @medpedshosp.

Dr. Auron reckons that peer review is fundamental to ensure that the quality of publications, including its veracity, as well as evidence used is accurate and relevant to the readers. Publications help to disseminate information; the most recent evidence as well as growing knowledge in the field must be published to contribute to the literature. The peer reviewer has a huge responsibility to ensure that the content of the manuscripts is valid and that has a meaningful impact in the advancement of clinical work as well as research. In the case of research manuscripts, the focus on the quality of the methodology, adherence to the highest ethical principles, and that the references utilized are of excellent quality and recent, is very important, as the results of a published manuscript have an impact on further research, and contribute to the existing evidence on a given topic.

Dr. Auron serves as an Associate Editor of an international journal and he thinks it is very difficult to find peer reviewers for specific topics, and many invited reviewers decline the opportunity. In part, because the peer review effort is challenging and time consuming and it is not reimbursed. Also, the lack of experience of the reviewers, which translates into peer reviews of suboptimal quality, that delay substantially the process to publish a manuscript. He believes that journals should provide training and meaningful feedback to the reviewers – as this can allow them to gain expertise and develop a more meaningful desire to do this activity.

“I consider peer review as an opportunity to serve, but also to learn while contributing to the development of knowledge and literature. In addition, in academic medicine, for advancement to Associate Professor and Professor, the committees for academic promotion and tenure appreciate substantially the engagement in this activity, as this showcases academic maturity. To me, it is due to its relevance to science and service to the community, in addition to the opportunity this gives me to learn; I personally think this is a privilege and a responsibility. I find satisfying when I receive the feedback on the review, including other peer reviewers’ comments which are very educational, and even more, when the manuscripts are accepted, with strong enhancement based on the peer review we provided,” says Dr. Auron.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

August, 2024

Ayoola Awosika

Dr. Ayoola Awosika is a passionate medical educator, physician, and research fellow with accumulated years of experience integrating bench work and bedside evidence-based medicine, a prominent crusader for preventive and holistic medicine. He is currently a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, USA. He is also a seasoned medical educator passionate about infusing several interactive active learning strategies into medical education. His research effort focuses on chronic cardiometabolic, vascular, and pulmonary conditions, coupled with medical educational research. He has published over 45 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters with over 1,000 citations. He has presented at international and national conferences in the areas of biomedical sciences and clinical medicine. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

AOB: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Awosika: Peer review remains an integral component of ensuring scientific integrity. Peer review safeguards the quality, credibility, and accuracy of scientific research through expert evaluation and constructive feedback. However, the current system has notable limitations, including bias (both conscious and unconscious), inconsistent review quality, publication delays, lack of transparency, and vulnerability to conflicts of interest. Furthermore, reviewers often lack accountability, and their contributions are rarely recognized in some instances. To address these issues, improvements such as implementing double-blind or open peer review, providing more structured guidelines, integrating more technology friendly interface for real-time edits/comments, and increasing transparency in the review process may be useful at mitigating these limitations.

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

Dr. Awosika: An objective review of a research paper entails evaluating the work strictly on its scientific rigor, methodology, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the field, without allowing personal biases, preconceived notions, or external factors to affect judgment. To maintain objectivity, I rely on an evidence-based approach, thoroughly cross-referencing the study's findings with existing literature and ensuring my evaluation aligns with the journal’s specific guidelines. I consciously avoid being influenced by the authors' affiliations or reputations, strive to highlight both strengths and weaknesses impartially, and remain vigilant about my own potential biases, actively reflecting on them throughout the review process to ensure a fair and balanced assessment.

AOB: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Awosika: It is essential for authors to disclose any COI to ensure transparency and uphold the integrity of the research process. Full disclosure of potential financial, personal, or professional ties allows readers and reviewers to evaluate how external factors may have influenced the study's design, methodology, data interpretation, or conclusions. A COI has the potential to introduce bias, whether intentionally or unintentionally, affecting critical decisions throughout the research. While not all COIs necessarily compromise the validity of the findings, failure to disclose such conflicts can severely undermine the trustworthiness and credibility of the research. Therefore, open acknowledgment of COIs is fundamental to preserving scientific objectivity and maintaining confidence in the results.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)