In 2024, ALES 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.
February, 2024
Frederick H Koh, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
March, 2024
Sue J Hahn, Mount Sinai Hospital, USA
June, 2024
Daniel Rodger, University of London, UK
August, 2024
Elvin Piriyev, University Witten/Herdecke, Germany
February, 2024
Frederick H Koh
Frederick H. Koh is a Colorectal Surgeon-Scientist in Sengkang General Hospital and an Associate Professor of Surgery in Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. Assistant Prof. Koh is published in numerous peer-reviewed journals and enjoys both clinical as well as basic science research, pertaining to the field of General and Colorectal Surgery, Sarcopenia and Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy. He has successfully implemented routine use of AI in his hospital’s endoscopy suite, recognized as the Asia-Pacific Centre of Excellence by Medtronic in 2023. His passion in empowering healthcare professionals and the community with knowledge and skills to maintain good muscle health through the PRIME (Promoting Muscle Health through Empowerment) has also been recognized by Abbott International as a Centre of Excellence. Prof. Koh is also active in the development of future doctors and specialists and was awarded the Dean’s Award for Teaching Excellence AY 18/19 by NUS. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Prof. Koh’s opinion, peer review is a mainstay in scientific manuscript assessment and provides an opportunity for cross checking before articles are published. This fundamental assessment of submitted manuscripts helps ensure the quality of scientific rigor, as well as validity of the topics discussed. He thinks that it also serves as an opportunity for the authors to receive prompt feedback from peer reviewers which can highlight blind spots in their manuscript which can be improved before publication or resubmission. Peer review, therefore, can help improve the quality of work by the authors, enhance scientific credibility and ensure validity of the work eventually published by the journal. The editorial team would thus have a chance of gathering comments from different reviewers in order to make a more objective assessment of the submitted work.
Prof. Koh reckons that the quality of peer review can only be as good as the quality of the peer reviewer. The editorial team would have to ensure the quality of review by the peer reviewer is reliable, credible and performed in the spirit of wanting to make the submitted work better, rather than have emotions and individual views presented without substantiation. A good peer review would provide actional points for the authors to work on with measured rationale provided, otherwise, the peer review would be of no help. Active participation and experience in the peer-review processes, provided framework of peer review by the journals and scoring systems which are validated can be used to help ensure peer review processes become more objective while still allowing flexibility in allowing the peer reviewer to express his/her views.
“ALES is a journal centered on the publication of articles for covering research and clinical work in minimally invasive surgery in a diverse range of specialties. This focus is in line with the clinical work I participate in day in and day out and therefore, I would be well poised to provide my experience and use my knowledge in these areas to better the work submitted to the journal. The peer-review process for ALES has also been reliable and consistent with the peer reviews and thus I feel that my voice is being heard through my contributions. In addition, through peer reviews, I would also have the privilege to review articles around the focused areas of the journal which helps me reflect on my own work and appreciate cutting edge improvements others are pursuing. These would all help me and my patients in my daily work,” says Prof. Koh.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Sue J Hahn
Dr. Sue J Hahn is an Assistant Professor of Surgery in the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, USA. She is Assistant Program Director of the General Surgery Residency and Director of the Robotic and Surgical Skills Curriculum. She received her BS in Biology with Honors from Brown University and her medical degree from SUNY Downstate College of Medicine where she developed and instituted a new curriculum for the Medical Educator Pathway for students who aspire to become future leaders in medical education. She completed her general surgery training at Mount Sinai Hospital where she received the Arthur H. Aufses, Sr. Prize in Surgery. After residency, she completed fellowship training in Colon and Rectal Surgery at UMass Memorial Center. Her research interests include new innovations in colorectal surgery, colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Hahn believes peer review plays a critical role in the scientific community, serving as the backbone of credibility and academic authenticity. This process acts as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring that only research of high standard and integrity reaches the wider audience. Peer reviewers analyze, critique, and improve the methodology, analysis, and interpretation of the study, as well as provide feedback and suggestions for improvement to authors, fostering constructive dialogue and collaboration. By upholding rigorous standards of evaluation, peer review contributes to the reliability, credibility, and advancement of scientific inquiry.
In Dr. Hahn’s opinion, an objective review provides an unbiased assessment of the research regardless of personal beliefs, affiliations, or preferences. “As a peer reviewer, I prioritize evaluating the merits of the study, including the research question, appropriateness of the methodology and analysis, the soundness of the conclusions, and the potential impact on the literature. I adhere closely to the evaluation criteria set by the journal as a guide for assessing quality and significance of the research. I also try to maintain transparency in my review process by clearly documenting my reasoning and providing specific feedback to the authors, in addition to disclosing any possible conflicts of interest or biases I may have to the editor,” adds she.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Hahn reckons that it is crucial for authors to adhere to reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE and CARE). These guidelines are designed to enhance consistency and transparency of research reporting across the spectrum of study designs. By complying with these guidelines, authors also help demonstrate reproducibility of results, minimize bias and selective reporting, ensure ethical conduct, as well as facilitate a more efficient and rigorous review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Daniel Rodger
Daniel Rodger is a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP) who worked in the NHS for over a decade. Since 2016, he has been a Lecturer at London South Bank University, where he teaches undergraduate ODP students and postgraduate nurses. His research interests cross several disciplines that include bioethics, philosophy, and perioperative care and he is currently undertaking a PhD in Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London. Daniel has published more than 60 peer-reviewed publications and co-edited the Fundamentals of Operating Department Practice, which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2022. His current research project is looking at how different groups of people understand xenotransplantation and the role it could play in alleviating the shortage of organs available for transplant. Connect with him on X @philosowhal.
Daniel indicates that peer review plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the scientific process, and we know what can happen when it goes wrong. More recently, he thinks people have become especially aware of how poor-quality peer review can negatively affect the public’s trust in science. It is something that he would hope every review would take seriously.
During the review, Daniel always tries his best to be objective and judge a paper based on its merits, i.e., novelty, rigour, methodology, results, and how well-written it is. He is keenly aware that just because he might not like a paper does not mean it should be rejected. Like many researchers, he has occasionally received unfair and sometimes needlessly passive aggressive feedback and so he tries to keep that in mind when reviewing other people’s work. Whilst it is never nice to receive critical feedback and rejection, he knows from experience that in nearly every instance the next manifestation was significantly improved because of it. Therefore, he ensures that his comments are clear, charitable, and helpful—he wants it to be clear to the author/s that he has taken his time to understand their work and that he wants it to be as good as it can be. He tries and applies the golden rule of peer review—review for others as you would have others review for you.
“I think it’s important for active researchers to set time aside to engage in peer review, especially when they are depending on other researchers to review their submissions. When I’m at a busy time of the year, I will turn down requests to review a manuscript because I don’t think it’s fair to accept a request only to then leave the manuscript for several months. However, when I know I have the expertise and the time (usually within 3 weeks), I try my best to allocate time for peer review. I would say that I end up reviewing between 5-8 manuscripts on average each year,” says Daniel.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Elvin Piriyev
Dr. Elvin Piriyev graduted from Azerbaijan Medical University. Currently, he works as Associate Professor at the University Witten/Herdecke, Germany, and as Senior Physician at the Academic Hospital Cologne Weyertal, Germany. He is also minimal invasive surgeon level III (the highest level), and Endometriosis specialist. His research areas and recent projects focus on Endometriosis, deep infiltrating endometriosis, endoscopy, uterine fibroids, uterus malformation, transcervical radiofrequency ablation of uterine fibroids and adenomyosis. He is member of teacher’s board in ISGE (international society for gynecological endoscopy), core team in EEL (European endometriosis league), board member DAGGG (German Azerbaijan Society for gynecology and obstetrics). Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Piriyev’s opinion, a healthy peer-review system involves assigning papers to reviewers within the same research field. This can guarantee the best evaluation of the papers. The review process should focus on the main results and the actuality of the researched topics.
Dr. Piriyev reckons that reviewers should remember that the authors' opinions may differ from their own. They should be open-minded and consider new opinions and options. Reviewers with their comments should help the authors create a better paper but not impair the publishing process. As reviewers, they must remember that excessively rigorous reviews can demotivate young researchers, causing them to stop writing paper.
“It is always fascinating to read ‘raw’ papers. Reviewing papers provide me with a wealth of new information. My motivation to review stems from the realization that I can contribute to other researchers' work and help them. Unfortunately, our daily routine limits our time, allowing us to review only a fraction of the publications sent to us,” says Dr. Piriyev.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
