In 2023, JECCM 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.
November, 2023
Nathan Beucler, Sainte-Anne Military Teaching Hospital, France
December, 2023
Farah Abdulsatar, Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI), UK
November, 2023
Nathan Beucler
Dr.Nathan Beucler, a newly Board-Certified Military Neurosurgeon affiliated to Sainte-Anne Military Teaching Hospital. Thanks to his mentor Pr Arnaud DAGAIN, he has a general neurosurgical practice, taking care of patients with both cranial and spinal neurosurgical issues and operating on cases with degenerative diseases, trauma, tumors, infection, or hydrocephalus. Thanks to his training and also to a fellowship with Pr Stephane FUENTES, he offers the whole spectrum of spine surgery with a special interest for complex trauma cases and those involving the spinopelvic junction. He also had the chance to learn the basics of skull base surgery with Pr Pierre-Hugues ROCHE who specializes in vestibular schwannoma and petroclival meningioma. Lastly, after completion of his training with Pr Denys FONTAINE, he proposes functional neurosurgery for chronic pain using mainly spinal cord stimulation and sometimes intrathecal therapy. His research interests include traumatic brain injury, notably decompressive craniectomy and more precisely the link between craniectomy medial margin and posttraumatic hydrocephalus, and the prognosis of acute and chronic subdural hematoma. His interests also encompass spine trauma and notably surgical trauma of the spinopelvic junction. In 2021, due to his research work, he was pleased to become a member of the scientific research honor society Sigma Xi.
JECCM: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Beucler: From my point of view, the review of someone’s work by his/her peers serves at least three purposes. First, given the very specific research topics nowadays, it may be very difficult for people not working in the exact same field to review other researchers’ work. Plus, research tend to become increasingly specialized, complicated, and now systematically include complete statistical work-up, elements that may be hard to interpret even for someone working in the same area. It may allow to publish ground breaking research faster, but also to notify Editor concerning questionable or doubtful papers. Second, I find it very interesting when the Editor is able to assign an experienced researcher and a younger one on the same manuscript. The younger tends to analyze the manuscript in depth such as the methods used in the statistical analyses and the relevant cited literature, whereas the older one can comment on the overall spirit of the work, its research question, and give a welcomed feedback based on his/her own experience. Third, peer reviewer may provide insightful remarks when the work submitted hasn’t been carried far enough, or when it has been submitted to the wrong journal and only needs clever redirection.
JECCM: What is so fascinating about peer reviewing?
Dr. Beucler: Reviewing other’s work is not simply about making scientific remarks and trying to give the authors’ relevant clues on possible ways to improve the research methods. It’s thinking about how you would have carried the research yourself. It’s thinking about the way you’d have imagined the manuscript, written it, presented it. It’s trying to give the author the right step so that he/she will be able to improve the research by him/herself, without doing it for him/her. Sometimes, it gives you another point of view of a precise topic in your field, in a way that you had never thought of before. Thus, it may open up your mind. Sometimes, it gives you a relevant reference that you’d lost a long time ago, and that you wanted to remember. Sometimes, and that’s precisely why peer reviewer is fascinating, it teaches you something in your own field. Of course, such manuscripts are among those which deserve publication. Lastly, sometimes it allows you to read ground breaking research before everyone else, which of course really is stimulating for a scientist. Hence, in a certain way, doing peer review of other’s work on a regular basis is a good way of looking at yourself in the mirror, and thus of self-improvement.
JECCM: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval? What would happen if this process is omitted?
Dr. Beucler: Truly speaking, I think that IRB approval really plays a role in prospective research. In prospective biomedical research, caregivers may propose patients’ alternative treatments that they consider being as good as the gold standard treatment. Nevertheless, they are inevitably biased because of their own implication in their research project. Hence, seeking the approval of the institution’s ethical board is a rather simple way to obtain other’s scientific point of view regarding the safety and the scientific appropriateness of the alternative treatment that is proposed, whether it is another drug on another surgical procedure. Without IRB, scientists could be tempted to carry prospective research in their own way. This could rapidly drift to human experimentation. From my point of view, authentic retrospective studies don’t need IRB approval as long as they really are retrospective research, in other words the cold analysis of data of patients who have already been treated and whose care was not affected by a possible future scientific work. Nevertheless, some researchers may use retrospective studies as a means to carry research without proper authorization. In the end, I think that it is important to submit all research works to IRB approval. While peer review plays the role of an external scientific audit, IRB plays the role of the internal human safety audit.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
December, 2023
Farah Abdulsatar
Dr. Farah Abdulsatar is a paediatrician currently affiliated with the Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI) in London, Ontario. Her professional journey has been dedicated to the field of developmental paediatrics, with a focus on neurodevelopmental disorders. As a recent addition to CPRI, she is actively engaged in advancing paediatric healthcare through her clinical expertise and commitment to medical education. Her research area centers around childhood maladaptive daydreaming and intense imagery movements, emerging entities in paediatric literature. She collaborates internationally with esteemed researchers to explore and further understand these understudied and underreported conditions in children. Alongside her clinical and research pursuits, she has a strong interest in quality improvement and patient safety initiatives.
JECCM: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Abdulsatar: A healthy peer-review system is fundamentally anchored in fairness and objectivity, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit without personal biases. Constructive feedback is another cornerstone, where reviewers provide both positive insights and critical yet actionable advice to help authors improve their work. Additionally, timeliness is essential, with reviews conducted and delivered within reasonable and agreed-upon timeframes. This approach not only maintains the integrity of the scientific process but also respects the efforts of the authors and the overall efficiency of the publication cycle.
JECCM: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Abdulsatar: When reviewing academic papers, it's essential for reviewers to focus on providing supportive feedback, guidance for improvement, and recognizing the effort that has gone into the work. Supportive feedback involves acknowledging the strengths of the paper while offering constructive criticism in a positive manner, encouraging authors to refine and enhance their work. Providing detailed guidance for improvement is crucial, giving authors clear and actionable suggestions on how to address specific issues or strengthen certain aspects of the manuscript. Lastly, recognizing the effort of the authors is key. Acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and research that has contributed to the development of the paper, which fosters a respectful and appreciative atmosphere in the peer-review process.
JECCM: Why do you choose to review for JECCM?
Dr. Abdulsatar: I choose to review for JECCM as it presents a unique opportunity to contribute to the advancement of the medical field, especially in areas intersecting with pediatrics. This role is instrumental in my professional development, keeping me abreast of the latest research and trends that can enhance my pediatric practice. Additionally, it offers valuable networking opportunities, connecting me with a broader community of medical professionals and experts. Through this, I engage in meaningful collaborations and exchange innovative ideas, enriching my understanding and approach in pediatric care within emergency and critical care contexts.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
