In 2024, VATS 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
Dorian Rojas, University of Rennes Hospital Center, France
February, 2024
Dorian Rojas
Dr. Dorian Rojas is a thoracic and vascular surgeon at the University of Rennes Hospital Center, France. He earned his degree from Rennes University, following his residency in thoracic cardiovascular surgery under the guidance of his mentor Prof. Richard De Latour. Additionally, he serves as a PhD student, focusing on the influence of artificial intelligence in surgery, specifically in the modeling of anatomic lung structures and their impact on surgical procedures and preoperative planning. His affiliations include membership in the French Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (SFCTCV) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgery (ESTS). Furthermore, his research interests extend to sublobar resection, subxiphoid anatomic lung resection, robot-assisted surgery, and enhancing the ERAS pathway.
In Dr. Rojas’s opinion, the current peer-review system has certain limitations: 1) The subjectivity and bias inherent in peer review can lead to decisions that are not objective, as the process is influenced by the reviewers’ personal biases. 2) The quality and expertise of reviewers and editors can vary greatly between journals, with no universal standards for measuring their competence. 3) The lack of transparency and accountability in the peer-review process can affect the fairness and reliability of the system, as reviewers are often anonymous and not held accountable for their evaluations. He points out that several measures may be implemented to enhance the peer-review system. On one hand, standardization of procedures could be carried out, such as establishing a consensus on a core set of standards for what constitutes peer review, which could mitigate the variability in quality. On the other hand, he thinks that provision of training and rewards might also help improve the current system. For example, offering formal training to reviewers and incentives for delivering high-quality reviews could bolster the overall process.
Dr. Rojas indicates that when appraising papers, reviewers should consider several essential factors to guarantee a comprehensive and impartial examination: 1) relevance and significance: determine whether the research query is pertinent and significant to the discipline; 2) originality: assess the uniqueness of the topic and the novelty it brings to the subject area; 3) clarity and writing quality: evaluate the paper's readability, coherence, and grammatical accuracy; and 4) reliability of data and arguments: verify whether the conclusions align with the data and arguments presented consistently.
“All reviews were interesting, and reviewing manuscripts is an effective method for staying current with the latest scientific developments and advancements. Furthermore, the process of reviewing manuscripts can enhance my ability to think critically and improve my writing skills, both of which are invaluable assets for my own research and publications,” says Dr. Rojas.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
