Reviewer of the Month (2022)

Posted On 2022-05-13 14:56:01

In 2022, APM 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, 2022
Prateek Lohia, Wayne State University, USA


January, 2022

Prateek Lohia

Dr. Prateek Lohia, MD, MHA is an Associate Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Wayne State University, USA. His primary role is a clinician-educator, teaching and supervising medical students and internal medicine residents. His major research interests besides medical education, are infectious diseases including COVID-19 and Hepatitis C. Since the dawn of the global pandemic, he has been particularly interested in exploring the predictors of clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Peer review is an integral part of the scientific publication system. To Dr. Lohia, it is considered to be a very necessary evil. Even though as an author, one might see it as a delay in the publication of the findings. It is a vital step that allows the research work to be objectively analyzed and reviewed by other experts in the field. Independent assessment of the research methodology and the scientific validity of the results is pivotal. He views the peer review process as a final chance to improve the manuscript before sharing it with the entire scientific community.

Dr. Lohia believes that reviewers should see peer reviewing as a huge responsibility entrusted to them by the editors and do their best to provide unbiased opinions on the merits and limitations of the study. Reviewers should thoroughly analyze the paper before making any conclusion or judgment of the study and provide accurate and scientific feedback to the authors. Rather than just critiquing the work, the reviewers should emphasize providing constructive feedback on how the manuscript can be improved. In addition, if any part of the research methodology or the manuscript is beyond the scope of the reviewer, the reviewer should share this with the editor, so that a complete assessment can be made at the editorial stage.

The use of reporting guidelines, such as PRISMA and STROBE, is prevalent in scientific writing over the past few years. In Dr. Lohia’s opinion, it is very important for authors to follow these guidelines since these lay the foundation of a good study design. The use of these guidelines also ensures transparency, better understanding, and replication of the study results.

I see peer review as my way of giving back to the scientific community. Over the years, I have learned a lot from the reviews of other experts. Some of them, immensely helped me not only to improve upon my work but also gave me ideas for future projects. So, if my review can help someone improve the quality of their manuscript, I consider it a job well done. Besides, it gives me an opportunity to stay abreast with the new and upcoming research in my field of interest,” says Dr. Lohia.

(By Brad Li, Eunice X. Xu)