In 2022, HT 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.

April, 2022
Kanan T. Desai, National Institutes of Health, USA

April, 2022

Kanan T. Desai

Dr. Kanan Desai is a staff scientist at the US National Cancer Institute at National Institutes of Health (NIH). She received her MD and specialization training in India, followed by an MPH from Israel, and recently completed a year of internal medicine residency training in the USA. She has over ten years of public health work experience for organizations like UNICEF. Her research focuses on clinical and molecular epidemiologic aspects of cervical cancer epidemiology, examining the multi-stage development of cervical cancer and its prevention. Lately, she has been working on developing and validating a PAVE (HPV-Automated Visual Evaluation) strategy combining self-sampled HPV genotyping for primary screening and secondary triage of HPV-positive women with an artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm of cervical images for risk-based management in resource-limited settings. In the past, she has led ‘Project Itoju,’ a screening study of ~10,000 women demonstrating the feasibility and acceptability of the PAVE strategy in Nigeria. Connect with her on LinkedIn and learn more about her here.

HT: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?

Dr. Desai: A healthy peer-review system balances high-quality standards and promotes a supportive and collaborative environment where researchers can contribute their best work. It should be one encompassing the following elements.

• Transparent process and free from the bias of reviewers
• Fair selection of reviewers based on their expertise in the field
• Constructive feedback, which is specific, actionable, and aimed at enhancing the overall quality of the research.
• Timely to prevent unnecessary delays in disseminating essential knowledge
• Inclusive of a diverse pool of reviewers for a comprehensive evaluation
• Confidential to allow reviewers to provide honest feedback
• Accountable to authors for potential conflict of interest from the reviewers
• Encouraging publishing of data, to the extent possible, from the underrepresented population and geography in science.

HT: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?

Dr. Desai: A constructive review offers thoughtful and detailed feedback to improve the quality of the reviewed work. It is clear to communicate objectively the strengths and weaknesses of the study in a professional tone. It should be specific enough to help authors understand what needs improvement and broad enough to suggest potential solutions or avenues for improvement with possible references or examples to illustrate the points. On the contrary, a destructive review is vague, making it challenging for authors to understand what needs improvement.

HT: Data sharing has been prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think authors must share their research data? And why?

Dr. Desai: Sharing research data promotes transparency and reproducibility. It allows other researchers to examine the data, methods, and analysis, ensuring that the findings are credible and can be replicated. Data sharing also accelerates the pace of scientific progress and maximizes the utility of research. When researchers have access to existing data, they can build upon them, explore new hypotheses, and generate additional insights without duplicating efforts. However, it is important to note that data sharing should be done responsibly, considering confidentiality and ethical concerns. Also, administrative requirements on data sharing requirements should not hinder the timely publication of important findings.

HT: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes?

Dr. Desai: To all the dedicated reviewers, your commitment to the peer-review process helps maintain the credibility of academic journals. It ensures that only the highest-quality research reaches the public domain. Thank you for your unwavering commitment to advancing scientific progress.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)