Over the years, many CCO reviewers have made 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.
Hans-Georg Wirsching, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Hans-Georg Wirsching, MD, currently serves as a Researcher and Attending Physician at the Department of Neurology, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Switzerland. He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA during 2016-2018. His research is focused on clinical and preclinical neuro-oncology. Some current projects he is working on include socioeconomic burden and quality of life in meningioma patients, cooperation of oncolytic virotherapy with VEGF-neutralizing antibody treatment in IDH wildtype glioblastoma, correlations between arming oHSV with ULBP3 and abscopal immunity in lymphocyte-depleted glioblastoma. For more research works of Dr. Wirsching, please visit here.
As a reviewer, Dr. Wirsching thinks that many aspects of the common peer review systems are very robust, “At least two reviewers and considerations of the editors create diversity of opinions. Invitation of additional reviewers in cases where reviewer judgments diverge strongly should be practiced. There should be separate review by a biostatistician. For studies that involve several disciplines, these should be covered by the reviewer panel.”
On double-blind review practiced by some journals, Dr. Wirsching says, “Double-blind review is a useful measure especially in smaller research fields where researchers are more likely to know each other in person. Unblinding of reviewers after acceptance is practiced by some journals and may contribute to a constructive, rather collaborative role of peer reviewers. This practice could be combined with a double-blind review process in order to retain objectivity.”
Dr. Wirsching often asks himself one question during the review process: “Would I want to receive these comments?”. Even if a study is not suited for publication in the respective journal, he thinks reviewers should provide the authors with ideas and advice how to improve their paper and statements need to be polite and constructive throughout. For papers that may be suited for publication, reviewers should keep in mind whether or not the requested changes are feasible within a reasonable time. The question what changes are absolutely necessary to implement should also relate to the scope of the specific journal: does the journal exclusively publishing landmark papers that need to be as profound as possible, or does the journal publish smaller scope studies and results?
Lastly, on the significance of conflict of interest declaration, Dr. Wirsching says, “There is no doubt that potential conflicts of interest need to be declared and the form recommended by ICMJE is a pragmatic approach to assess conflicts of interest systematically. Whether or not there may be factual conflicts needs to be considered during the review process individually for each study. For example, the threshold to request the entire dataset for revision will be lower if the founders or employees of a company report compelling results related to their own product as compared to an academic researcher who declares no conflicts of interest.”