Peer review is an essential part of the scientific publishing process, helping to ensure that research papers meet high standards of quality and accuracy. Each month, the BiomolBiomed Editorial team recognizes a reviewer who has gone above and beyond in providing thoughtful and constructive feedback on the reviewed manuscript.
This month, we’re pleased to announce that the Reviewer of the Month Award goes to James Yahaya, MD, a Pathology Lecturer at the Department of Pathology, School of Health Sciences, Soroti University, Soroti, Uganda. Dr. Yahaya’s review stood out for its exceptional quality, providing authors with valuable feedback that helped them improve the clarity and rigor of their research.
We sat down with Dr. Yahaya to learn more about his approach to peer review and his thoughts on the current state of the publishing industry. Here are a few highlights from our conversation:
Please tell us more about your research interests and share your thoughts on recent advances or current issues that are currently shaping your field.
Since becoming a pathologist, I have become deeply interested in various research areas related to different diseases, particularly the pathogenesis and survival rates of patients with cancer. As a pathologist, I am keen to deepen my understanding of the mechanisms through which malignancies develop and progress. To this end, I have embarked on molecular studies using different platforms.
How has the peer-review process evolved over the years, and where do you see it going in the future? How do you ensure that you remain impartial and objective in your reviews?
The peer-review process has undergone changes and modifications over the years. However, with the advancement of information technology, the integrity of this process is now being compromised due to certain reviewers who fail to remain impartial. Such malpractices have contributed to a rise in counterfeit peer reviews, leading to the production of subpar and unreliable deliverables. This is why numerous measures are being implemented to ensure the impartiality of the peer-review process, aiming to curb malpractices in research.
In today’s rapidly evolving scientific landscape, what are some of the emerging trends or best practices you have observed in the field of scientific publishing?
The best practices I’ve observed in the realm of scientific publishing involve advanced methods for detecting and preventing malpractices such as duplication, double submission, and paper milling. These measures enhance the authenticity of scientific publications.
We’re thrilled to honor Dr. Yahaya as our Reviewer of the Month, and we’re grateful for his contributions to the scientific community. We hope that his example will inspire other reviewers to aspire for excellence in their work, and that it will encourage everyone to value the peer review process as an essential part of the scientific publishing ecosystem.
The translation of the preceding English text in Swahili:
Mapitio ya rika ni sehemu muhimu ya mchakato wa kuchapisha kisayansi, ikisaidia kuhakikisha kuwa karatasi za utafiti zinakidhi viwango vya juu vya ubora na usahihi. Kila mwezi, timu ya Uhariri wa BiomolBiomed inatambua mtathmini ambaye amezidi matarajio katika kutoa maoni yenye kufikirika na yenye kujenga kuhusu hati iliyopitiwa.
Mwezi huu, tunafurahi kutangaza kwamba Tuzo ya Mtathmini wa Mwezi inamwendea James Yahaya, MD, Mhadhiri wa Patholojia katika Idara ya Patholojia, Shule ya Sayansi za Afya, Chuo Kikuu cha Soroti, Soroti, Uganda. Mapitio ya Dkt. Yahaya yalijitokeza kwa ubora wake wa kipekee, ukitoa waandishi maoni yenye thamani yaliyosaidia kuboresha uwazi na umakini wa utafiti wao.
Tulikaa chini na Dkt. Yahaya kujifunza zaidi kuhusu mtazamo wake kwa mapitio ya rika na mawazo yake kuhusu hali ya sasa ya tasnia ya uchapishaji. Hapa ni vipengele vichache kutoka mazungumzo yetu:
Tafadhali tuambie zaidi kuhusu maslahi yako ya utafiti na ushiriki mawazo yako kuhusu maendeleo ya hivi karibuni au masuala ya sasa yanayoathiri eneo lako.
Tangu niwe patholojia, nimekuwa na maslahi makubwa katika maeneo mbalimbali ya utafiti yanayohusiana na magonjwa tofauti, haswa pathojenesi na viwango vya kuishi kwa wagonjwa wenye saratani. Kama patholojia, nina hamu ya kuelewa kwa kina mifumo ambayo malignancies zinaendelea na kusonga mbele. Kwa madhumuni haya, nimeanza masomo ya molekuli kwa kutumia jukwaa tofauti.
Je, mchakato wa mapitio ya rika umebadilikaje kwa miaka, na unauona ukienda wapi siku za usoni? Unahakikishaje kwamba unabaki kuwa na upande wowote na lengo katika mapitio yako?
Mchakato wa mapitio ya rika umepitia mabadiliko na marekebisho kwa miaka. Hata hivyo, na maendeleo ya teknolojia ya habari, uadilifu wa mchakato huu sasa unatishiwa kutokana na wakaguzi fulani ambao wanashindwa kubaki bila upendeleo. Malpractices kama hizo zimechangia kuongezeka kwa mapitio bandia ya rika, ikisababisha uzalishaji wa matokeo yasiyo ya kuaminika na yasiyo sahihi. Ndiyo sababu hatua nyingi zinatekelezwa kuhakikisha kutokuwa na upendeleo wa mchakato wa mapitio ya rika, lengo likiwa ni kuzuia malpractices katika utafiti.
Katika mandhari ya sayansi inayobadilika haraka ya leo, ni mwenendo gani au mazoea bora ambayo umeona katika uwanja wa uchapishaji wa kisayansi?
Mazoea bora ambayo nimeona katika ulimwengu wa uchapishaji wa kisayansi ni njia za kisasa za kutambua na kuzuia malpractices kama vile marudio, utumaji mara mbili, na uzalishaji wa karatasi kwa wingi. Hatua hizi zinaimarisha uhalali wa machapisho ya kisayansi.
Tunafurahi kumtambua Dkt. Yahaya kama Mtathmini wetu wa Mwezi, na tunashukuru kwa mchango wake kwa jamii ya kisayansi. Tunatumai kuwa mfano wake utahamasisha wakaguzi wengine kufikia ubora katika kazi yao, na kwamba itahimiza kila mtu kuthamini mchakato wa mapitio ya rika kama sehemu muhimu ya mfumo wa uchapishaji wa kisayansi.
Editor: Ermina Vukalic
Leave a Reply