The Reviewer of the Month for September 2025: Huiwen Ren, PhD

Peer Review in Scholarly Publishing: Recognizing Excellence in Scientific Research

Peer review remains a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality, trustworthiness, and ethical standards of scientific research. In recognition of the crucial role peer reviewers play, Biomolecules and Biomedicine is proud to honor its Reviewer of the Month for September 2025. This award highlights an exceptional individual whose expertise and dedication exemplify the highest standards of peer review excellence.

Peer reviewers are integral to the publishing process, offering constructive feedback, insightful critiques, and valuable recommendations that help authors refine their manuscripts. By ensuring submissions are well-researched, relevant, and based on sound scientific methodology, reviewers significantly enhance the quality of published research.

Each month, the BiomolBiomed Editorial Team recognizes a peer reviewer for their consistent dedication to the review process. This award is given to individuals who consistently deliver thorough, detailed, and helpful evaluations—contributing to the improvement of research manuscripts and fostering the advancement of scientific discovery. Their work embodies the collaborative spirit and pursuit of excellence that drives progress in the academic and scientific communities.

The Reviewer of the Month for September 2025:

The Biomolecules and Biomedicine is proud to recognize Huiwen Ren, Associate Professor at the Advanced Institute of Medical Sciences, Dalian Medical University, as its Reviewer of the Month for September 2025. Dr. Ren’s extensive research in metabolic diseases, particularly in endocrinology and epidemiology, has made significant contributions to scientific knowledge.

Dr. Ren earned her Ph.D. in Internal Medicine (Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases) from China Medical University in 2019. She has published 25 SCI papers with a total impact factor of 119 and an h-index of 13. As the first or corresponding author on 16 of these papers, she has earned recognition with one paper being named an ESI Highly Cited Paper for five consecutive years.

She has also filed seven invention patents, two of which have been granted. Dr. Ren has led major research projects, including a Provincial Natural Science Foundation project, and contributed to national initiatives in metabolic diseases and nephrology.

We had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Huiwen Ren about her approach to peer review and her perspectives on the evolving landscape of academic publishing. In our conversation, she discussed her research interests and shared valuable insights into current trends and challenges within her field. Below are some highlights from our discussion:

Interview:

Could you elaborate on your main research interests and any new directions or innovations that are particularly relevant in your field right now?

My primary research interests include:

① The pathogenesis and clinical studies of diabetic kidney disease (DKD), focusing on core renal fibrosis pathways, non-coding RNA networks, and clinical cohort biomarkers.

② Fructose metabolism: investigating the impact of endogenous fructose on metabolic diseases, KHK enzymology and genetic interventions, and multi-organ crosstalk between liver and kidney.

③ The Sirtuin family, with emphasis on SIRT1/SIRT6-mediated deacetylation in glucolipid metabolism.

Latest directions: organellar abnormalities such as endoplasmic reticulum stress, mitochondrial metabolism, and ferroptosis; novel epigenetic modifications like Neddylation; and artificial intelligence-integrated multi-omics models combining miRNA, metabolites, and clinical phenotypes.

What strategies do you use to ensure that your feedback is both fair and useful to the authors?

① Maintain blinding and transparency: evaluate the science without looking at authors or institutions first; check contributorship, conflicts, and ethics only after forming initial comments to avoid regional or disciplinary bias.

② Structure the review process: assess innovation, significance, methodological rigor, data reliability/reproducibility, and presentation quality dimension-by-dimension, giving concrete suggestions.

③ Provide an actionable checklist: offer feasible, detailed revision plans for each major point, with references when necessary, to minimize ineffective back-and-forth.

④ Timeliness: browse emails weekly, perform an initial screen within 48 h, and submit the completed review the same day to prevent manuscript backlogs.

⑤ Continuous learning: attend at least one online journal training session each month to keep up with guidelines and standards and ensure comments align with international norms.

① Open peer review: when both parties agree, publish signed review reports to enhance quality, accountability, and reduce bias.

② Public review platforms: allow certified experts worldwide to post short “micro-reports” on large datasets or preprints, enabling journals to issue official corrections or addenda.

③ Reviewer credit system: award points for timely, high-quality reviews that can be redeemed for APC discounts or conference travel grants, creating a virtuous cycle that rewards thorough refereeing.

④ Special tracks: offer “registered report” pathways for important negative results or methodological advances, reviewing study protocols before data collection to reduce publication bias.

⑤ Multilingual support: promote English–native-language bilingual review templates in non-English-speaking regions to overcome language barriers and cultural differences that may lead to information loss.