Reviewer of the Month (2024)

Posted On 2024-03-01 15:05:35

In 2024, FOMM 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, 2024
Bruno Chrcanovic, Malmö University, Sweden

January, 2024

Bruno Chrcanovic

Bruno Chrcanovic is Associate Professor at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden. He graduated in Dentistry (DDS) at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Brazil, in 1999, got a Master of Science degree in Materials at the CDTN/CNEN, Brazil, in 2012, and a PhD degree, with focus on dental implants, at Malmö University, Sweden, in 2017. He has published over 200 articles in peer-reviewed journals, and his research is currently centered around dental implants, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and oral pathology. Learn more about him here.

The central goal of the conventional peer-review system, according to Dr. Chrcanovic, is to ensure scientific rigor and robustness of the information presented in manuscripts to improve or maintain scientific integrity and progress. To him, reviewers play an important role in this process. First of all, reviewers should be humble enough to recognize that they are up to the task, and do not accept to review a manuscript only to add some other qualification to their CVs, nor if they have certain conflict of interest. Then, the reviewers need to verify if the manuscript that they were appointed to review fits their field of knowledge. They need to elicit positive behavior and constructive feedback without being unclear towards the authors, and need to execute the task of reviewing the manuscript in the timeframe established by the journal. Last but not least, the reviewers must behave ethically. Based on the experience of nearly 700 manuscript submissions to peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Chrcanovic has noticed that it has become a common practice for many reviewers to request authors to include their own references in the manuscript being reviewed, even that these references do not really have a direct relationship with the subject of the study, or even when they have, these references do not add anything that would be considered necessary or important to the study being reviewed. These suggestions/requests are done very probably to boost citations of these reviewers and consequently increase their h-index.

Dr. Chrcanovic regards a healthy peer-review system to be one in which the editorial team are vigilant to the reviewers’ behavior, mostly when it comes to ethics. Editors should support initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct, and to educate researchers about publication ethics. Moreover, the editorial board should comprise researchers from different institutions and disciplines to minimize biases and increase the likelihood of impartial evaluation. Anyone involved in the peer-review process must treat the manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. To him, there are many other points to consider, and it is always valid to check the guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Lastly, aiming to minimize the potential biases during review, Dr. Chrcanovic points out that journals need to adopt, by default, a double-blind review process, in which not only the authors are unaware of the reviewers’ identity (something that is usually adopted), but also the reviewers are unaware of who the authors of the manuscript are.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)