2023 Inductees to the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame

In 2017, we began recognizing reviewers who have distinguished themselves by consistently providing insightful, detailed, and valuable input to our authors and our editorial team. We continue the tradition this year by inducting six remarkable reviewers into the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame. The editors thank and congratulate these reviewers, all of whom shared why they participate in the peer review process below:

 

Daniel Edmondston, MD @DanEdmonston
Duke University
Duke Clinical Research Institute

“Peer review is the bedrock of scientific integrity, ensuring that the research disseminated to our community is rigorous, valid, and impactful. I participate in this pivotal process to uphold these standards and give back to a system that has shaped my scientific journey.”

 

Caroline Hsu, MD @CarolineMHsu
Tufts Medical Center

“Through research, we seek to expand our collective knowledge and provide ever-better care to our patients. Peer review is critical to this journey, for scientific integrity and as a dialogue between the author and reviewer to strengthen the work. I learn so much from the manuscripts that I review, and it is a joy to contribute to and participate in the process!”

 

Istvan Mucsi, MD @mucsist
University of Toronto

“Although there has been and is a lot of debate about the role of peer review in academic research, I see peer review as a very important tool in the academic research armamentarium. It is, of course, important for quality check, transparency, etc. For me, it is an essential education/learning tool. I have probably learned more about research methodology, approaches, effective communication from peer review and editorial board activities, than during my training. I also learned a lot from reading and addressing reviews of my own research. Finally, peer reviews offer important learning opportunities for my trainees and research students – more efficient, than what I could provide them with.”

 

Deirdre Sawinski, MD @DeirdreSawinski
Weill Cornell Medical College

“Peer review is an essential part of creating science you can trust. Peer review makes my own work better and serving as a reviewer not only helps me give back to the larger nephrology community but provides a preview of research on the cutting edge.”

 

Eric Weinhandl, PhD @eric_weinhandl
DaVita Clinical Research
University of Minnesota

“Analyses of large databases are a key part of the evidence base in nephrology, but these studies are subject to especially complex threats, including confounding and exposure misclassification. I devote my time to peer review to help ensure that these studies are as clinically meaningful as they can be. I also devote my time because many others have devoted their time to improving my studies!”

 

Kendra Wulczyn, MD @kwulczyn
Massachusetts General Hospital

“I believe peer review to be an essential component of the scientific process. Peer reviewers help to clarify and contextualize the significance of a manuscript within the broader scientific landscape and should strive to provide authors with feasible suggestions to improve the quality and impact of their work. On a personal level, participating in peer review is a helpful exercise in critically appraising research design and methodology, and I enjoy the opportunity to read about ongoing work.”

 

Congratulations again to these reviewers! The full list of reviewers in the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame is available here.

 

Leave a Reply

%d