In 2024, AOJ 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.
August, 2024
Robert LaPrade, Twin Cities Orthopedics, USA
September, 2024
Mohit J. Jain, SBKS Institute of Medical Science, India
August, 2024
Robert LaPrade
Robert F. LaPrade, MD, PhD, is a complex orthopaedic knee and sports medicine surgeon who practices at Twin Cities Orthopedics in Edina and Eagan, Minnesota. He is known as a specialized clinician scientist who has utilized his comprehensive research on sports medicine injuries to improve patient care and invent novel ways to treat knee problems. He has special expertise in treating posterolateral knee injuries, PCL tears, revision ACL reconstructions, meniscal repairs and transplants, MCL injuries, multiple ligament knee injuries, knee osteotomies, fresh osteoarticular allografts, and other difficult complex and revision injuries. Dr. LaPrade has published more than 700 peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts, 125 book chapters, has over 47,500 citations and has given over 1000 professional presentations, symposia, and instructional course lectures. He and his team have won many awards, including the Trillat Young Investigator Award from ISAKOS (twice), Excellence in Research Award from the AOSSM (3 times), Achilles Award from ISAKOS (twice), Cabaud Award from the AOSSM (twice), and an OREF Kappa Delta Award, which was considered as a "Nobel Prize of Orthopedics". In addition, Dr. LaPrade is recognized internationally as an outstanding mentor and teacher, having been awarded several teaching awards, including six annual teaching awards given by fellows and residents, and has mentored international fellows from all continents. Learn more about him here.
Dr. LaPrade indicates that peer review is essential to ensure that the literature is optimized, and that published literature is both unbiased as possible and scientifically sound.
In Dr. LaPrade’s opinion, the optimal means to ensure that one’s potential biases are not present in reviewing a work is to ensure that the work being reviewed remains blinded and also that one’s review is blinded. That ensures an honest and thoughtful assessment of a submitted work without feeling that one is in competition with the work from another specific group or that one is afraid to be thoughtful and honest about the evaluation of another’s work because they would know who reviewed their work.
“It is a privilege to be able to work as a clinician scientist. As part of this privilege, one needs to ensure that they are giving back to our profession and providing timely peer review of another’s work is an essential part of this,” says Dr. LaPrade.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Mohit J. Jain
Dr. Mohit J. Jain is an Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at SBKS Institute of Medical Science, India. Driven by a lifelong curiosity and a passion for learning, he has been focused on orthopedic surgery since the onset of his medical education. Over the past two decades, he has undergone rigorous clinical training and extensive professional experience in both India and the United States. Dr. Jain is deeply committed to advancing the field of Orthopedics through research. To share and expand his knowledge, he has authored more than 25 peer-reviewed articles, four abstracts, one book, and one book chapter. His academic contributions have earned him prestigious awards, including recognition at the 39th OWC SICOT in Montreal, Canada, and the AAP National Conference in Orlando, USA. His research in injury control and safety promotion also led to an interview with The Washington Post. His clinical interests are diverse, with a focus on orthopedic trauma, sports medicine, joint preservation, and pediatric orthopedics. Currently, he is conducting research on topics such as the shoulder rotator cuff interval, arthroscopic hip preservation, and tibiofibular joint arthritis. Connect with him on X @MohitJain_Ortho.
In Dr. Jain’s opinion, the current peer-review system in medical journals faces several limitations, including reviewer bias, variability in review quality, and challenges related to reproducibility. Reviewer bias, whether due to personal beliefs or institutional affiliations, can lead to inconsistent evaluations of similar studies. Additionally, the expertise of reviewers may vary widely, impacting the thoroughness and rigor of reviews. Moreover, the pressure to publish can also result in a focus on novel findings rather than the reproducibility and validity of results. Furthermore, the traditional closed review process lacks transparency, making it difficult to assess the quality of reviews or resolve disputes. Addressing these issues through initiatives like open peer review may generate sense of liability in reviewer. Standardized reviewer training and exam/certification-based reviewer categorization can improve the reviewer workforce. Besides, promoting collaboration among reviewers could also enhance the integrity and effectiveness of the system.
Dr. Jain thinks that allocating time for peer review can be challenging for scientists and doctors due to their demanding schedules. Effective time management strategies are essential. “I feel a strong obligation to engage in peer review, driven by my publication record of over 25 peer-reviewed article publication. Based on my experience, the average article publication requires about three peer reviews. Additionally, my acceptance rate is one out of every three submissions, meaning I rely on the insights of nine reviewers to achieve a single publication. Given this dynamic, I aim to conduct ten peer reviews for each article I publish. This approach reflects my commitment to fostering a sense of moral responsibility among authors who may be eager to publish but hesitant to participate in the peer-review process,” adds he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
