The Reviewer of the Month for June 2024: Gehan Mohamed Hammad, PhD

Peer review is crucial in maintaining the quality and accuracy of scientific research. Each month, the BiomolBiomed Editorial team honors a reviewer for their exceptional feedback on manuscripts.

This month, we recognize Gehan Mohamed Hammad, PhD, from the Faculty of Biotechnology at October University for Modern Sciences and Arts in Giza, Egypt. Dr. Hammad’s reviews are notably thorough, offering authors valuable insights that enhance their work’s clarity and rigor.

We spoke with Dr. Hammad to discuss her peer-review philosophy and her perspective on the publishing industry. She shared her research interests and commented on recent developments and challenges in her field. Here are some highlights from our conversation:

Dr. Hammad, could you elaborate on your research interests and discuss any significant recent advances or ongoing challenges in your area?

My background is in Biotechnology, Molecular Biology, and Molecular Diagnosis. I have a deep interest in research related to these areas, with a primary focus on cancer research, particularly in HCC. I maintain an open mind and regularly delve into diverse research concepts, especially those with an interdisciplinary nature. Currently, I am exploring Food Technology and Food Sciences, as well as the roles of AI in Biotechnology.

Additionally, I frequently review network biology for biomarker detection and the identification of novel interactions. I believe we are at a point where we should promote interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research and encourage scientists to venture into various fields.

How do you balance your time between reviewing manuscripts and your own research projects? In your opinion, what are the most important qualities that a good reviewer should possess?

To be honest, I always have tasks to attend to. So, when I receive a review request, I prioritize it because I believe in providing the same courtesy that I would appreciate as a researcher. A comprehensive, timely, and constructive review is essential, one that helps authors improve their work rather than making them feel their efforts were in vain. In my opinion, the most valuable qualities for a reviewer include courtesy and respect towards the authors, delivering feedback promptly, and offering constructive criticisms. If a reviewer can’t meet these criteria, they should have the awareness to decline review requests.

What are some common mistakes that authors make in their submissions, and how can they be avoided?

One common assumption is that authors are writing solely for reviewers and not for a broader audience. I believe that providing robust supporting literature and in-depth analysis of the work allows readers to gain valuable insights into the project. While constraints may require some information to be omitted for publishing purposes, it’s important not to compromise the comprehensiveness of the work for the benefit of reviewers alone. Authors should aim to write for a diverse readership, including students, fresh graduates, and professionals embarking on interdisciplinary projects, ensuring their work is accessible and insightful.

Additionally, authors should take the time to detail their results and figures in a way that tells a compelling story to both readers and reviewers. This includes following an appropriate chronological sequence.

I hope for a future in publishing where the process is simpler and more dynamic, and where all reviewers approach their tasks with impartiality and a positive mindset.