The Reviewer of the Month for July 2024: Mirza Pojskic, MD, PhD

Peer review plays a vital role in the scientific publishing process, ensuring that research papers adhere to high standards of quality and accuracy. Every month, the BiomolBiomed Editorial team acknowledges a reviewer who has provided exceptional and constructive feedback on the manuscripts they have reviewed.

This month, we’re pleased to announce that the Reviewer of the Month Award goes to Mirza Pojskic, MD, PhD, a neurosurgeon at the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Marburg, and Assistant Professor at Philipps University, Marburg, Germany. Dr. Mirza Pojskic’s review stood out for its exceptional quality, providing authors with valuable feedback that helped them improve the clarity and rigor of their research.

We had a conversation with Dr. Mirza Pojskic to gain insights into his approach to peer review and his perspective on the current state of the publishing industry. Here are some key points from our discussion:

Could you elaborate on your research interests and discuss any recent developments or ongoing challenges that are influencing your field?

My research interests are in the area of clinical trials in cranial and spinal neurosurgery with a particular focus on skull base surgery, neuro-oncology, complex spinal surgery, global neurosurgery and neurosurgical education. A particular focus of my research is the application of modern technologies in neurosurgery. I work daily with microscope-based augmented reality and robotics for spine surgery, which are among the most advanced technologies. The biggest challenge is to make these technologies accessible to the whole world at affordable prices and to implement them correctly without compromising the high level of neurosurgical training and knowledge of anatomy, physiology and surgical techniques.

What initially attracted you to the role of manuscript reviewer? How do you manage your time between manuscript reviews and your own research activities?

I believe that a fair peer review process is the most important foundation of science. My experience as a young researcher from Bosnia and Herzegovina was that my work was not objectively validated in my opinion because it was submitted from a low and middle-income country. I have witnessed a certain paradigm shift in this field over the last ten years, which is a positive development. Working at the Department of Neurosurgery at the Philipps University of Marburg, I became involved in several research groups and at the same time started doing daily peer reviews for several journals. I normally carry out peer reviews in my spare time. The opportunity to be constantly up to date with what our colleagues are publishing is very good for my own development. Each peer review leads to an improvement of the submitted manuscript and is therefore useful for both the quality of the manuscript and its validity, as for some very narrow areas of clinical and basic research there are only so many experts who can give a valid opinion.

How do you think the peer-review process can be improved in order to better serve the needs of the scientific community?

I believe that the double-blind review is a step in the right direction. In addition, a minimum number of three reviewers is also a good way forward. This is not easy as there are many journals, a large number of submitted articles and, in comparison, a not so large number of qualified reviewers. The reviews should be published on request, which increases the credibility of the published work.

We are delighted to recognize Dr. Mirza Pojskic as our Reviewer of the Month and deeply appreciate his contributions to the scientific community. We hope his exemplary work will inspire other reviewers to pursue excellence. Additionally, we encourage everyone to recognize the peer review process as a vital component of the scientific publishing ecosystem.