The Reviewer of the Month for February 2025: Petar Ozretić, PhD
Reviewers play a key role in assisting authors in refining their work by providing thorough assessments and constructive feedback. Their contributions ensure that published research is accurate, meaningful, and methodologically sound.
Each month, the BiomolBiomed Editorial team acknowledges the exceptional efforts of peer reviewers by selecting one who has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to this vital responsibility. This recognition celebrates those who go the extra mile in delivering detailed, insightful, and supportive critiques, enhancing not only the manuscripts they review but also contributing to the broader advancement of scientific knowledge. Their work embodies the spirit of collaboration and excellence that fuels progress in science.
This month, we are delighted to announce that the Reviewer of the Month Award is presented to Petar Ozretić, PhD. Dr. Petar, a Senior Research Associate at the Laboratory for Hereditary Cancer, Ruđer Bošković Institute (RBI), Zagreb, Croatia, has been recognized for his outstanding review, which provided invaluable insights that greatly enhanced the clarity and rigor of the authors’ research.
We had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Petar about his approach to peer review and his views on the ever-changing landscape of academic publishing. During our conversation, he shared his research passions and offered thoughtful perspectives on recent trends and challenges in his field. Below are some key takeaways from our discussion:
Interview:1. Could you describe your primary research interests and any recent trends or challenges that you find particularly impactful in your field?
At the moment, my primary research interests include three topics: the role of sex hormone receptors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, the role of RNA modifications and their regulators in different types of tumors, and lastly, the role of human microbiome in etiopathology of different diseases. Both epitranscriptomics and metagenomics have recently become hot topics in biomedicine. However, the main challenge still remains – scarcity of research funding.
2. Have you ever encountered a manuscript that challenged your expertise in a certain area? If so, how did you approach the review?
For a proper evaluation of a manuscript, one of the essential requirements for a reviewer is to understand whether the methods described in the manuscript are being used correctly and how to properly interpret their results. However, since research methodologies are constantly and rapidly evolving, it is crucial to keep pace with these advancements. Recently, I had to learn how single-cell RNA sequencing data is analyzed and how to interpret the results of a Mendelian randomization study. Nevertheless, I still primarily choose to review manuscripts that are theoretically and methodologically well within my expertise.
3. What advice would you give to new reviewers who are just starting out in the peer-review process?
One of the main pieces of advice I would give is to insist that methods be described in as much detail as possible, since researchers—both wet and dry—unfortunately do not always prioritize reproducibility. Another important recommendation is to insist on the use of approved and standardized gene and protein symbols, as well as cell line names, since consistent usage of standardized biomedical terms is essential for unambiguous science. And of course, the correct application of statistical methods is absolutely necessary.
We are pleased to acknowledge Dr. Petar Ozretić for his outstanding work, which serves as an inspiration for fellow reviewers in their pursuit of excellence. Furthermore, we encourage everyone to recognize the peer review process as an essential pillar of the scientific publishing system.
