In 2024, TAU 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.
January, 2024
Alessandro Zucchi, University of Pisa, Italy
February, 2024
Daniel Heidenberg, Mayo Clinic, USA
January, 2024
Alessandro Zucchi
Dr. Alessandro Zucchi has been the Associate Professor of Urology since 2020 at Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery at University of Pisa, Italy. He is expert in the field of andrological and reconstructive surgery; furthermore, he is interested in basic research about cell culture to use as substitution tissues in reconstructive surgery. He has also good experience in female pelvic floor reconstruction and male/female incontinence. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Zucchi reckons that reviewers must have good experience regarding the topic covered in the papers submitted to them for review. They must also have some rudiments in statistics field.
It is the only realistic possibility to discuss topics in which a reviewer is considered an expert, giving own scientific contribution to the urology community, which motivates Dr. Zucchi to do peer review. Furthermore, he indicates that TAU is an important scientific journal in the urological field so he chooses to review for TAU.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Zucchi stresses that it is important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI) because this is the only way for an author to report scientific data in a realistic way and not affected by some type of profit.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Daniel Heidenberg
Daniel Heidenberg is an endourology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Arizona, USA. He received his undergraduate and medical degree from Tulane University. He completed his urologic residency at George Washington University. His main research focuses on quality-of-life outcomes related to urolithiasis and BPH, particularly in the setting of endoscopic enucleation. Currently, his main projects and research focus involve prospective research investigating the optimal stent duration after ureteroscopy and reducing incontinence after laser enucleation of the prostate.
Dr. Heidenberg believes that a reviewer should be detail-oriented and up-to-date on the contemporary research. This will enhance a reviewer’s ability to critically evaluate a project’s methodology and purpose. When reviewing a project, it is important to make sure that researchers are using the proper methods and variables to answer the question the manuscript is addressing. A reviewer should be well-versed in many different types of approaches in clinical research both prospective and retrospective.
As for a healthy peer-review system, Dr. Heidenberg thinks that it demands integrity and hard work. It is imperative that reviewers give their best effort to improve manuscripts to reach the highest standard. He points out that the studies quoted to the patients are published after approval from peer review, and we are relying on this system to report accurate data.
To minimize the potential biases during review, Dr. Heidenberg focuses on identifying a clear hypothesis and then correlating that hypothesis with the methods to determine if the proper procedures were followed to evaluate the stated hypothesis. He points out that by focusing on the process, rather than the endpoint, reviewers can limit outside biases.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
