Cynthia Dela Cruz, Pharm, Ph.D.

Volunteer Roles:

Editor Reviewer: Frontiers in Endocrinology

Scientific Reviewer: Physiology and Behavior, PLOS ONE,  Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders, Biopreservation and Biobanking, Animals Models and Experimental Medicine, American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, Gynecological Endocrinology, BMJ Case Reports, Journal Applied Physiology, Pharmaceutical Biology, Cell Biology International, Reproductive Medicine and Biology, World Academy of Science Journal, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Reproduction, Case Reports in Endocrinology, Oncologie, Climacteric, Archives of Physiology and Biochemistry, Human Fertility, Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, F&S Science, Clinical and Translational Medicine, Biomolecules, Journal of Obstetrics and Gyneacology, Women's Health, Journal of Biomedical Research, Brazillian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

As a scientific reviewer for medical journals, I play a vital role in maintaining published research's quality, integrity, and credibility. My primary responsibility is to assess the validity, significance, and clarity of manuscripts submitted for publication. Below is an outline of the key roles and responsibilities of a scientific reviewer:

Primary Responsibilities:

1. Evaluate Research Quality: Assess the rigor of the research by reviewing the study design, methodology, and statistical analyses to ensure they are appropriate and robust.

2. Verify Data Interpretation: Confirm that the results accurately support the conclusions drawn in the manuscript.

3. Identify Flaws and Biases: Detect potential flaws, biases, or conflicts of interest within the study that could undermine its validity.

4. Evaluate Relevance and Impact: Determine whether the study addresses critical clinical questions and contributes meaningfully to advancements in medical knowledge.

5. Assess Journal Alignment: Ensure that the research aligns with the journal's scope and interests of its readership.

6. Consider Broader Implications: Evaluate the broader implications of the findings for medical practice, policy, or future research.

7. Ensure Ethical Compliance: Confirm that the study adheres to ethical guidelines, including patient consent, ethical treatment of human or animal subjects, and transparency in reporting conflicts of interest.

8. Check for Plagiarism or Redundant Publication: Ensure the manuscript contains no plagiarism or redundant publication issues.

Providing Constructive Feedback:  One of the most crucial aspects of being a scientific reviewer is offering detailed, actionable feedback. This feedback should enhance the manuscript's clarity, quality, and presentation. Suggestions for revisions, additional experiments, or changes in analysis can be vital for improving the study. Identifying areas needing clarification is also a key part of this process.

Making Publication Recommendations: The final step in reviewing a manuscript is providing a publication recommendation. This involves advising whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. These recommendations are then communicated to the journal's editorial team.

What Makes a Good Scientific Reviewer?

1. Expertise in the Field: A strong scientific reviewer possesses extensive knowledge of the relevant medical field, often with a research or clinical practice background.

2. Objectivity and Impartiality: A good reviewer remains neutral, focusing on the science rather than personal biases. They should avoid conflicts of interest, such as reviewing work from competitors or colleagues.

3. Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills: Strong analytical skills are essential for critically evaluating a manuscript's data, study design, and conclusions. A reviewer must be able to identify both strengths and weaknesses in the research.

4. Effective Communication: A good reviewer must communicate their thoughts clearly and diplomatically, especially when suggesting revisions or pointing out issues. Feedback should always be constructive, actionable, and professional.

5. Attention to Detail: A thorough review requires meticulous attention to every aspect of the manuscript—from experimental design and statistical methods to clarity of writing and proper citation of references.

Types of Review:

1. Peer Review: The most common type, where experts in the field review the paper before publication.

2. Blind Peer Review: In single-blind reviews, the authors do not know the reviewers' identities. In double-blind reviews, neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities.

3. Open Peer Review: Authors and reviewers know each other's identities in this format.

Time Commitment:  Being a scientific reviewer demands a significant time commitment. Depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviews can take several hours or even days. The editorial team usually gives reviewers deadlines, so it's crucial to provide timely feedback to ensure the journal's editorial process stays on track.