In 2024, LS 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.
February, 2024
Philippe R. Koninckx, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium
February, 2024
Philippe R. Koninckx
Dr. Philippe R. Koninckx was certified in OBGYN and laboratory medicine and introduced as a registrar the assays of LH, FSH, prolactin, estradiol and progesterone at KU Leuven. Following a PhD in steroid chemistry and endometriosis, he became a full Professor. Besides the responsibility for hormone assays, his interests were endocrinology, infertility and surgery, with the first menopause clinic on the continent in 1981 and surgery of deep endometriosis in 1990. He became a Visiting Professor in Oxford in 1996 and an Honorary consultant in the UK, in 2003 and Visiting Professor in Rome (Università Del Sacro Cuore) and honorary Professor in Moscow. He became honorary fellow of the AGES (1992), the Indonesian and Italian Endoscopy Society, and the Japanese Endometriosis Society. He received the Distinguished Surgeon Award of the ASRM in 2004 and a lifetime award at Endodubai in 2024. His interests are menopause, endometriosis, endoscopic surgery and postoperative adhesions. Learn more about him here.
The way Dr. Koninckx sees it, maintaining quality of peer review is increasingly difficult because of the discrepancy between the number of journals and publications and the time available by reviewers with experience. Those preparing manuscripts should understand that the reviewers try to help. Therefore, they begin by making a good impression and showing precision in writing (typing errors), references, and text flow. As a rule of thumb, a text that is not understandable by fast reading is poorly written. A manuscript should have a message which adds something new to the literature; this is found in the last paragraph of the introduction and conclusion of the abstract. If data only confirm what is known already, be brief and indicate why it might be useful. Second, materials and methods should permit the conclusions made and facilitate to repeat the study. When these are okay, results rarely are a problem. Finally, the introduction should introduce the subject, e.g., a factual minireview – not more, not less. Discussion should discuss the strength and weaknesses and what the manuscript adds to our knowledge. His suggestion to facilitate reviewing is a pre-review of not more than 10 minutes, but permitting to indicate major problems such as the aim of the study not being clear, inclusion and exclusion criteria missing, or statistical problems or meaningful digits or too many figures and tables.
“It should be clear that reviewers try to help, not to criticize. Therefore, when preparing a paper, try to facilitate the task of the reviewer, and when receiving a review, read carefully and always learn from the review,” says Dr. Koninckx.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
