We had the pleasure of speaking with Prof. Seamus O’Reilly, the winner of the Current Oncology Outstanding Reviewer award in 2025. In this interview, he shares his experiences with peer review, his research interests, and his academic journey.

The following is our interview with Prof. Seamus O’Reilly:

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?
I am a medical oncologist at Cork University Hospital/University College Cork Cancer Centre with a subspecialist interest in breast cancer. I am Clinical Lead at Cancer Trials Ireland which is Ireland’s national cancer clinical trials organisation. Until recently I was a member of the Executive Board of the Breast International Group which orchestrates clinical trials among 50 groups on 5 continents. My research interests include clinical trials, oncology practice including dental oncology and the palliative care oncology interface, and sustainability integration into cancer care. I have been an active participant in the peer-review community for many years, and I consider it one of the most important contributions an academic clinician can make to their field.

2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for Current Oncology, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process?
Peer review in academic publishing is an important gatekeeper for scientific integrity. This integrity is a pivotal pillar of trust, particularly patient trust, upon which all clinical research is based. Being a peer reviewer contributes to this ecosystem and supports the critical infrastructure of trust without which we cannot innovate and improve patient outcomes. Current Oncology peer review exposes me to a range of oncology related developments from clinical trials to psychooncology—such interdisciplinary exposure broadens my perspectives, assists with ongoing research projects and identifies new ones. It exposes me to a range of scientific rigor and innovation in study design and research methodology.

3. When reviewing manuscripts, what aspects do you typically focus on (e.g., originality, methodological rigour, logical structure, ethical compliance, etc.)?
I pay close attention to methodological rigour first—if the study design or statistical analysis is flawed, the conclusions cannot be trusted regardless of how well the paper is written. Beyond that, I look at originality: does this work add meaningfully to what is already known? I also consider logical structure and clarity of argument, the appropriateness of the conclusions relative to the data presented, and ethical compliance, particularly around patient consent and data reporting standards. I try always to read a manuscript with the question in mind: would I trust this evidence when making a clinical decision?

4. For young scholars who are just beginning to participate in peer review, what specific advice would you offer?
Start by reading the journal’s reviewer guidelines carefully—each publication has its own standards and scope. When you read the manuscript, try to separate your personal opinions about the topic from an objective assessment of the work itself. Criticism is easier than craftsmanship and the work that you’re reading often reflects years or more of involvement and investment by the research team so be constructive in your comments rather than critical. Your goal is to help the authors produce the best possible version of their paper. It is also worth reviewing the peer review comments of other reviewers when you receive them at the end of the review process. Finally, never agree to review a paper if you have a conflict of interest, even a minor one—the integrity of the process depends on it.

5. Based on your experience reviewing manuscripts, what suggestions do you have for authors to make their manuscripts more readable and engaging?
There is no substitute for clarity. Authors should state their research question explicitly in the introduction and ensure that every section of the paper flows logically from it. Abstracts are often the first — and sometimes only—part that readers engage with, so they deserve particular care. Most papers are not completely deep read by readers, so the abstract is the most significant part of the paper. Graphics matter—a graphic abstract will facilitate amplification of the paper by the authors and readers, and also by funders. It also helps with social media dissemination of your work.
Equally tables and figures should be self-explanatory, with clear legends. Avoid unnecessary jargon and resist the temptation to over-interpret results: let the data speak, and be candid about limitations. A well-written discussion that honestly situates findings within the existing literature is far more persuasive than one that overclaims. Spend time curating a broad reference list which readers can use to read beyond the paper; such references can also assist with introduction and discussion sections in the paper. Always horizon scan the literature before you submit to ensure your list is up to date.

6. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
AI tools will undoubtedly take on more of the administrative and screening functions in the review process—checking for statistical errors, plagiarism, and formatting compliance. This is broadly welcome, as it frees reviewers to focus on the higher-order judgements that require genuine clinical and scientific expertise. English is the language of science but 95% of the world’s population are not-native English speakers—I always admire the standard of English in the papers I read from this global majority. I have noted that over time grammar and text nuances have improved in standard and suspect this relates to AI tools which can assist greatly in this area.
I do not think AI will replace the nuanced, experience-informed assessment that a skilled human reviewer brings. If anything, the value of expert peer review may increase as the volume of submissions grows and automated pre-screening becomes standard. While studies have shown that authors who use AI are more productive, they are also less likely to be involved in the interdisciplinary research that leads to innovation. What will be important is that journals and authors are transparent about how these tools are used.

7. How has your experience been with Current Oncology as a reviewer? What kind of support would you like to see from the journal?
My experience with Current Oncology has been very positive. The editorial team is responsive and professional, and the submission and review platform is straightforward to use. In terms of support, the use of publication templates which means that the manuscript you peer review reflects what will ultimately be in print is helpful for both authors and reviewers and speeds up the acceptance to publication time frame.
I think all journals could benefit from providing structured feedback templates that help reviewers cover the key domains consistently, as well as more systematic acknowledgement of reviewer contributions—not necessarily through payment, but through recognition that is meaningful to academic careers such as ORCID acknowledgments which are visible to grant agencies and to institutions. Peer review is an important part of the hidden curriculum in clinical research—establishment of early career traineeships should be an integral part of all scientific journals.

8. Current Oncology is an open access journal; what is your opinion of the open access model of publication?
Open access magnifies and democratises the impact of a publication. I find paywalls are hugely frustrating—they limit the impact of published work at multiple levels such as in the clinic, in research project development, and in educational activities. However, publication charges required for open access are a significant expense in low- and middle-income countries and for emerging investigators in high income ones. Some journals have gradated charges depending on the corresponding author’s base and I feel that model should be the rule rather than the exception. I also strongly feel that peer reviewers’ work should be acknowledged by journals in the form of publication charge contributions. The current peer review model was developed in an era when there were much fewer submissions and journals and probably a greater ethos of volunteerism. Reviewer acknowledgement reflects these changes and would facilitate more timely peer review which would benefit everyone.