We are pleased to share the following interview with Dr. Peter C. Hart, an Editorial Board Member of Current Issues in Molecular Biology (CIMB, ISSN 1467-3045).

Dr. Peter C. Hart received his PhD in pathology from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 2016 and completed his postdoctoral training at the University of Chicago in 2019. In 2019, he then joined the faculty of Roosevelt University College of Science, Health, and Pharmacy and was promoted to Associate Professor of Pharmacology in 2025. He serves as the founding Director of the Master of Science in Pharmaceutical Sciences program at Roosevelt University. Throughout his career, Dr. Hart’s work has spanned from behavioral neuroscience to cell metabolism and oxidative stress, and most recently to topics in cancer, including mechanisms of chemoresistance and cell–cell signaling within the tumor microenvironment. At the time of writing, he holds an h-index of 36, owing to his contributions to over 50 peer-reviewed publications and book chapters, and has authorship in multiple Q1 journals including Nature, PNAS, Cell Reports, and MDPI Cancers.

The following is an interview with Dr. Peter C. Hart:

1. What is the most satisfying discovery or achievement you have obtained in your laboratory?
The lab has made notable contributions to the current understanding of the nuanced complexities of the differential activity of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) dependent on its specific conformations (i.e., monomeric and pentameric forms). Our most recent work has utilized several computational techniques to propose novel signaling and regulatory capacities of CRP that have not been previously identified and merit systematic experimental investigation. We also have numerous ongoing projects evaluating various novel mechanisms of tumor progression and chemoresistance in cancers (breast, ovarian) that we hope will provide a positive impact on the field once published in the coming months/years.

2. Looking back on your academic road, which failure or unsatisfying research experience has brought you the deepest‑rooted inspiration? When you encountered repeated failed experiments and long-term bottlenecks in the early stages of your research, did you ever consider giving up scientific research? And what kept you going?
Like most researchers, I have experienced many roadblocks along the way. It is hard to pinpoint an exact moment, as there are too many to choose from, but overall, appreciating that any mistake or misjudgment can be learned from is necessary to progress as an academic and has been a source of motivation to persist in spite of setbacks. I have certainly considered leaving scientific research at times, but the reward of the successes and the “aha!” moments vastly outweighs the melancholy of the failures. Training students new to experimental research has also consistently reinvigorated my passion, as their intrigue and creativity are a constant reminder of the excitement that scientific inquiry provides.

3. Quite a number of young researchers are constrained by publication pressure. They only generate data suitable for publication instead of engaging in research of genuine academic merit. How do you view this phenomenon? Which soft skill do you consider most indispensable for a young scientist to enjoy a long‑lasting academic career?
The adage “publish or perish” is all too real in an academician’s life, and the problem shows no signs of abating. As a PUI faculty member, I am flexible enough to be in a position where I can encourage my students to engage in their research and scientific inquiry without the intensive pressure on them that it must result in a manuscript. Of course, publication will always be the goal, but my focus is largely on expanding their cognitive skills as junior scientists. Along with developing their critical thinking on how to dissect a problem and approach solving it, the soft skill I consider tantamount to success is effective scientific communication, both in oral and written forms, which has greatly facilitated my students’ successful growth as competent researchers and healthcare providers.

4. What advantages do you think CIMB possesses compared with other journals covering molecular biology?
I think CIMB’s policies on open access publication and transparency in the peer review process are its greatest strengths. I also often find that the peer reviewers I have worked with can be quite tough but also fair, and with the editorial board’s efforts ensure sufficient scientific rigor, while not completely prohibiting publication of meritorious work and thus delaying advancement in those fields.

5. What common flaws do you most frequently encounter when reviewing submissions, and what advice would you offer authors?
Far and away the most common pitfall of manuscripts I see is the authors overreaching with their interpretations. Many authors are pressured into presenting their data in a grandiose context in order to inflate the impact of their work (often to support grant applications, and so on), and as a result, it seems they often will attempt to argue an innovation that far exceeds the support of the data presented. Some also ignore limitations of their study to “avoid presenting weaknesses” of the work, when often those very limitations are what need to be addressed in order to validate the phenomenon and effectively push the field forward. I believe this all heavily relates back to the general aforementioned publication pressure as a necessity for a researcher’s career development. It is a misconception that great strides can be made in 10 pages. No work is ever truly complete. There is always more to be done. Science is inherently and deliberately incremental in nature. Ideas and understandings coalesce into something greater as a whole over time, and while competitive, science is in fact reliant on a collaborative spirit.

6. In your opinion, what under‑explored questions in modern molecular biology deserve more attention from researchers?
Although overwhelming progress has been made over the last many decades, it is clear that our understanding of the complex nature of intra- and inter-cellular signaling mechanisms is still rather naïve. A pitfall many fall into is assuming that what is currently known is sufficient to understand disease pathogenesis and treatment. Complacently accepting a molecule’s or protein’s function as well-defined is often limiting, to the student or the seasoned researcher, and hampers progress, especially when coupled with underestimating the significant impact of biological and chemical context dependency. The utilization of modern -omics techniques, among dozens-to-hundreds of other advancements in scientific methodologies over recent years, must focus on creating more sophisticated and accurate definitions of how proteins and other molecules interact in a context-dependent manner.