Announcements

The following is a short interview with Dr. Nivedhitha Velayutham:

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and share your current research focus?
I’m currently in my third year as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University. Before this, I completed my Ph.D. in molecular and developmental biology at the University of Cincinnati.
During my Ph.D., my research focused on cardiac developmental signaling mechanisms, particularly in postnatal mammalian heart development. I explored the processes of cardiomyocyte maturation and cell cycle arrest. In my postdoctoral research, I have built upon this foundation, aiming to understand how developmental and maturational signaling insights can be applied to induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiac models. My goal is to understand cardiomyocyte maturation and quiescence in vitro, ultimately contributing to the development of more advanced iPSC-based cardiac models for disease studies or therapeutics.

2. What motivated you to become a reviewer for JDB, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer review process?
Being a peer reviewer is an incredibly valuable experience for an early-career researcher. It provides an opportunity to see how different labs structure and present their research, offering constant learning and insights into the evolving directions of the field.
I volunteered to review for JDB because of my strong interest in developmental biology and my curiosity about the peer review and publishing process. Seeing a manuscript evolve through revisions and eventually become a published paper is very rewarding. It allows me to appreciate both the scientist’s and the reviewer’s perspectives on what makes a strong publication.

3. How did you feel upon receiving the JDB Outstanding Reviewer Award?
I was both surprised and thrilled to receive the award! I honestly wasn’t expecting such recognition, so I’m very grateful to the JDB team. It’s incredibly encouraging for an early-career scientist to be acknowledged in this way.

4. Could you share some insights into your approach to reviewing manuscripts? How do you balance thoroughness with efficiency?
In my first round of review, I focus primarily on data—ensuring that the results support the conclusions. I carefully examine the figures and data panels before going through the full manuscript, making notes on any major and minor concerns as I proceed. My primary focus is on scientific rigor, reproducibility, and ensuring that the data are solid.
For the second round of review, I shift my attention to the revisions made by the authors. I check whether they have adequately addressed my previous concerns and also consider feedback from other reviewers. My goal is to ensure that the manuscript meets high scientific standards while also facilitating a fair and constructive peer review process.

5. What are your tips for preparing a high-quality review report? What key qualities make a review outstanding?
A high-quality review report should focus on enhancing the scientific rigor, logic, and clarity of the manuscript. The aim is to help the authors refine their work and present their findings in the best possible way.
When reviewing, I believe it’s important to understand the scope and objectives of the study. This allows me to identify key gaps or issues and provide targeted suggestions that can meaningfully improve the manuscript. A well-balanced review should be thorough but also constructive, helping the authors strengthen their study rather than just pointing out flaws.

6. JDB is an open access journal. How does its peer review process compare to that of subscription-based journals? Do you have any suggestions for improving our review system?
From a reviewer’s perspective, I haven’t noticed significant differences between open access and subscription-based journals in terms of the peer review process. The major differences tend to affect accessibility for readers rather than the review workflow itself.
Regarding JDB, I’ve found the peer review process to be smooth and well-organized, so I don’t have any specific suggestions for improvements at this time. I’ve really enjoyed my experience reviewing for the journal.

7. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are just starting to participate in peer review?
I would highly encourage Ph.D. students and postdocs to seek out opportunities to get involved in peer review. This experience not only strengthens critical thinking skills but also helps improve one’s own scientific writing and research presentation.
One way to start is by expressing interest in reviewing journals in your field. Another approach is to ask a mentor if you can co-review a manuscript with them. This allows early career researchers to learn the process firsthand before taking on independent reviews. A combination of both approaches can be very beneficial.

8. With advancements in AI and automated tools, how do you see the role of peer reviewers evolving in the future?
Although I’m not an expert in AI, I see great potential for AI tools in peer review. Automated systems could be particularly useful for checking scientific rigor, reproducibility, and image analysis early in the review process. This would allow reviewers to focus more on evaluating the scientific content rather than spending time on technical verification.
If implemented effectively, AI could help streamline the review process and provide reviewers with more data-driven insights, ultimately improving the efficiency and accuracy of peer review.

9. Based on your experience, what are some common challenges that authors face during the peer review process?
One major challenge for authors is the time-consuming nature of peer review, especially when revisions require new experiments or the development of additional techniques. This can significantly delay publication.
As reviewers, we can help mitigate this by clearly distinguishing between necessary revisions and suggestions that, while beneficial, are not essential for manuscript acceptance. Of course, there are cases where additional experiments are truly needed, but maintaining a balance between rigor and feasibility is key.

10. Which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the scientific community in the coming years?
Since my background is in developmental biology, I may be biased, but I believe induced pluripotent stem cell-based in vitro models will continue to gain importance. As we improve our ability to replicate complex biological processes in vitro, these models will become increasingly valuable for studying disease mechanisms and potential therapies.
Additionally, with advancements in spatial transcriptomics, there will be a growing focus on understanding cell–cell interactions and microenvironment cues at higher resolutions. I expect this area to expand significantly over the next decade, offering new insights into tissue development and disease progression.

It’s been a pleasure discussing these topics! Peer review is an essential part of maintaining scientific integrity, and I encourage early career researchers to engage with it actively. I look forward to seeing how the field evolves in the coming years.