Interview with Dr. Dorota Formanowicz—Winner of the Biomedicines 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award
The journal Biomedicines (ISSN: 2227-9059) is proud to present the winner of the Biomedicines 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award—Dr. Dorota Formanowicz!
Dr. Dorota Formanowicz is a physician, a specialist in internal medicine, and above all, a scientist. In January 2022, she became a full professor. For several years, she has been the head of the Department of Medical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine at the Poznań University of Medical Sciences, where she leads a group of 30 outstanding employees in research or teaching positions with various skills, doctors of different specializations, including internal medicine, cardiology, diabetology, anesthesiology and intensive care, but also biotechnologists, laboratory diagnosticians, chemists and dietitians. This diversity also reflects the versatility of her interests and research capabilities. She is most interested in a systemic approach to medicine.
The following is a short interview with Dr. Dorota Formanowicz:
1. Can you share your current research direction and latest progress?
Due to my professional path, I am particularly fascinated by the relationship between nephrology, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerosis, with particular emphasis on oxidative stress and local inflammatory processes. In addition, as part of my research, in collaboration with bioinformaticians, I co-create and analyze biological models that organize knowledge and better understand the pathomechanisms underlying many diseases. Due to the partial similarity between atherogenesis and oncogenesis, I also focus on better understanding the processes underlying cancer diseases, including signals in the tumor microenvironment. Recently, I have established foreign cooperation in using natural compounds in the pharmacotherapy of metabolic and malignant diseases. My research interests are broad, and I believe there is still much to discover. Science is a beautiful challenge.
2. Could you share with us your feelings about winning the award? What does this award mean to your academic career?
The award surprised me, but it also gave me great pleasure. I always try to approach all tasks with exceptional care and demand a lot from myself. However, I did not expect it to be noticed in the context of my being a reviewer. I am at a stage of professional development where this award gave me pleasure. I'm pretty modest and haven't boasted about this award to anyone except my immediate family.
3. What role do you think reviewers play in the process of paper publication?
Reviewers play a key role in the publication process, and the final appearance of the article largely depends on their commitment, determination, and reliability. A reviewer is there to help, not to criticize, because no one is infallible. No one has a patent on knowledge. We are different, and sometimes we pay attention to different things. The reviewer needs to be friendly but fair.
4. How do you balance the comprehensiveness and efficiency of review? Can you share some specific methods or principles for reviewing?
I don’t have a specific way of preparing a review. Most often, I read the abstract very carefully. Then I always check the ethical aspects, and if they don't raise any doubts, I start reading the whole paper. I check whether the researchers have planned the study well to achieve the goal. I assess the conclusions, whether they meet the assumed goals.
During the review, I mark the parts of the text that raise my doubts, I try to understand the intentions of the researchers. In general, I approach articles with great kindness; as a rule, I try to help the author as much as possible, and I don't cross out their work from the beginning. Instead, I give tips and think about how the work should be improved so that it is clear and has a coherent message, so that the reader can easily find the necessary information. I often ask for diagrams, a kind of graphic summary, because they help to systematize the message and are a great approach today in the era of images.
In the review process, I always try to help the authors, as if it were my article, to make it correct and readable first and foremost. Although essential, technical aspects are, of course, secondary.
5. In your opinion, what key qualities should an excellent manuscript have? From what perspectives will you help authors improve the quality of their papers?
An excellent manuscript is simple, coherent, logical, and understandable, but without overly “stretching” the topic. The research is comprehensive, and the authors show that they are experts. They do not overwhelm the reader with too much information but try to emphasize what is most important. In addition, they systematize the knowledge, rely on reliable data sources, and use diagrams and summary tables, if it is a review article.
If these are clinical trials, it is best if they are registered; explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria are known. The authors should describe the strengths of their work, but they can also indicate its limitations. Finally, the conclusions are not a description of the results, but a real conclusion based on deep analysis. Today, when there are close relationships between doctors and IT specialists, articles in which researchers use new tools and can return to old issues armed with new research methods are appreciated.
6. How do you hope that journals and publishers can further support reviewers' review work?
I like the idea of this particular publishing house, although I think reviewers should have a bit more time to review. I think 8-10 days instead of 7 would be reasonable. Support through discounts and vouchers is undoubtedly one of the essential criteria that a reviewer considers, considering that, as researchers, we are literally “flooded” with review requests. Of course, the system of awards and certificates and the visibility of reviews in the Web of Science are highly appreciated.
I always check at the beginning whether the topic is close to me, and I usually accept the review. It is not always reasonable, but I usually do not refuse, because as a scientist, I am curious about what is new in the research.
7. Could you please briefly describe your experience with our services and journals so far?
My experience has been outstanding. Of course, you can say that I am not objective. However, as an author and a reviewer, I appreciate the excellent, fast, and helpful contact with the academic editors and the assistant publishing house.
I have experience with other publishing houses, and comparing them here, I see that everyone tries to help both the author, the reviewer, and the assistant editors, and there is excellent contact.