Over the year, many LCM reviewers have made 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.
Dan Larhammar, Uppsala University, Sweden
Dr. Dan Larhammar is a Professor of Molecular Cell Biology at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. His research concerns evolution, neurobiology, endocrinology and pharmacology. Previous work included discovery of receptors for neuropeptide Y and their roles in appetite regulation, and the evolution and specialization of vision genes. Presently the emphasis is on the mechanisms of long-term memory and on G protein-coupled receptors. Teaching responsibilities include the listed topics as well as alternative medicine, herbal medicine, placebo effects, critical thinking and research ethics and misconduct. He was elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 2007 and presently serves as the President of the Academy (2018-2022). Dr. Larhammar’s full profile can be accessed here.
Research is often quite difficult and many aspects have to be considered, both theoretical and practical/methodological. In Dr. Larhammar’s opinion, peer review by experts is necessary to ascertain high quality and to avoid unnecessary mistakes and pitfalls. Ideally, a reviewer should strive to provide constructive feedback and suggest reasonable improvements in methodology, description and interpretation. Having said that, it is sometimes necessary to point out mistakes and mis- or over-interpretations of the results.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Larhammar stresses the importance for authors to disclose Conflicts of Interest, as it can work both ways: the scientific achievements of others can be either uncritically favored or unduly criticized.
Despite the fact that reviewing papers is non-profitable and anonymous, Dr. Larhammar is motivated to do so by a sense of obligation to the scientific community and to society as a whole. He explains, “Peer review is required to maintain high scientific quality. For me personally, detailed reading of the work of colleagues is an opportunity to learn more about approaches and methods. I also learn from the comments provided by other reviewers.”