Andreas Lundh, Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark.
In this issue's Reviewer Profile, we speak with Andreas Lundh, a resident at Department of Infectious Diseases, Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark.
Andreas obtained his MD from the University of Copenhagen in 2004, and his MSc in Clinical Epidemiology from the Netherlands Institute for Health Sciences, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, in 2008. Since 2009, Andreas has taught various courses in evidence-based medicine and medical writing for medical students and physicians and has worked as a PhD student at The Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen.
What do you enjoy most about being a reviewer?
It’s a great way to stay up to date in your field and read interesting papers. It’s also a good way to practice your critical appraisal skills and it helps you to understand how important it is that a paper is reported clearly.
In the time that you've been a reviewer, what trends have you noticed?
I’ve been a reviewer for less than five years so I think this is too short a period to notice any trends.
How do you envision the role of the reviewer being different in the year 2020?
I think in the future reviewing will be a more open and dynamic process than it is today. Firstly, the identities of authors and reviewers will be disclosed and also reviews will be made available to readers. Similarly to what is being done at BioMed Central. Secondly, I think it will be a requirement that raw data is available to both reviewers and readers. This will make reviewing more time consuming. Thirdly, post-publication peer reviewing will play a bigger role. A review by two or three persons is not enough to discover all flaws in a paper. In place comments posted on blogs and written in letters to the editor will have an important impact. Papers will not be what is written in a single PDF, but instead viewed in the context of comments, re-analyses of raw data by other researchers and responses from authors.
What advice would you give to a new reviewer?
Don’t be afraid to say what you think because you have to review a paper written by experts in the field. If you don’t understand what the authors write, then it’s likely because it’s either unclear or wrong. Other readers will likely also not understand and even experts can make mistakes. Do a thorough job and when you’re done, put the review aside for a day or two and read it again.
What would you change about the peer review process if you could?
I think peer reviewing should be completely open and raw data should be made available to readers. Also being a reviewer should get more academic recognition.
What do you think people would find most surprising about your role as a reviewer?
Most of my colleagues also peer review, so I don’t think they would be surprised.
How do you balance your role as a reviewer with your other roles?
Peer reviewing has a high priority as it’s an important part of being an academic. However, I try to do no more than one review per month.
What is your favorite quote?
I don’t have a particular favorite quote, but I think “The devil is in the detail” fits nicely with the role of being a reviewer.
What do you like to do for fun?
I like to read, see movies and art and hang out with friends.