In 2025, PM reviewers continue to make 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.
Renee J. Dufault, Food and Drug Administration, USA
Renee J. Dufault
Dr. Renee J. Dufault completed her PhD at A.T. Still University. She retired early from her position as a US Public Health Service officer at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to publish her findings of mercury in high fructose corn syrup and continue the line of research on the role dietary heavy metal exposures play in the development of autism and ADHD. As an FDA whistleblower, she could not find employment as a researcher, so she founded the non-profit Food Ingredient and Health Research Institute where she works as a volunteer. She supplements her income working as a licensed special education teacher. Today she is considered a leader in the field of nutritional epigenetics with 839 citations according to Google Scholar. She currently serves as co-chair for the American Society of Nutrition’s Nutrient-Gene Interactions Research Interest Section. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
PM: What do reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Dufault: Reviewers must bear in mind that their role is to serve as a mentor to the researchers who wrote the manuscript. The job of reviewing is to determine if the manuscript meets the journal’s criteria for publication. If there are issues with the manuscript, the reviewer needs to address them with kindness. The reviewer’s comments to the author (researchers) need to explain how the issues may be resolved to strengthen both the findings of the study and the manuscript.
PM: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Dufault: I remember reviewing a paper many years ago in which I found the underlying theory of a toxicity mechanism to be doubtful. I had to set aside my personal feelings and ask the question, “Was the underlying theory supported by any evidence?” There was some evidence to support the theory so I submitted my comments as I normally would with kindness. That author went on to become a popular media influencer. I still don’t agree with the theory, but I have no regrets in recommending the article for publication after she addressed the issues. The theory is still weak but as scientists, we must not rule out possible explanations too quickly before the cause of a disease is found. It is important to respect others even if we disagree with their thinking.
PM: The burden of being a scientist is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Dufault: I choose to review articles if they connect to my line of research. If an article does not connect to my knowledge base, I cannot review it. I have to make time in my schedule once I accept a review request. As long as I have at least ten days, I can make room in my schedule to do the review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
