Over the year, many JPHE 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.
Ann M. Moore, Guttmacher Institute, USA
Ann M. Moore
Dr. Ann M. Moore is a Principal Research Scientist at the Guttmacher Institute and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University at Albany - State University of New York, USA. She received her PhD in sociology with a specialization in demography from the University of Texas-Austin in 2004. She has co-authored both quantitative and qualitative work on reproductive health issues in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America and the United States. Substantively, she has focused on abortion experiences and access, domestic violence and reproductive health, adolescents, unsafe abortion and maternal mortality. She has served on the board of directors for the National Network of Abortion Funds and Student Pugwash, USA. Dr. Moore is a member of the Population Association of America, the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, and the Union of African Population Studies. A full profile of Dr. Moore can be accessed here.
“Peers are the best judges of high quality scientific contributions,” says Dr. Moore. To her, the peer review process, if done well, is the best way to provide relevant feedback and critiques of work so as to retain a high standard of rigor to what is included in scientific journals.
But the next question arises - How do we ensure the peer review process is done well? In Dr. Moore’s opinion, reviewers should have deep knowledge of the field in which they are reviewing, an ability to critically evaluate manuscripts for soundness of argument, use appropriate analytical methods, clarity of writing, relevant conclusions from the results, and whether the findings in fact move the field forward. It is also important for them to check if there is any potential conflict of interest as it could potentially bias the quality of the critique and the recommendation of whether the article should be published.
“I choose to spend my free time providing peer reviews because 1) it is a way to mentor others in the field (albeit anonymously) to become stronger contributors; 2) it facilitates getting important findings into the literature; and 3) it helps me see what is coming down the pipeline so that I am aware of the newest results emerging from the field,” says Dr. Moore.