The Reviewer of the Month for August 2025: Prof. Eugene Haydn Walters

Peer review continues to be fundamental to scholarly publishing, playing a crucial role in upholding the quality, trustworthiness, and ethical standards of scientific research. In acknowledgment of this vital process, the Biomolecules and Biomedicine journal is delighted to recognize its Reviewer of the Month for August 2025—an individual whose outstanding knowledge and dedication exemplify the pinnacle of peer review excellence.

Reviewers play a key role in helping authors enhance their submissions by providing comprehensive critiques and valuable insights. Their contributions help guarantee that the research appearing in the journal is thorough, pertinent, and founded on sound methodology.

On a monthly basis, the BiomolBiomed Editorial Team celebrates a peer reviewer whose unwavering commitment to the review process stands out. This honor is reserved for those who regularly deliver thoughtful, detailed, and constructive assessments—supporting authors in polishing their manuscripts and significantly advancing scientific discovery. Their service epitomizes the collaborative spirit and pursuit of excellence that propel research forward.

The Reviewer of the Month for August 2025:

This month, we are pleased to announce that the Reviewer of the Month Award goes to Prof. Eugene Haydn Walters. Prof. Walters is Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Tasmania; Honorary Professorial Fellow in Epidemiology at the University of Melbourne; Emeritus Senior Physician at the Royal Hobart Hospital; Emeritus Foundation Professor–Director of Respiratory Medicine and Honorary Physician at The Alfred Hospital/Monash University, Melbourne. He is being recognized for his outstanding review. His thoughtful and thorough feedback played a key role in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor of the manuscript under review.

We had the opportunity to speak with Prof. Eugene about his approach to peer review and his perspectives on the evolving landscape of academic publishing. In our conversation, he discussed his research interests and shared valuable insights into current trends and challenges within his field. Below are some highlights from our discussion:

Interview:

1. What inspired you to pursue a career in scientific research, and what motivates you to continue in this profession?

Although a qualified physician, I’ve always tried to maintain a balance between direct clinical work and respiratory research. This has always given me enormous satisfaction, with one part of my professional life informing and feeding off the other. In the Australian context this approach is financially disadvantageous, but I regard this relative sacrifice as being more than well worth it.  I’m now semi-retired but I still enjoy working within a research group and especially providing support and education in basic and clinical science to new PhD students who mainly come from non-medical backgrounds. I also love the whole process of trying and usually succeeding in getting papers published; it’s a great thrill and I’m happy to give back to others going through the same ordeal.

2. How do you ensure your feedback is both fair and useful to the authors?

I try to take a neutral position between the interests of science, the reader and the authors; want the authors to get the very best out of their work and to make the very best of the papers that I review.

3. What steps can be taken to improve the peer-review process to ensure it better aligns with the needs and expectations of today’s researchers?

I think it is very important to maintain respect for the authors, to be as factual as possible rather than opinionated, and to help them make the best of their efforts. It needs to be a supportive rather than a destructive process.

We are honored to acknowledge Prof. Eugene for his exceptional efforts, which reflect the high level of excellence and dedication that motivates fellow reviewers. His commitment highlights the vital importance of peer review in maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific publications. We urge the academic community to continue supporting and upholding this fundamental aspect of scholarly work.