Reviewer of the Month for November 2025: Maja Jazvinšćak Jembrek, PhD

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing, safeguarding the integrity, reliability, and ethical quality of scientific work. In recognition of the vital contributions made by peer reviewers, Biomolecules and Biomedicine proudly announces its Reviewer of the Month for November 2025. This honor celebrates an exceptional individual whose expertise and dedication uphold the highest standards of peer review excellence.

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in the publishing process by offering constructive feedback, insightful critiques, and valuable suggestions that enable authors to refine their manuscripts. Through their careful evaluation of submissions, ensuring they are well-researched, relevant, and based on sound scientific principles, reviewers greatly enhance the overall quality of published research.

Each month, the BiomolBiomed Editorial Team recognizes a peer reviewer for their dedicated contributions to the review process. This accolade is awarded to those who consistently provide thorough, detailed, and constructive assessments—improving the quality of research manuscripts and fostering scientific progress. Their efforts reflect the collaborative spirit and commitment to excellence that drives advancement in both academic and scientific communities.

Reviewer of the Month for November 2025:

Biomolecules and Biomedicine is proud to recognize Maja Jazvinšćak Jembrek, Senior Research Associate at the Ruđer Bošković Institute, Division of Molecular Medicine, Zagreb, and Professor at the Catholic University of Croatia, University Department of Psychology, as its Reviewer of the Month for November 2025. Dr. Jazvinšćak Jembrek’s research focuses on molecular and cellular mechanisms related to neuropharmacology, oxidative stress, and neurodegenerative diseases, significantly contributing to the advancement of scientific understanding in these areas.

Dr. Jazvinšćak Jembrek’s scholarly work includes numerous peer-reviewed publications, with her research being widely cited. Her contributions cover topics such as the molecular dynamics of neurodegenerative diseases, oxidative stress, and the role of cellular mechanisms in brain health. Her ongoing commitment to the peer review process is evident through her detailed, thoughtful evaluations, which consistently elevate the quality of research and support the advancement of scientific discovery.

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

Interview:

1. What are the primary areas of your research, and how have recent developments in your field impacted your work?

My research focuses on understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying neurotoxicity and neuroprotection, particularly in relation to oxidative stress, metal ion imbalance (such as copper), and the effects of antidepressants and natural compounds.

I am also interested in how gut microbial metabolites and lipid signaling molecules, such as short-chain fatty acids and endocannabinoids, influence neuronal function and stress-related disorders. Recent developments in the field, especially the growing recognition of metabolic and lipid signaling pathways in brain physiology and disease, have had a strong impact on my work.

These advances have encouraged a broader, systems-level approach that integrates neurochemistry, cell signaling, and microbiome research, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions between the brain and peripheral systems.

2. How do you balance the need for constructive criticism with the need to be supportive of the authors?

Balancing constructive criticism with support for the authors can be challenging, but it is essential for meaningful peer review. The main goal is to help authors improve their manuscript so that, after the review process, it reads more clearly, logically, and cohesively, while remaining free of technical errors. Authors sometimes overlook obvious issues because they are focused on their own perspective and interpretation of the results.

However, I occasionally encounter manuscripts that appear rushed or insufficiently reviewed before submission, resulting in poor flow, repetition, or easily avoidable errors. While such situations can be frustrating, I always strive to make my comments respectful and useful, highlighting the manuscript’s strengths and offering constructive suggestions for improvement.

I remember how discouraging it can be to receive careless or unhelpful comments on my own work, and I believe no author deserves that experience. On the other hand, I have also received highly constructive feedback that significantly improved my papers, this is exactly what peer reviewers should aim to provide.

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?

Researchers expect the review process to be timely and fair, these are fundamental requirements. Some suggest that signing reviews could help ensure accountability, but I am not in favor of this approach, as it can lead to personal tensions; researchers on both sides can sometimes be overly sensitive or unaware of the limitations of their work. Another key factor is ensuring that reviewers are well-qualified and that their expertise truly aligns with the manuscript’s topic.

It is also important that reviewers have a comparable level of academic experience (for instance, a similar h-index) to the corresponding author, which allows for a balanced and constructive evaluation. While it is primarily the editors’ responsibility to identify suitable reviewers, this task is becoming increasingly difficult, even with the help of AI-based tools. Many researchers are overwhelmed by review requests and tend to accept only a few due to time constraints. As a result, editors sometimes have to rely on less suitable reviewers, which may compromise the review quality.

To address this issue, reviewers should be more effectively rewarded for their work. Although certificates or editorial opportunities are appreciated, I believe that some form of financial compensation would be a stronger incentive, especially for journals with high APCs, and could encourage more engagement in providing high-quality, thoughtful reviews.

 

It is an honor to recognize Dr. Maja Jazvinšćak Jembrek for her exceptional contributions, which exemplify the excellence and dedication that inspire fellow reviewers. Her commitment underscores the crucial role of peer review in preserving the integrity and quality of scientific publications, and we encourage the academic community to continue supporting and fostering this essential aspect of scholarly work.