Reviewer of the Month for December 2025: Marko Bojović, MD

Peer review plays a fundamental role in academic publishing by ensuring the accuracy, credibility, and ethical conduct of scientific research. To acknowledge the essential work of reviewers, Biomolecules and Biomedicine is pleased to name its Reviewer of the Month for December 2025. This recognition highlights an outstanding reviewer whose knowledge and commitment help maintain exceptional standards in the peer-review process.

Peer reviewers are essential to the publication process, providing thoughtful feedback, critical insights, and helpful recommendations that support authors in improving their manuscripts. By thoroughly assessing each submission for strong research foundations, relevance, and scientific rigor, reviewers significantly elevate the quality of the research that ultimately gets published.

Each month, BiomolBiomed Editorial Team honors a peer reviewer for their meaningful contributions to the evaluation process. This recognition is given to individuals who reliably deliver comprehensive, thoughtful, and constructive reviews—enhancing manuscript quality and supporting scientific advancement. Their work exemplifies the collaborative spirit and dedication to excellence that propel progress in the academic and research communities.

The Reviewer of the Month for December 2025:

Biomolecules and Biomedicine is pleased to recognize Marko Bojović, Radiation Oncologist at the Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Clinic for Radiation Oncology, and Assistant at the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Oncology, as its Reviewer of the Month for December 2025. Dr. Bojović’s professional work centers on advancing clinical practice and research in radiation oncology, contributing meaningfully to progress in cancer treatment and scientific understanding within the field.

Dr. Bojović’s academic work includes numerous peer-reviewed publications in radiation oncology, with several of his studies cited in the international literature. His research spans topics such as optimized whole-breast irradiation schedules during the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of invasive diagnostic procedures—from bronchoscopy to surgical biopsy—in the management of lung cancer, reflecting a strong focus on improving both the safety and effectiveness of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Marko is also involved in clinical research on ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy protocols, contributing to long-term studies that aim to refine and personalize radiation treatment for patients. His ongoing engagement with the scholarly community, including manuscript evaluation and collaborative projects, supports the advancement of evidence-based oncology and enhances the quality of research in the field.

We had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Marko Bojović about his approach to peer review and his views on the evolving landscape of academic publishing. During our conversation, he reflected on his clinical and research interests in radiation oncology and offered valuable insights into current trends and challenges within the field. Below are some highlights from our discussion:

Interview:

Could you elaborate on your main research interests and any new directions or innovations that are particularly relevant in your field right now?

My field of research is radiation oncology and oncology in general. In the past, I was more intensely focused on lung cancer, while I am now working primarily in head and neck oncology and radiosurgery, and more recently increasingly in breast oncology as well.

Artificial intelligence is gradually becoming more integrated into oncology, particularly in predicting treatment outcomes with the help of radiomic parameters.

What strategies do you use to ensure that your feedback is both fair and useful to the authors?

As a researcher, I am aware of the effort required to write and publish a paper, so I always try to put myself in the author’s shoes when conducting a review. On the other hand, I have always appreciated reviewers who sincerely pointed out potential issues in my research or in the way I presented it.

How do you think the peer-review process can be improved in order to better serve the needs of the scientific community?

I believe you have good recommendations for reviewers, and there is very little that can be improved in that regard, because ultimately the ethics and expertise of the reviewer are things over which you have limited influence.

It is a privilege to acknowledge Dr. Marko Bojović for his outstanding contributions, which embody the dedication and high standards that motivate fellow reviewers. His commitment highlights the essential role peer review plays in maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific publications. We encourage the academic community to continue supporting and strengthening this vital component of scholarly work.