Prof. Dr. Gladius Lewis, PhD, is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, where he has been a faculty member for nearly 39 years. His current research focuses on orthopedic biomaterials and biomechanics, with particular emphasis on PMMA bone cement, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, and the mechanical behavior of the hip, knee, and spine—both before and after implant placement. By integrating experimental studies with element analysis, Lewis’s work bridges the gap between fundamental materials science and clinical performance, advancing the design, longevity, and success of orthopedic devices.

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your research interests?

I am Gladius Lewis, Professor of mechanical engineering at The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, where I have been a faculty member for nearly 39 years.

My academic journey began in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where I completed my primary and secondary school education. I went to the United Kingdom to pursue higher education. There, I earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of London, followed by a master’s degree in corrosion science and engineering from Sir John Cass College, London, and PhD in metallurgy and materials science at the University of Nottingham.

After finishing my doctoral studies, I wanted to broaden my experience by working in different parts of the world. My first academic appointment was at the University of Zambia in Lusaka, where I spent three years before moving to the University of Zimbabwe in Harare for another three years. I then relocated to the United States and joined the faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. At that time, Huntsville was at the center of the Space Shuttle Program, and my research focused primarily on aerospace materials.

A few years later, I joined The University of Memphis. Soon after arriving, I realized that opportunities in aerospace materials research in Memphis were limited. However, the city is home to several leading orthopedic medical device companies, including Smith & Nephew, Medtronic, MicroPort, and Stryker. Through interactions with researchers and industry professionals, I developed a strong interest in biomaterials and biomechanics, which ultimately shaped the direction of my research career.

For the past 38 years, my research has focused on orthopedic biomaterials, particularly PMMA bone cement and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, as well as the biomechanics of the hip, knee, and spine. I am interested in understanding the mechanical behavior of the musculoskeletal system both before and after orthopedic implants are introduced. To address these questions, my research combines experimental studies with finite element analysis to improve the design, performance, and long-term success of orthopedic devices.

2. What motivated you to become a reviewer?

I have always had broad scientific interests, and peer review provides an excellent opportunity to stay current with developments across materials science and engineering—and not only within my own specialty. Every manuscript I review teaches me something new, making the review process a valuable learning experience as well as a service to the scientific community.

3. How do you approach the peer-review process to ensure fairness and provide constructive feedback?

I approach every manuscript with the same care that I hope reviewers would devote to my work. To fully understand the purposes and potential contributions of a manuscript, I typically read it three times before writing any comments.

The first question I ask is: What are the study purposes? Throughout the review, I evaluate whether the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections of the manuscript are consistent with the stated purposes. Too often, manuscripts lose focus and drift away from the stated purposes.

I also pay close attention to the study’s limitations, encouraging authors to discuss the assumptions and constraints of their work rather than simply proposing future research. I invest a significant amount of time on every review report—often one and a half days reading and taking notes, followed by six to eight hours writing detailed comments. My goal is to provide authors with clear, constructive feedback that genuinely improves their manuscript.

4. What are the biggest challenges you face as a reviewer?

The greatest challenge is that many manuscripts are not written clearly. In my view, this often reflects a lack of formal training in scientific and technical writing rather than a lack of scientific ability.

A strong introduction section should provide the necessary background, summarize the existing literature, identify current knowledge gaps, and clearly explain how the present study addresses those gaps. When this logical progression is missing, it becomes difficult for readers to appreciate the significance of the work.

I believe graduate programs would greatly benefit from offering formal courses in technical writing, helping researchers communicate their findings more effectively.

5. How has your experience been reviewing for Bioengineering?

My experience has been very positive. The manuscripts assigned to me have been both interesting and relevant to my expertise. I also appreciate the journal’s efficient review process and timely communication, which keeps reviewers informed about editorial decisions and manuscript progress.

6. What advice would you give to early career researchers who hope to make a meaningful impact?

Success requires dedication and continuous learning. One piece of advice I often share is that good writers are good readers. Researchers who read widely and consistently tend to become effective scientific communicators.

Science evolves rapidly, so it is essential to stay current with the latest literature rather than relying solely on past knowledge. Keeping abreast of new developments is fundamental to producing impactful research.

7. As an open access journal, how do you think Bioengineering benefits authors and the broader research community?

Open access plays a vital role in making scientific knowledge available to everyone, regardless of institutional resources. Researchers at well-funded institutions often have access to subscription journals, while those at less well-funded organizations may not. Open access helps bridge this gap by ensuring that high-quality research is freely available to the global scientific community.

This accessibility benefits not only researchers but also students. As a research advisor, I regularly share newly published articles with my students, allowing us to stay informed and advance our work together.

8. Do you have any suggestions for how Bioengineering could further support researchers and the academic community?

Overall, I believe Bioengineering is already serving the community very well. Its commitment to open access addresses many of the barriers that researchers face when accessing scientific literature, and I have no additional suggestions at this time.