Announcements

Name: Prof. Dr. Stephen H. Linder
Affiliation: Institute for Health Policy, Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, USA
Interests: health policy; environmental policy; cumulative risk; community-based environmental assessment; policy design

The following is a short interview with Prof. Dr. Stephen H. Linder:

1. Could you give us a brief introduction about yourself and your current research topic to our readers?
I am a professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston at their School of Public Health, also known as UT Health Houston School of Public Health, and I’ve been here since the 80s. It’s been an exciting and gratifying place to work, especially through the COVID-19 years. More recently, it’s been an engaging time for a researcher to be able to contribute to public health by directly working through and with local authorities for technical assistance and data analysis. The work I do is in the Department of Management Policy and Community Health. I teach courses on research methodology, ethics, and policy, and include a policy emphasis in all of my teaching. Much of the work I do is with my graduate students. We prepare them for positions in nonprofit and governmental organizations that focus on public health or are related in some way to the helping professions. We prepare them for academic careers, as well as commercial careers in the health sector more generally.

2. As a reviewer, how do you balance the encouragement of research innovation with the strict requirements for method reliability? Can you give an example?
I spend a lot of time trying to craft comments that include constructive suggestions rather than limitations. In fact, I rarely talk about limitations directly unless it’s coupled with what I think a remedy would be, and offer that to the authors. They are in the more exposed position, having their work peer-reviewed.

I have had my peer-reviewed work come back needing remediation, and I know how the process works after a number of years.  So I really try to cultivate a positive kind of orientation in the reviews and offer as constructive a set of suggestions as I can make. Usually, I number them so they’re clear and have no run-on narratives. I like to give them what’s basically a checklist of things they need to attend to in their next round.

3. In addition to "error correction", what unique value do you think excellent peer review can provide to the academic community?
Generally, in the areas that I cover, two potential weaknesses may need strengthening in manuscripts. One is that they may have difficulty with the logic, because they’ve tried to fit too much in, and so there is a drift away from the central issues. Being very careful with the logic and sequence in the discussion, and how it is presented as an argument are critical features that I look for first. Besides the logic, other patterns that I see in need of critical assessment are details in reporting that have been overlooked or omitted.

Typically, then, my reviews will have two kinds of comments: One comment is about the logic and addressing a core set of claims, trimming away the unnecessary information, and focusing on the paper’s main argument. The second set of claims will have to do with areas where more information is needed, such as when something was underreported. Whether it’s a justification for a particular method, the selection of a variable, or the creation of an indicator—we need to know about that process and the reasons behind it.  By and large, the revisions requested will be of those two kinds.

4. For submissions from non-English speaking researchers, what factors that may affect the quality of scientific expression will you pay special attention to?
There are a few things I’ve noticed. I review a lot of manuscripts from Chinese investigators, and translation into English may be difficult. This can include the use, or coining, of new expressions that don’t have a direct parallel in English. Maybe a technical term will have an ending added to it in translation. Although it’s not a proper English word, it expresses something important not to miss. I try to figure out what that is and then suggest word substitutes that might be made with only a minor correction.

The other practice that I see is the omission of definite/indefinite articles and prepositions which help make English flow. I’ll find some nouns and verbs that have no linkage, or no prepositions, etc. However,  these can usually be deciphered, so the authors can have some suggestions.

I haven’t found that either of these minor translation imperfections impinge on the scientific quality of the research. That would usually be a function of other kinds of factors, such as research design, the data used as evidence, and the questions that they’re trying to answer. I haven’t had a problem with any of the submissions that have come in more recently. The exception is when the manuscript doesn’t meet the threshold for publication or revision. Those are generally pieces that represent research fragments that can’t stand on their own. Either it is an incomplete treatment of data, or the data themselves are just inadequate for the kinds of questions that are being asked. Those generally get rejected out of hand. But, it is not so much the quality as it is the fragmentary nature of the piece that leads to an outright rejection.

5. In your research career, is there an experience in which the review opinions promoted research breakthroughs?
I can think of at least two kinds of suggestions that were made. One was a framing suggestion. I hadn’t made the association with another field of research that was highly relevant and the suggestion of reframing made a significant difference.

I have also had suggestions regarding references that were in a related field that I was unaware of that made a difference in the direction that I pursued. Both of those had a positive impact on my research.