Pierre’s story

If you consider yourself as a researcher, the reviewing process is just part of your job and, as a European researcher, my motivation is to serve as a reviewer for NDT, the journal of the European Renal Association. Reviewing papers also keeps me updated on the latest developments in my field, enhancing my own research and understanding.

The methods section is paramount, as it underpins the reliability of the research. I focus on the methodology, including statistical analysis, to ensure robustness and reproducibility. Additionally, the introduction should clearly state the topic and emphasize the originality of the article. The results must be presented transparently, and the discussion should offer a balanced view of the study's strengths and limitations.

This is a difficult question. We can hope that our review will improve the global quality of an article, but this is not always the case. I try focusing on mitigating biases, preventing redundancies, ensuring originality, and discouraging overinterpretation of results. Sometimes, the decision is clear, sometimes this is more debatable. This is not always easy, but, as a Reviewer, we must also accept the fact that the final decision rests in the hands of the Editor. I think it is also important to clearly write to the Editor if you have not full skills to evaluate some parts of an article (for example, regarding an article on the use of artificial intelligence in a subspeciality of nephrology, I can be expert in this subspecialty, but clearly state that I am not comfortable with the AI part).

One challenging experience was when I reviewed a paper outside my immediate area of expertise, attracted by the high impact factor of the journal. This taught me the importance of evaluating papers strictly within my areas of competence to ensure the validity of my critiques. This experience reinforced the need for humility and adaptability in the peer-review process.