In 2023, ANPC reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.

October, 2023
Giulio Cantù, Formerly National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy

October, 2023

Giulio Cantù

Dr. Giulio Cantù, MD, is now retired. He graduated from the University of Milan and obtained specialization diplomas in general surgery, otolaryngology and head and neck surgery, oncology and maxillofacial surgery. He served as associate professor of head and neck oncology at the Universities of Verona and Rome. He was the director of the Head and Neck Surgery Department of the National Cancer Institute of Milan (Italy) and worked at this centre for 43 years. He has performed thousands of operations for the removal of head and neck tumours, almost always very advanced malignancies and recurrent after previous treatments performed elsewhere. He introduced some operations never performed before in his centre, such as supracricoid subtotal laryngectomy, total pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy with gastric pull-up without chest openings, and craniofacial resections for paranasal sinus malignant tumours involving the anterior and/or the middle cranial fossa. For this last operation, he has accumulated about 500 cases, the largest series in the world.

In Dr. Cantù’s opinion, the peer-review system is fundamental and irreplaceable in scientific publications. Faced with a manuscript that presents a study, the reviewer must verify that the study is original, that the scientific procedure is impeccable and that the aim of the study is achieved (or not achieved, therefore demonstrating that the hypothesis was wrong).

To satisfy the aforementioned conditions, Dr. Cantù thinks that the reviewer must comply with three requirements. First of all, he/she must absolutely be expert in the field of the proposed study and, if not, have the honesty to decline the publisher's invitation. Secondly, in the case of a controversial topic with two or more possible hypotheses, he/she must not support one of the hypotheses in a biased and uncritical way. He/she must know the previous publications in favor of the various theses, describe the pros and cons, and (only after this process) give his/her opinion. In these cases, the reviewer must not give a negative opinion but invite the authors to specify in the introduction and/or discussion that the topic is controversial, if they have not already done so. Third, the reviewer must indicate to the authors where and how the manuscript can be integrated and improved. “We were all inexperienced in writing a manuscript at the beginning of our careers and the disinterested opinion of an expert must benefit the cultural growth of young researchers,” adds he.

As a reviewer, Dr. Cantù points out that authors should always declare any potential Conflict of Interest (COI). When this COI is declared, the reviewer must verify whether a possible conclusion in favor of a certain drug or medical instrument is clearly supported by the results of the study.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)