Over the year, many AES reviewers have made 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.
April, 2021
Silvana A. Schellini, State University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
April, 2021
Silvana Artioli Schellini
Silvana A. Schellini graduated from the Medical School of Botucatu - State University of Sao Paulo (UNESP), Brazil, and has worked at the same University as a teacher since 1983. She started as a Teaching Professor and now a Full Professor. She completed her Master and Doctoral degrees at the same University. During her career, she had the opportunity to visit many good universities in the USA and Australia to improve her skills. She took a course at the London School of Medicine and Hygiene in 2007, where she received training to work in epidemiologic studies and prevention of blindness. From 2015 to 2018, she served at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During 2007-2009, she was the President of the Brazilian Society of Oculoplastic Surgery, Lacrimal Vies and Orbit, a society affiliated to the Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology. Her main field of research includes Oculoplastic Surgery and Epidemiological studies. She has published almost 400 publications in scientific journals, with 2,455 citations and an H index as 21. Her curriculum vitae can be accessed here.
In Dr. Schellini’s opinion, having a peer-review process is essential for every scientific journal. The revision by pairs ensures the study was correctly designed and can anticipate the scientific quality of the paper to be disclosed. To her, a good review provides information to improve the quality of the paper. Contrarily a destructive unfriendly opinion does not promote gains. Reviewers’ opinion may be opposed to that of the authors but it is possible to discuss it.
“I like to review scientific articles, book chapters and also projects that are directed to funding agencies. This can be an opportunity to be the first-hand reader of important scientific material. In addition, I strongly believe that in order to issue your opinion, it is necessary to be prepared for it, updating and renewing yourself in order to expose your opinion,” says Dr. Schellini.
