In 2025, ACTR 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.
Else Marit Inderberg, Oslo University Hospital, Norway
Else Marit Inderberg
Else Marit Inderberg is Unit Leader at the Translational Research Unit, Department for Cellular therapy, Oslo University Hospital. The unit performs immunomonitoring in clinical trials and development of cellular therapy. Her main research focus is on T-cell function and immunotherapy development including TCR-and CAR-based therapies, cancer vaccines and the identification of predictive biomarkers of therapy response. She has broad oncology-related clinical trial experience and holds an MSc equivalent degree in Immunology from France and a PhD in tumour immunology from the University of Oslo, Norway. She has co-authored numerous peer-reviewed publications, holds several patents, and is co-founder of two separate spin-off companies. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Inderberg reckons that peer review evaluates the scientific quality of a manuscript and helps validate research and aid the editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. It is important to have peers identify strengths and weaknesses and provide constructive comments for authors to improve their work.
In Dr. Inderberg’s opinion, a good reviewing process requires the reviewer to commit a substantial amount of time and energy without considering it as a career advancement. The peer-review system depends on the availability of good citizens whose judgment and ethics can be trusted to work, but due to the lack of any rewards and the significant workload, it can be hard to find qualified reviewers. Reviewers may be reluctant to judge their peers’ writing, especially if they are not well-established and confident writers themselves. Good reviewing guidelines from the journal and a double-blind reviewing process can help promote fairness and reduce bias in the review process.
“Being a reviewer means you can enjoy having access to new and interesting developments in your field. In addition, reviewing the work of others can be just as beneficial as receiving peer feedback yourself. Commenting on peers’ writing can help young researchers better understand the task, reflect on their own errors, and provide ideas to improve their own manuscripts,” says Dr. Inderberg.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
