Insights and reflections from two JNA Editorial Fellows

As members of the inaugural Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology (JNA) Editorial Fellowship Programme, it has been both a privilege and a pleasure to be part of this unique initiative. We joined the fellowship from different institutions and different parts of the world, each with our own expectations and experiences. Six months into the programme, however, we discovered that although our journeys had been different, they had been shaped by the same principles – thoughtful mentorship, constructive peer review, and a genuine spirit of collegiality.

Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology Fellowship Programme – Programme Overview

The Fellowship programme first commenced in 2025 with a series of far-reaching aims and objectives. The Fellowship allows participants the opportunity to develop their peer review and critical appraisal skills as well as gain insight into upcoming research in the exciting and ever evolving field of neuroscience. As well as facilitating personal academic development, the Fellowship also has the equally advantageous benefits of increasing peer reviewers within the wider field of Neuroscience, in turn advancing our speciality on a global scale. Fellows have the opportunity to participate in activity related to the journal and Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) alongside their peer reviewer role, for example assisting with the JNA podcast series and SNACC Newsletter. Networking and strengthening international connections within the speciality are encouraged and further facilitated through the programme.

Applications opened for the Fellowship in November 2025 with a competitive application process via online application form. Results of the application process were announced in January 2026 by Editor-in-Chief Dr Alana Flexman, with Fellows commencing in post from this date. The Fellowship term is one year with the possibility to extend for a further year on mutual agreement.

Each Fellow is allocated a mentor during the programme to help provide advice and guidance throughout the peer review process and to act as a point of contact for any immediate queries. Fellows are provided with the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the Editorial Manager software prior to commencing their first review, with an abundance of accompanying valuable advice and resources from Dr Flexman. An ICPNT Webinar “How to Serve as a Peer-Reviewer for Manuscripts”, is held early in the programme year and allows Fellows the opportunity to meet online and learn from Dr Flexman and JNA peer review experts. During this webinar, the peer review process for the JNA is explained by Dr Flexman in detail with dissemination of further written and online resources.

Having the opportunity to work closely with a peer review mentor is a hugely valuable and insightful experience. I personally have immensely enjoyed the process of reviewing a manuscript and discussing this review in detail with my mentor, agreeing upon our review outcome and suggested action points. I have further developed key critical appraisal skills and have become familiar with manuscript reviewing software. It has allowed me the opportunity to reflect further and at a deeper level on the essential elements of producing a high calibre article for journal submission, ensuring the article is an accurate representation of the study performed, with outcomes and methods aligned to the original study protocol, as well as accurate data representation and robust conclusions.

The experience has allowed me to develop international connections and has been incredibly rewarding to date. I certainly hope to continue to develop my peer reviewer skillset with the intention of continuing in this role in the future. I would undoubtedly encourage those considering applying for the Fellowship later this year to do so.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Val Luoma for her expert mentorship, Dr Alana Flexman and the Editorial Board of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology for this immensely valuable opportunity.

— Elouise Donaldson MBChB BSc (Hons) FRCA

 

A Personal Reflection

The first lesson of my JNA Editorial Fellowship arrived before I was assigned my first manuscript to review.

Soon after I was paired with my editorial mentor, Dr. Shailendra Joshi (Columbia University Irving Medical Center), I received a welcome email outlining what he believed were the cornerstones of good editorial practice: evaluate the science fairly, assess novelty, provide reviews that are constructive and encouraging, and remember that even when a manuscript is rejected, the author should leave with a positive impression of the journal.

At first, those seemed like straightforward principles. Over the following months, I realised they would fundamentally shape the way I read, write, and think about scientific publishing.

I still remember the first manuscript I reviewed alongside my mentor. I found myself returning to it over several days—revisiting the literature, questioning assumptions, and refining my initial impressions. My mentor encouraged me to “live with” each manuscript. At first, that advice surprised me. Over time, I realised that the strongest reviews often emerge from reflection rather than first impressions. Initially, I thought reviewing meant finding answers. Instead, I realised it was about asking better questions. I now approach every manuscript—whether as a reviewer or an author—with that same deliberate curiosity, and it has fundamentally changed the way I approach scientific writing and peer review.

One of the most empowering aspects of the fellowship was learning to trust my own judgement. When I questioned a study’s methodology, my mentor encouraged me to think independently. That shift—from seeking the “correct” answer to developing independent editorial judgement—was transformative.

Another lasting lesson was that reviewers should not simply identify problems—they should help solve them. My mentor encouraged me to suggest practical ways to strengthen a study, while comparing my reviews with those of experienced reviewers taught me that thoughtful reviewers can reach different, equally valid conclusions.

Like many early-career researchers, I was familiar with publishing as an author, but the editorial process was something of a mystery. Seeing it from the other side transformed the way I write, encouraging greater attention to clarity, transparency, and the questions reviewers are likely to ask before submission.

For anyone considering the JNA Editorial Fellowship, I would wholeheartedly recommend applying. Beyond learning the mechanics of peer review, it offers something even more valuable: the opportunity to develop sound editorial judgement through thoughtful mentorship.

When I began the fellowship, I thought I was learning how editors evaluate manuscripts. Looking back, I realise I was learning something far more enduring: that good editors are not simply gatekeepers of scientific quality—they are custodians of a culture of fairness, curiosity, and respect.

Perhaps the clearest example of that philosophy was my mentor’s approach. He rarely gave me answers. Instead, he gave me questions. Was my criticism fair? Was the study truly novel? Could I strengthen the work rather than simply point out its limitations? Those questions continue to shape the way I review manuscripts and conduct my own research.

I am deeply grateful to my mentor, Dr. Shailendra Joshi, for his thoughtful guidance and encouragement throughout the fellowship, and to Dr. Alana Flexman and the JNA Editorial Board for creating a learning environment where curiosity, constructive discussion, and mentorship are so highly valued. Those are lessons I will carry with me as an author, reviewer, and, perhaps one day, as an editor.

— Dr. Sangeetha RP MD, DNB, DESAIC, DM ​Neuroanaesthesia

 

Looking Ahead

Although our experiences have been different, they continue to converge around the same appreciation – for generous mentors, thoughtful editorial discussions, and a community committed to advancing scientific publishing. Six months into the fellowship, we realise that we are only beginning to understand the depth and responsibility of peer review. We look forward to the months ahead with curiosity, gratitude, and a renewed commitment to becoming better reviewers, authors, and future editors.