Edited by Dr Anna Melidoni, Senior Editor
AM: Tell us a bit about yourself and your current focus of research.
CM: I am a cardiology resident at the University of Pavia (Pavia, Italy) and I am currently an Interventional Cardiology Fellow at the Oxford University Hospital NHS Trust (Oxford, UK). My main area of research is cardiovascular intervention, with a particular interest in optimal treatment for older adults.
AM: What do you think is the most fascinating recent development in cardiovascular research/Cardiology?
CM: As a young cardiologist, I believe that we are experiencing tremendous changes in the care of our patients. Year by year new drugs and technologies for patients with a broad variety of heart diseases are being developed, and this is on top of several decades of continuous improvement. In my field of research, I believe that structural heart intervention, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in particular, revolutionized our way of dealing with a life-threatening disease such as severe aortic stenosis, by offering a new, less invasive (but as effective !) standard of treatment. TAVR leads the way, but I strongly believe that in the years ahead we will see a growing role for structural interventions even for other heart pathologies.
AM: Is there an area of Cardiovascular biology/Cardiology that you think is currently under-explored?
CM: I believe that Cardiology is generally well explored. However, some populations have received less attention than deserved e.g., in many of the larger clinical studies older adults, ethnic minorities and women have been under-represented. I believe that cardiovascular scientists should aim at widening the inclusion of future studies and/or replicate findings in these populations.
AM: Where do you see (or where would you like to see) the cardiovascular/Cardiology research field 10 years from now?
CM: As already mentioned, the care of patients with cardiovascular disorders have dramatically improved over the years but there are still many goals to achieve and residual burdens to tackle. I expect to see such improvements in interventional technologies so that no patient in need of intervention will be declined that possibility due to an unsuitable anatomy or for being at too high risk. I would hope to see left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) technology improvement for patients with advanced heart failure, who are waiting on their heart transplant list. I foresee less and less use of invasive diagnostic tools (such as angiography) vs non-invasive ones (such as cardiac CT).
AM: What does it mean to you to be an Editorial Board Member for BMC Cardiovascular Disorders?
CM: Over time many Reviewers and Editors have contributed with their energy and time to improve the quality of my work as an author. Having the honor to be in the Editorial Board of BMC Cardiovascular Disorders means to give back to the scientific community and to contribute to the growth and improvement of my peers' work.
AM: What is one piece of advice you would give to reviewers as an EBM overseeing peer review ?
CM: Remember that reviewing means being at the service of the authors. The first question a reviewer should ask themselves is whether the paper is out of scope or unsuitable for publication in that particular journal. If this is the case, do not delay your decision, as this will only harm the authors’ effort to find the right journal for their work. On the contrary, if the paper and journal are a good (or at least a possible) match, take all your time to analyse the paper thoroughly, before making your decision and give feedback that will improve the author’s work.
AM: What is one piece of advice you would give to prospective authors ?
CM: When submitting an article, put yourself in the Editor’s and Reviewers’ shoes and try to understand if the main question that the paper is trying to answer is clear to the readership. If the scientific purpose of the paper is not crystal clear, the reviewers and editors will find it hard to understand the scientific importance of your paper and will likely fail to give it sufficient priority.
AM: What would you change in scientific publishing if you could?
CM: At least in clinical science, editors and reviewers often perform their work in their spare time (including nights and weekends) and after long shifts at work. Despite doing this work with love and pleasure, people might end up in a situation of burnout and exhaustion. This is a reality that should be acknowledged more by journals and the scientific community. With this regard, many journals are giving increased visibility and credits to their reviewers and editors and this is a great step forward.