Reviewer Spotlight: Polina Iamshchinina

The quality of eNeuro depends on the effort that is generously contributed by our reviewers, who lend their expertise and time helping to ensure we publish great science. This Reviewer Recognition series introduces the research of selected reviewers, as well as their strategies for approaching peer review of a paper. Dr. Polina Iamshchinina is currently a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton Neuroscience Institute. Iamshchinina’s research explores the mechanisms of working memory in humans and non-human primates.

"I believe reviewing should be approached with a mindset of helping."

Polina Iamshchinina, PhD

Tell us about your work. What research questions are you currently working on? 

I explore the mechanisms of working memory in humans and non-human primates, particularly how we actively prioritize some recent memories over others. I have used a wide range of neuroimaging and behavioral techniques in humans and am currently preparing to run an electrophysiological study in non-human primates.

Any exciting recent findings in your work you want to share?

I’m currently working on a manuscript analyzing local field potentials recorded during the process of prioritizing one memory over another. I hope some exciting findings are on the way!

How did you become interested in this line of research?

From early in my career, I have been fascinated by attention phenomena like the attentional blink and inattentional blindness. When do we really control our attention, and when does it lapse?

Around the time of my master’s studies, I started noticing intriguing similarities between the mental operations we use to behave optimally in the environment—such as attention—and internal cognitive processes like prioritizing, sorting, or rotating images in our mind’s eye. To what extent is this the internalization of externally applied cognitive tools, and to what extent does prioritization in the absence of visual input rely on entirely different mechanisms? I am still majorly driven by those early inspirations.

What do you do when not in the lab?

I enjoy spending time with my family and our pets, hiking, and observing animals in the wild.

“It helps to remember that the authors have invested significantly more time and effort in producing the work than we, as reviewers, do in reading it.”

What advice would you give on reviewing an article?

I think it is important to give yourself enough time to really understand the paper, especially if you are new to reviewing. Differences in terminology, narrative style, and manuscript structure can all create barriers to forming a coherent view of the study. But it is that overall understanding, in my opinion, that allows you to give meaningful feedback that can help improve the work. That is why estimating and pre-allocating the time needed for a thoughtful review is, to me, a fundamental part of the process.

I believe reviewing should be approached with a mindset of helping. Sometimes I feel strongly when I notice that important analyses are missing or that foundational studies are not cited. But simply expressing frustration in a review—even if it emphasizes a point—may not be the most respectful or constructive way to raise a concern. In fact, it can do more harm than good and prolong the revision process.

It helps to remember that the authors have invested significantly more time and effort in producing the work than we, as reviewers, do in reading it. While it's important to apply our expertise in evaluating the soundness of the analyses and the clarity of the writing, it's equally important to remain humane and constructive.

Lastly, reviewing is a demanding task that carries real responsibility—it can influence the trajectory of someone’s scientific work or even their career path. That is why I think it is perfectly appropriate to decline a review if the manuscript falls outside my area of expertise or if I do not have the time to conduct a proper review.

Polina Iamshchinina, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Princeton Neuroscience Institute

 

Learn more:

eNeuro offers authors the choice to receive double-blind review.  Additionally, the Reviewing Editor and two reviewers will consult to reach a consensus on the decision and to draft a synthesis of the reviewers' comments explaining the decision. These review syntheses are published alongside each accepted paper.  Learn more about eNeuro's Review Process.