Reviewer Spotlight: Ali Mohebi

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. Ali Mohebi is currently assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Psychology and Co-Founder of Mohebi & Associates. Mohebi’s research explores neuromodulatory systems and the cognitive behaviors they support.

“Remember your fundamental responsibility: you're supporting a colleague.”

Ali Mohebi, PhD

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

Our research group explores how neuromodulatory circuits—particularly dopamine, norepinephrine, and acetylcholine—shape learning, decision-making, and cognitive performance. Working with rodent models, we employ a diverse toolkit from modern systems neuroscience: optical methods, high-density electrophysiological recordings, and computational modeling. Our goal is to understand the dynamic interplay between these neuromodulatory systems and the cognitive behaviors they support.

Any exciting recent findings you'd like to share?

For nearly three decades, neuroscientists have understood that dopamine signals reward prediction errors—essentially, how surprising rewards are relative to our expectations. When an action yields a better-than-expected reward, we're more likely to repeat that action. This implies the brain maintains sophisticated systems for evaluating rewards and constructing expectations, which are then integrated into dopamine signaling.

Our recent work reveals something exciting: dopamine signals across different brain regions operate on distinct temporal horizons. Some circuits prioritize immediate rewards, while others evaluate longer-term outcomes. The brain appears to need this diversity of perspectives for optimal function—imagine a collective of investors, some focused on quarterly returns, others on decade-long growth strategies. We're currently unraveling the computational mechanisms underlying how these different expectation systems are constructed and maintained.

How did you become interested in this line of research?

Some researchers trace their path to childhood dreams or carefully plotted trajectories. My journey was more serendipitous. I attended a lecture by who would become my postdoctoral advisor, found his presentation compelling, and simply asked if I could join his lab. A few years later, there I was—and he happened to need someone for the dopamine project. I happened to be that someone.

What began by chance has evolved into genuine fascination. Dopamine occupies my thoughts during morning walks to the lab and often accompanies me on the walk home. Sometimes the best scientific passions emerge not from deliberate planning, but from openness to unexpected opportunities.

What do you do when not in the lab?

The first year of an assistant professorship is deliciously consuming, leaving no space for hobbies—though one should still try. This past summer, I learned to sail and spent many peaceful hours on the lake. Baking and cooking serve as my tools for immediate gratification and creative expression. I also keep a camera close, capturing moments with friends, landscapes, and occasionally the night sky.

“I find the golden rule invaluable here: review papers the way you hope your own work will be reviewed.”

What advice would you share with new reviewers?

Remember your fundamental responsibility: you're supporting a colleague. Every word you write should aim to help them strengthen their work. These are people you'll encounter at conferences, share meals with, exchange ideas with over coffee. Approach the review with thoughtfulness and kindness. Your role is to construct, not to tear down. I find the golden rule invaluable here: review papers the way you hope your own work will be reviewed.

How do you approach a review?

I work in iterative rounds. Almost immediately after receiving an assignment, I review the figures, read the abstract and significance statements, and give the manuscript a quick pass. Then I let it brew—allowing ideas to develop during walks, in the shower, in quiet moments throughout the following week or so.

As the deadline approaches, I block dedicated time to work through the paper systematically, developing detailed comments. If my overall assessment is positive, I will submit after this thorough round. If concerns remain, I let my thoughts settle for a few more days before revisiting, revising, and submitting.

What have you learned that has made you an effective reviewer?

I've developed the practice of reading figures first, independently constructing a narrative before engaging with the authors' interpretation. This initial pass, unburdened by the authors' framing, positions me to provide more useful feedback. Of course, the authors are the experts on their own data, and I learn substantially from their perspective. But approaching the figures independently first equips me to assess the manuscript more fairly and offer more constructive guidance. It's about balancing respect for their expertise with maintaining the critical distance necessary for thoughtful evaluation.

What is your experience as a reviewer with eNeuro's consultation review process?

I found the process genuinely valuable. Reading other reviewers' comments enriched my understanding—not only revealing alternative expert perspectives on the manuscript but also deepening my comprehension through our discussions. Having never served as a journal editor, the interactions with editorial staff were particularly illuminating, offering insight into their viewpoints and priorities. It's these kinds of collaborative exchanges that strengthen both individual reviews and the broader scientific conversation.

Ali Mohebi, PhD
Assistant Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Psychology
Co-Founder of Mohebi & Associates
https://lab.mohebial.com/

 

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.