Reviewer Spotlight: Cassandra Gipson

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. Cassandra Gipson is currently associate professor at the University of Kentucky, Department of Pharmacology and Nutritional Sciences. Gipson’s research explores neurobiological mechanisms underlying nicotine and opioid use.

“Peer review is such a critical service to our field.”

Cassandra Gipson, PhD

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

My laboratory focuses on the discovery of novel neurobiological mechanisms underlying nicotine and opioid use. We recently found that there are specific mechanisms by which nicotine use and withdrawal are driven by distinct changes in the immune system akin to an opponent process. We are further translating these preclinical findings into clinical studies to identify immune targets for potential novel therapeutics to promote smoking cessation. We also evaluate biobehavioral impacts of novel adulterants in the illicit opioid supply and are targeting physiological consequences of polysubstance use to reverse their deleterious health effects. Excitingly, we found that cimetidine, a readily available and FDA-approved medication, can reduce fentanyl withdrawal. We also found that use of veterinary anesthetics such as xylazine in combination with fentanyl induces hyperglycemia. We are actively evaluating efficacy of medications to reduce blood glucose in adrenergic agonist-fentanyl combinations, and we are determining if treating physiological dysregulations can also reduce use and withdrawal severity. Next, we plan to evaluate how medetomidine, a novel and more potent veterinary anesthetic, impacts fentanyl use and withdrawal.

Our interests in both nicotine and illicit opioid supply research stems directly from public health surveillance of epidemiologically prevalent trends in the drug supply, and we back translate from important areas of focus identified by individuals with lived/living experience through collaborations with the Survivors Union of the Bluegrass, supported by the University of Kentucky.

What do you do when not in the lab?

In addition to my research, I am dedicated to service in my field as I am the Program Chair for the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD). In this role, I have been given an amazing opportunity to build impactful programs focused on substance use research. I also serve on the Program Committee for the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology and am the incoming President of Division 28 of the American Psychological Association. Outside of research and service, I enjoy running and focusing on physical health. I am an assistant coach for Girls on the Run, a national program that teaches girls to embrace their inner strength and grow community while being physically active.

“Over the years, I learned that being an effective reviewer entails giving helpful and constructive critiques to the authors to improve manuscripts and boost impact of the findings.”

What advice would you share with new reviewers?

Peer review is such a critical service to our field. For new reviewers, I recommend accepting opportunities to review when possible and taking a balanced approach to review. More specifically, evaluations of the rigor of experimental design and statistical analysis are the highest priority, as well as ensuring that conclusions being drawn in the discussion are supported by the data. However, every study will have limitations—there is no perfect study. It is important to weigh these fairly. When I teach my trainees how to review articles, I tell them that it is not our job to keep data out of the literature. Rather, it is our job to ensure accuracy of reporting, and that limitations of experimentation have been considered and reported. Over the years, I learned that being an effective reviewer entails giving helpful and constructive critiques to the authors to improve manuscripts and boost impact of the findings.

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

The consultation review process at eNeuro is refreshingly transparent. It centers reviewers and editors, as it requires thoughtful discussion of our reviews and a consensus regarding a decision on a manuscript. I appreciate this level of transparency and have only had positive experiences with it.

Cassandra Gipson, PhD
Program Chair, College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD)
President, Division 28 of the American Psychological Association (APA)
Associate Professor
Department of Pharmacology and Nutritional Sciences
University of Kentucky
Gipson’s lab https://gipsonlab.ukhc.org/

 

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.