Reviewer Spotlight: Simone Russo

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. Simone Russo is currently a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University. Russo’s current research focuses on understanding how functional states within sensory pathways shape information flow and sensory processing.

“Good reviewing, like good science, depends as much on clear communication as on technical rigor.”

Simone Russo, MD, PhD

Tell us about your work.  

During my medical training, I was struck by the fact that patients with small, focal brain injuries may exhibit widespread symptoms that cannot be explained by the structural injury alone. This observation motivates my research: Neurological disorders do not simply damage isolated regions, but instead alter the state of otherwise intact brain networks. My current research focuses on understanding how functional states within sensory pathways shape information flow and sensory processing. My work combines traditional and reverse translational approaches: By moving across models, we can identify clinically relevant neurological problems, uncover their mechanisms in controlled experimental settings, and use this knowledge to achieve meaningful clinical impact.

What do you do when not in the lab?

When I'm not in the lab, I enjoy cooking and traveling. I am especially drawn to cooking because it appeals to the same curiosity that draws me to science—experimenting with ingredients, understanding how small changes affect outcomes, and appreciating the chemistry behind everyday processes. Spending time outdoors helps me disconnect from work and recharge.

“My main advice to new reviewers is to acknowledge your own limitations.”

What advice would you share with new reviewers?

Reviewing a manuscript is a service to authors and readers, aimed at facilitating communication between them, with journals serving as the conduit. When I review a manuscript, I try to read it from the perspective of different audiences. A nonexpert reader needs a clear introduction and discussion to understand the motivation and implications of the work; an expert reader interested in replication will scrutinize the methods and results; and a busy reader may only scan the figures. A strong paper should communicate its central message clearly to all of them.

My main advice to new reviewers is to acknowledge your own limitations. If a method is unfamiliar, take the time to learn enough to evaluate it, or be explicit about what you can and cannot assess. If something is unclear to you, say so. You represent a real subset of the journal's readership, and lack of clarity for you is likely a problem for others as well. Good reviewing, like good science, depends as much on clear communication as on technical rigor.

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

I find eNeuro's consultation review process highly effective. Reviewers often bring complementary—and sometimes divergent—expertise to a manuscript. The consultation phase allows reviewers and editors to integrate these perspectives, clarify priorities, and place individual critiques in context. This process encourages thoughtful discussion, helps reviewers recognize both critical issues and their own limitations, and ultimately leads to more coherent and constructive feedback for authors. Importantly, it makes peer review a genuinely collegial scientific process rather than a collection of isolated evaluations.

You are a graduate of SfN’s Reviewer Mentor Program. What did you learn during that mentored review that you find the most valuable in your work as a reviewer now? Would you recommend the program?

The Reviewer Mentor Program gave me a structured, analytical framework for reviewing manuscripts. It emphasized how to systematically evaluate a manuscript, how to distinguish central scientific concerns from secondary issues, and how to communicate critiques clearly and constructively. I would strongly recommend the program, particularly for early career scientists. It accelerates the development of good reviewing habits while providing valuable insights into the peer-review process from different perspectives.

Simone Russo, MD, PhD
Postdoctoral researcher, Stanley Lab
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University

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.