Reviewer Spotlight: Dominic J. Acri

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. Dominic Acri is currently a bioinformatician and neuroscientist postdoctoral fellow in the Cell Biology and Gene Expression Section at the Laboratory of Neurogenetics, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. Acri’s research focuses on understanding the innate immune system of aging brains.

“As a proud member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, I am actively involved in several educational initiatives aiming to bring neuroscience to Indigenous students, tribal members, and those of all backgrounds.”

Dominic J. Acri, PhD

Tell us about your work.  

I am a bioinformatician and neuroscientist passionate about studying the innate immune system in the context of age-related neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and frontotemporal dementia. During my dissertation work at Indiana University School of Medicine, I started modeling the impact of genetic variation on the progression of a hallmark shared across many neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) called tau pathology or "tauopathy.” At IUSM we were all required to take a “PhD minor” which is similar to a non-thesis master’s and I decided to take more formal coursework in bioinformatics. By combining my biological interest in NDDs with my technical training in “omics,” I started building a portfolio that includes genetic-, pharmacological-, and CRISPR-based-screens both in silico and in vitro. Recently we reported an exciting new target that could induce microglial activation similar to what happens in the NDD brain (PMID 41040165), an endo-lysosomal kinase called “PIKfyve."

What do you do when not in the lab?  

As a proud member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, I am actively involved in several educational initiatives aiming to bring neuroscience to Indigenous students, tribal members, and those of all backgrounds. Outside of the lab/classroom, I enjoy playing tennis, reading science fiction, and watching the Baltimore Orioles.

“…The [Reviewer Mentor Program] allowed me to gain independence as a reviewer and learn from an expert that was outside my specific subfield. I highly recommend the program, even for senior trainees who may feel like they have enough experience with their in-lab mentors.”

What advice would you share with new reviewers? 

I approach reviewing a paper with the reader or student who is looking to learn in mind. The age of AI and large language models has increased the availability of computational pipelines, which is generally a great thing! But as a human-reviewer it is our responsibility to make sure we can follow what the authors actually did. I speculate that soon reviewers will need to review code in addition to methods section, which I can appreciate will be a lot of work. However, as I’ve seen papers grow in scope and scale over the years, we as reviewers will also need to adapt to ensure the manuscripts sent to us are sound, rigorous and reproducible.

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

I appreciate eNeuro’s commitment to keeping reviewers on time! As a working researcher, my schedule and email inbox can get crowded. Where some other journals have uninvited me or told me my review is no longer needed if I miss a deadline, I can tell that eNeuro staff really care about getting fair and timely reviews on their manuscript. Their gentle reminders and clarity about deadlines are helpful for the busy reviewer!

You are a graduate of SfN’s Reviewer Mentor Program (RMP). 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?

I completed the RMP under the guidance of Dr. Kumar Narayanan when I was between my PhD and postdoc. I had reviewed papers with my PhD mentor before and with my postdoc mentor since, however the RMP allowed me to gain independence as a reviewer and learn from an expert that was outside my specific subfield. I highly recommend the program, even for senior trainees who may feel like they have enough experience with their in-lab mentors.

What inspired you to join eNeuro’s new Board of Associate Reviewers?

I’m honored to join eNeuro’s inaugural board of Associate Reviewers. When I first heard about the opportunity it sounded like a great way to get involved with academic publishing. I had already reviewed several times for eNeuro, but as a junior trainee who had just begun solo reviewing this board gave me the chance to get more involved. I look forward to reviewing and staying engaged with eNeuro and SfN.

Dominic J. Acri
Postdoctoral fellow
Cell Biology and Gene Expression Section at the Laboratory of Neurogenetics
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health

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.