Featured Publications

Gut bacteria-derived succinate induces enteric nervous system regeneration

Epithelial and stromal remodelling in murine Crohn’s disease- like ileitis

The way you move.

Enteric glial hub cells coordinate intestinal motility

Scientific publishing should be about communicating discovery — clearly, openly, and fairly. In practice, the system often falls short: peer review is opaque, access is paywalled, and evaluation gets distorted by journal prestige rather than scientific rigor. We’re not satisfied with the status quo, and we try to act accordingly.

The Scavuzzo Lab follows these practices:

1. We only review work available on a preprint server. If it’s not openly accessible, we decline.
2. We post our reviews publicly and sign them. No anonymous gatekeeping.
3. We post our own manuscripts to preprint servers at all stages, in line with HHMI policy so our work is available immediately, not locked behind publication timelines.
4. We evaluate work on the strength of its data, not the prestige of its destination. If a claim isn’t fully supported by the experimental evidence provided, we say so and ask authors to either revise the claim or provide the data to back it up. We do not demand experiments that go beyond what authors are claiming; scope creep in peer review undermines the process.

We approach peer review as collaborators, not gatekeepers. Our goal is to give authors the kind of honest, constructive feedback we’d want to receive ourselves.