Rowland Hall’s list of published student researchers continues to grow.

Just three months into 2026, research conducted by two Advanced Research Biology groups during the 2024–2025 school year had been published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal. These mark the fourth and fifth published papers based on student research in AR Biology (or, prior to 2023, post-Advanced Topics in Biology).

Listen to this story | Subscribe on Apple Podcasts

The first, a research article published on February 14 and based on work carried out by Raphael Andreae ’25, Noah Bikhazi ’25, and Ivan Wang ’25, is titled “FOXM1 Signaling Network Transcriptionally Upregulates Expression of Proteins Involved in Mitotic Progression to Induce High Proliferation and Chromosomal Instability in Androgen Receptor-Low Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.” The second, a review article published on March 10 and based on research by Sophie Hu-Lieskovan ’25, Olivia Banks ’25, and Rose Davidson ’25, is titled “Margin of Error: The Emerging Role of Field Cancerization in Predicting Recurrence Risk of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.” Both papers were written in collaboration with AR Biology teacher Dr. Padmashree Rida and Dr. Nikita Jinna, a cancer researcher at City of Hope, CA.

Sharing research findings is an essential component of Rowland Hall’s AR program, allowing students to connect their work to real-world questions and contribute meaningful knowledge to academic and public conversations.

Sharing research findings publicly is an essential component of Rowland Hall’s AR program, and it takes many forms, from professional conferences to editorials to lectures. (Check out the various ways this year’s AR students shared their research.) This public component of the AR experience allows students to connect their work to real-world questions and contribute meaningful knowledge to academic and public conversations. Helping students get comfortable joining these conversations is especially important to Dr. Rida, who views the open sharing of research findings as a core responsibility of scientific practice.

“My PhD advisor used to say, ‘When you have data, you shouldn’t let it sit on the shelf,’” she said. “Even if your findings are small, or if they’re negative, they’re still informative and you’re obliged to return them back to the public so no one wastes time and resources asking the same questions.”

It’s no mystery, then, why Dr. Rida encourages her young researchers to translate their findings, first presented as posters at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Annual Meeting, into journal articles that can inform other scholars. These students have read and synthesized hundreds of academic articles, putting them in an excellent position to consolidate existing research to help identify gaps in collective knowledge or point the biomedical science field toward future work. It’s a meaningful extension of the students’ studies that, for those whose research advances to journal publication, also provides a rare early chance to engage in the peer-review process.

Essential to academic research, the peer-review process is a multi-step procedure that kicks off when an academic journal accepts a manuscript for consideration. In the sciences, it begins with an integrity check that screens for plagiarism, AI use, and manipulated images. Once a manuscript passes that stage, an editor sends it to two or three independent experts, each of whom evaluates its strengths and weaknesses and may request additional experiments, analyses, or revisions. Researchers must then address and document each piece of feedback before resubmitting for the next round of review. Dr. Rida calls the process the bedrock of research science, ensuring the rigor of a paper’s claims, data, methodology, interpretations, and conclusions.

“It’s such a vital safeguard, especially when your findings can affect public health policy and the direction of clinical research,” she said.

The chance to engage in this process at such a young age speaks to these emerging scholars’ dedication. Because their time in AR Biology is focused on gathering and interpreting data, the decision to submit findings to an academic journal happens in the months following graduation, often into the researchers’ first year of college. Those in the “Margin of Error” group, for instance, submitted their manuscript to the IJMS in January, meaning they worked on the manuscript while also managing college courses and other commitments. When they received their initial response in February, quickly followed by a substantial first round of edits that butted against midterms, they came together to address every item within the one-week deadline.

“It was incredibly strenuous,” said Sophie. “I never realized the time pressure, because of how quickly you have to do revisions. And everything has to be tracked. If you move a single word, it has to be tracked.”

In addition to content adjustments, the group faced the challenge of updating several figures, as well as pivoting toward a more clinical audience, a shift that proved difficult given their stage of training and the limits of a high school research setting. But they were up to the challenge and, with strong support from their mentors, each took on a portion of the revisions. The group regularly gathered on FaceTime to strategize, often with backgrounds showing dorm rooms strewn with highlighted research articles.

“It was a challenge, especially not having dedicated class time to work on it,” said Rose. “I had to manage my time with my other schoolwork. A lot of my classes are in the morning, then I’d immediately come back to my dorm and focus, get locked in, and get as much done as I could.”

The experience also reinforced one of the team’s most meaningful takeaways: the opportunity to practice accepting professional feedback, an essential but often underappreciated skill in research. When coaching young scientists on this aspect of the peer-review process, Dr. Rida reminds them to assume positive intent and see feedback as both an avenue to strengthen their work now and as practice for future experiences, like receiving instructions from a supervisor or defending a thesis. “It’s not a critique of you as a scientist, but of the work,” she said.

For Olivia, the process was interesting and positive, particularly in how it improved the quality of the manuscript. “It was one of the only times in my life that I’ve received feedback that is so honest, from someone who is invested in the work you put out through the journal,” she said. Rose added, “It helped level up the paper so it was significantly better, pointing out things that were overlooked or weaknesses that could be strengthened.”

Though challenging, the group’s first exposure to editing their manuscript greatly prepared them for the second round of feedback, which came less than 24 hours after they submitted their updated draft. Then, on March 5, they learned their paper had been accepted for publication.

Knowing we actually did something to advance cancer research, however small, was surreal.—Sophie Hu-Lieskovan ’25

“It was wonderful,” Olivia said of learning the news. “We spent so much time working toward this goal, to get published, but it was also a sense that we’ve contributed something and done some good.”

Sophie echoed that sentiment. “It was important to get this research out,” she said. “You never know, someone might be working on this, and this paper might be exactly what they’re looking for. Knowing we actually did something to advance cancer research, however small, was surreal.”

That sense of contribution is something the group doesn’t take lightly, especially given how rare this kind of opportunity is at their age.

“It was very valuable to have done this during such a formative time,” said Olivia, who’s seen the academic process both romanticized and demonized and is grateful to have a real-world experience to inform her. “Getting an actual picture, not from secondhand experience but by doing it yourself, is incredibly valuable in figuring out your future direction.”

And when it comes to those future directions, the group said AR Biology played a major role there too, shaping their choice of college majors (Sophie and Rose are premed; Olivia is double majoring in biology and computer science) and strengthening their confidence in themselves as scientists.

“Confidence is the biggest thing anyone can take out of any of the AR classes,” said Sophie, who took on a teaching assistant role in her first year at the University of Utah—an opportunity she said she wouldn’t have pursued without the subject matter confidence gained through AR Biology.

“AR Biology showed me what I’m capable of doing.”

Banner photo: 2024–2025 AR Biology students at the 2025 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting.