In 2024, JTD reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
January, 2024
Luca Voltolini, Careggi University Hospital, Italy
February, 2024
Kenneth A. Kesler, Indiana University, USA
March, 2024
Juan P. Cata, MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA
April, 2024
Masashi Furukawa, University of Pittsburgh, USA
May, 2024
Teruhiko Imamura, University of Toyama, Japan
January, 2024
Luca Voltolini
Dr. Luca Voltolini is Associate Professor in the Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. He was Director of Lung Transplantation Unit at Siena University Hospital from 2012 to 2014, and has become the Director of Thoracic Surgery Unit, Careggi University Hospital since 2014. His research area and projects are multimodality approach to lung tumors and thymic neoplasms, complex airway reconstruction, VATS segmentectomy, and HITHOC in malignant mesothelioma. He was also the author of 143 scientific publications, 1 monography and 5 book chapters, and member of the editorial board of the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery (2017-2023) and the Journal of Thoracic Disease (JTD).
According to Dr. Voltolini, as a reviewer, being the first to read a paper and critically evaluating other clinicians’ papers is a good way to learn how to write a good paper.
“I choose to review for JTD as it is growing greatly in terms of scientific quality of publications. I believe all clinicians who want to submit papers for publication should have an interest in the review process,” says Dr. Voltolini .
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Kenneth A. Kesler
Following cardiothoracic surgery residency, Dr. Kenneth A. Kesler had a 35-year tenure at Indiana University School of Medicine as an academic thoracic surgeon ultimately rising to be named the Harris B. Shumacker professor of surgery. During his tenure, he authored or co-authored over 300 peer-reviewed manuscripts, abstracts, and invited book chapters. Dr. Kesler’s research efforts have focused on thoracic oncology and thoracic surgery. His main interests include the development of surgical techniques for challenging mediastinal, esophageal, and lung neoplasms. Based on his expertise, he has given numerous invited talks at major national and international meetings. More recently, Dr. Kesler has been appointed as the thoracic surgical director of the Community Health Care Network of the state of Indiana, US.
Dr. Kesler indicates that peer reviewers are typically invited for their known expertise in the subject material under consideration. Prior to review, some reviewers therefore may be inclined to agree with the submitted subject matter. On the other hand, some reviewers may be inclined to disagree with submitted subject matter. Despite any prior positive or negative perceptions, it is important for peer reviewers to maintain an open-minded and unbiased approach to their analysis which may be difficult at times, for example, when content might challenge “conventional wisdom”. Arguably, by far and away, this represents the most common source of “conflict of interest” which obviously cannot be assessed.
“Peer review can be looked upon as a time consuming and even a ‘thankless’ task by otherwise busy individuals. Accordingly, this recognition by the Journal of Thoracic Diseases will be appreciated by many reviewers. Needless to say, thoughtful and expert peer review is important to maintain the quality and integrity of our collective scientific efforts. Along these same lines, high-quality peer review keeps our thought leadership in the best direction possible. Finally, in the process of analyzing content and scientific reasoning created by other individuals in a similar field of interest, peer review not infrequently serves as an excellent learning experience for the reviewers themselves,” says Dr. Kesler.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Juan P. Cata
Juan P. Cata received his M.D. degree at the Universidad Católica de Córdoba in Argentina, followed by a Residency in Anesthesiology also in Argentina. In 2001, he moved to Houston for a post-doctoral fellowship in neuroscience at the University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center. Then, he completed residency in Anesthesiology at the Cleveland Clinic where he also served as an Attending Anesthesiologist in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Outcomes Research. He is now a Tenured Associate Professor at the Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine at the University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center where he serves as Vice-Chair for Clinical Research. He has published 247 peer-reviewed manuscripts and written more than a dozen of book chapters. His research has been funded by NIH, foundations and industry. His primary research interest is in perioperative outcomes in patients with cancer. He has been PI, Co-PI or Site Director of clinical studies published in JAMA, The Lancet, Annals of Surgical Oncology and Anesthesiology.
In Dr. Cata’s opinion, peer review is a crucial process for the advancement, dissemination and integrity of science and integrity. Rigorous evaluation of scientific reports ensures that the research meets certain standards of quality, significance, and originality.
An objective review, according to Dr. Cata, is essential for credibility and trustworthiness of the scientific process. Objectivity can be attained by establishing respectful communication, providing high-level of scrutinization of methods and results presented in the manuscript and following guidelines provided by journals or editorial boards.
“I will say to all reviewers playing that in times like this in which science has been under scrutinization, our role is to identify potential bias, conflicts of interest, or ethical concerns in submitted manuscripts. To warrant that the process remains objective, experienced reviewers should dedicate time to teach and mentor new scientists in the peer-review process,” says Dr. Cata.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Masashi Furukawa
Dr. Masashi Furukawa is an Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, specializing in thoracic surgery with a focus on lung cancer and lung transplantation. He earned his MD and PhD at Okayama University. After rigorous training in thoracic surgery and lung transplantation, he has dedicated his career to improving clinical outcomes and developing new lung transplant techniques and management. His research also addresses managing complications such as bronchial complications and esophageal dysmotility. Dr. Furukawa has published extensively on topics including donation after circulatory death and induction immunosuppression therapy in lung transplantation. He is passionate about enhancing patient care and advancing surgical methods in thoracic surgery. Learn more about him here.
JTD: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Furukawa: A healthy peer-review system should have transparency, constructive feedback, timeliness, expertise, anonymity, ethical standards, and diverse perspectives. Transparency ensures clear guidelines and impartiality, while constructive feedback helps improve the manuscript. Timeliness prevents delays, and expertise ensures accurate evaluation. Anonymity reduces bias, and ethical standards maintain confidentiality. Diverse perspectives provide well-rounded evaluations. This balance of rigor and fairness enhances research quality and supports authors in improving their work.
JTD: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Furukawa: Reviewers should maintain objectivity and confidentiality, providing constructive and respectful feedback. They need to disclose any conflicts of interest, evaluate the relevance and originality of the research, ensure clarity and methodological rigor, and complete the review promptly to avoid delays.
JTD: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Furukawa: Despite peer reviewing being anonymous and non-profitable, I am motivated to do so to contribute to my field, enhance my professional development, support the academic community, network with fellow researchers, and gain personal fulfillment from improving research quality.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Teruhiko Imamura
Dr. Teruhiko Imamura, MD, PhD, serves as a clinician-researcher focusing on cardiovascular medicine and working at the University of Toyama, Japan. He is an expert in advanced heart failure, particularly mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation. He has published >700 academic papers about cardiovascular medicines, is >5 fellows of academic societies, completed >1000 formal academic presentations, conducted >1000 peer reviews, and received >80 awards. His current concern is how to construct therapeutic strategies incorporating recently introduced medications, non-invasive modalities for disease assessments, and percutaneous/surgical interventions. He has also a great concern about the study collaboration with other researchers. Learn more about him here.
“Science should not be selfish,” says Dr. Imamura. However, in most cases, he sees that researchers often tend to be selfish if they work alone. They believe that their findings are perfect. Therefore, he indicates that such findings should be peer-reviewed by other researchers and receive various criticisms. In peer-review process, the findings could be further enhanced and become more sophisticated after these peer reviews and dedicated discussion between the authors and reviewers. On the contrary, reviewers also can learn how to research. Such knowledge further improves reviewers’ daily workings.
To make sure his review is objective, he does not check the name or affiliation of the authors at first. Second, he focuses on the scientific findings alone avoiding emotional review as a pure scientist. Third, as a reviewer, instead of an editor, he just lists good points, bad points, and uncertain points. At the same time, he does not mention the acceptability of the draft.
“I sincerely express my great appreciation for peer review. I have published many academic papers. I believe that they are the products of collaboration between me and the reviewers. A good academic paper cannot be published by good researcher alone. I believe that reviewers should receive more honoraria or awards in the future. The peer review is the great work that should be more praised,” says Dr. Imamura.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
