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

June, 2024
Gabriele Piffaretti, University of Insubria School of Medicine, Italy

July, 2024
Naoya Kitamura, Toyama University Hospital, Japan

September, 2024
Seung Keun Yoon, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Korea

October, 2024
Takuya Watanabe, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, 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)

June, 2024

Gabriele Piffaretti

Dr. Gabriele Piffaretti currently serves as an Associate Professor of Vascular Surgery at Department of Medicine and Surgery in University of Insubria School of Medicine. He is also the Associate Editor of European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (Vascular domain), Archives of Medical Sciences and Italian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. His area of interests covers over arch, thoracic and thoracoabdominal surgery (conventional, endovascular, hybrid), peripheral revascularization (conventional, endovascular, hybrid) and carotid artery surgery.

He is a member of Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare [S.I.C.V.E.] and Cardiothoracic Surgery Network [CTSNet]. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Piffaretti thinks that it is always funny, useful and exciting to make a review that must be tightly adherent to the area of interest. This is the most important, if not the only one important, aspect when accepting and accomplishing a review.

In Dr. Piffaretti’s opinion, the qualities a reviewer should possess are great expertise in the area, awareness of statistical fundamentals, and high efficiency in accepting and doing a revision. Based on the previous aspects, he reckons that a very first revision may not be in-depth and detailed, but it must declare a potential interest in a final acceptance whose positive outcome may then pass through a second, slightly more detailed review. However, never go beyond two revisions.

Speaking of the importance for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB), Dr. Piffaretti says, “I personally, sincerely, and strongly believe that passing through an IRB is a fundamental step for specific type of paper such as new techniques, and new technologies. RCT deserves (obviously) an IRB approval.” He indicates that the cornerstone here, and the most critical aspect at least in most institutions, is that Ethics Committees (ECs) must be as fast as possible in analysing and eventually approving each type of study. Science must be respectful but it “should not” wait for the administrative bureaucratic delays that almost always burden ECs. Then, there are substantial differences across countries, and some other type of study such as retrospective study may not necessitate long evaluation through IRB and/or EC.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

July, 2024

Naoya Kitamura

Naoya Kitamura, MD, is a thoracic surgeon in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Toyama University Hospital. He graduated from the University of Toyama Faculty of Medicine in 2014 and holds several medical specialties, including Board Certified Thoracic Surgeon from the Japanese Association for Chest Surgery, Board Certified Bronchoscopy Specialist from the Japan Society for Respiratory Endoscopy, and Board-Certified Member of the Japanese Respiratory Society. His basic research focuses on bioengineering and lung transplantation, particularly the decellularization and recellularization of rat lungs. A major future challenge is to 'humanize' and perfect the rat lung through recellularization. Recently, he has also concentrated on educating young thoracic surgeons and on the activities of clinical research groups collaborating with other centres. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Kitamura believes that a constructive review provides concrete indicators for improving the quality of the paper and offers specific suggestions for how these improvements can be made. It is important to clearly indicate what improvements are needed and to suggest ways to achieve them. Additionally, using courteous language and respecting the author's efforts, even when making critical comments, is essential. On the contrary, a destructive review is consistently negative in its assessment of the article and tends to denigrate the author's work, and in some cases, their ability and personality. A destructive review also lacks clear reasoning, even when improvements are needed, and may use offensive language that undermines the significance of the research.

Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Kitamura reckons that firstly, there is the problem of author bias, which could be addressed by introducing double-blind reviews to ensure anonymity for both authors and reviewers. Secondly, variation in the quality of reviews is also a concern. This issue may stem from not only the quality of the reviewers but also the excessive burden placed on them. In addition to ensuring transparency by making the peer-review process public, one solution could be to increase the pool of reviewers, provide incentives for reviewing, and motivate reviewers to participate without becoming overburdened.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

September, 2024

Seung Keun Yoon

Dr. Seung Keun Yoon currently serves as an Assistant Clinical Professor at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea. His clinical expertise spans various thoracic conditions, including lung cancer, mediastinal tumors, thoracic trauma, and chest wall deformities. He is dedicated to delivering personalized, patient-centered care, tailoring treatment strategies to the specific needs of each individual. To this end, he actively engages with the latest advancements and research trends in his field, ensuring that his clinical practice remains informed by cutting-edge developments and evidence-based methodologies. Recently, he has also developed an interest in overcoming the limitations of single-institution studies by preparing for multi-center prospective studies and meta-analyses. Through these efforts, he aims to contribute more robust and generalizable findings to the field of thoracic surgery.

Dr. Yoon believes that peer review is one of the most crucial components in academic research today. While an unstable peer-review system may carry risks of misuse, a well-structured and systematic approach can offer researchers the benefit of constructive criticism, enhancing the clarity and rigor of their work. From his own experience, such constructive peer reviews significantly improve the quality of the research and help researchers develop stronger research capabilities. Moreover, from the perspective of academic journals, this system helps ensure that higher-quality research papers are published, thereby elevating the journal's overall standards.

A destructive review, in Dr. Yoon’s opinion, stands in complete opposition to a constructive review in every aspect. While a constructive review aims to identify issues and areas for improvement in a study, offering guidance on how to address these shortcomings to elevate the quality of the research, a destructive review dismisses the researcher’s work without offering meaningful critique. It focuses solely on negative criticism, often discouraging the researcher and ultimately undermining the quality of the research. Such reviews stifle the researcher’s motivation and do little to contribute to the advancement of the field.

“I chose to review for JTD because it aligns closely with my professional interests. The journal provides me with continuous access to the latest research trends through the numerous studies actively submitted, which I greatly appreciate, as it helps me enhance both my knowledge and clinical practice. JTD's constructive peer-review process has contributed to the improvement of my own research and helped me develop my research capabilities. Although I am still growing as a researcher, I wish to contribute to enhancing others' research and research abilities through constructive reviews, just as I have benefited from them,” says Dr. Yoon.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

October, 2024

Takuya Watanabe

Dr. Takuya Watanabe works at Division of Thoracic Surgery, Respiratory Disease Center, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital. His research area covers Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery, Uniportal VATS, Surgery for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer, and Lung Cancer Oncology. His recent projects include national database study of uniportal VATS in Japan, and survey research on uniportal VATS education, etc. Learn more about him from his YouTube channel @Nabetaku Channel.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Watanabe: Peer review is essential to ensure the quality and reliability of scientific research and publications. Here’s why it is important:

1. Quality improvement: peer review involves experts evaluating a paper to confirm its accuracy and overall quality. This process helps authors identify missing information or logical inconsistencies, leading to an improved final manuscript.
2. Credibility and transparency: passing peer review is evidence that the research has been evaluated by experts in the field and is considered trustworthy.
3. Contribution to the scientific community: peer review ensures that the paper contributes meaningfully to the wider scientific field. Reviewers provide feedback and suggestions that help shape the research into a resource that benefits others.
4. Error prevention: reviewers can identify errors or biases that the authors may have overlooked, preventing flawed information from being published.
5. Advancement of knowledge: a fair and rigorous peer-review process promotes high-quality research and supports scientific advancement.

These factors make peer review an essential step for maintaining the standards and trustworthiness of the scientific literature.

JTD: Why do you choose to review for JTD?

Dr. Watanabe: It is because JTD allows me to review a wide range of thoracic diseases. The journal offers not only original research but also many insightful articles on surgical techniques and editorials. The peer-review process for JTD also contributes significantly to my own learning and professional development.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)