In 2025, 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.

Simone Furia, Ospedale dell’Angelo Venezia-Mestre, Italy

Andrei I. Gritsiuta, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA

Atsuto Katano, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Japan

Fayez Kheir, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA

Federico Monaca, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy

Peter Kardos, Hospital-based Group Practice, Germany

Shota Yamamoto, University of Wisconsin, USA

Takashi Murashita, Washington University, USA

Nuttapol Rittayamai, Mahidol University, Thailand

Donatas Zalepugas, Helios Hospital Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, Germany

Fiona L Day, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Australia

Haralabos Parissis, Royal Victoria Hospital, UK

Jacob Hessey, University of South Carolina, USA

Murat Yildiz, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Sze Yuen Peter Yu, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Michael Shackcloth, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, UK

Ryo Nonomura, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University Hospital, Japan

Sebastian Reindl, University Hospital Augsburg, Germany

Nika Samadzadeh Tabrizi, Cleveland Clinic, USA

Simone Furia

Simone Furia, MD, PhD, works at Thoracic Surgery Unit of Ospedale dell’Angelo Venezia-Mestre, Italy, since 2017. He earned his medical degree in 2002 at the University of Milan and completed his Residency in Thoracic Surgery at the University of Verona in 2008. From 2009, he worked at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (INT), where in 2013, he obtained his PhD degree with research about reconstructive techniques and physiopathology of new materials in Thoracic Surgery. From 2015 to 2017, he joined the Thoracic Department of the Hospital of Perigueux, France. He is engaged in research projects on the clinical aspects of thoracic oncology, in which his interests range from minimally-invasive surgical techniques to recent developments in chemo- and immunotherapy treatments against thoracic neoplasms. He is credited by ResearchGate with peer-reviewed publications and citations, attaining an h-index of 8. Learn more about him on ResearchGate.

JTD: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?

Dr. Furia: Peer review is the expert evaluation of material submitted for publication. The reviewer is recruited by the publisher on the basis of his/her output, which is evidence of his/her experience in that particular field. In addition, the reviewer acts as a support to the author by making constructive criticisms of the paper. The system must be based on two fundamental pillars: plurality and gratuity. Incorporating a plurality of different points of view in the peer-review process enhances the quality and integrity of academic publications. Gratuity guarantees the credibility of the results provided by the revised study.

JTD: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Furia: Reviewers are often motivated by a genuine interest in the subject. There is also intrinsic motivation in knowing that one’s feedback can help improve a paper, guide an author’s work, and influence the advancement of knowledge. In my opinion, reviewing documents stimulates my curiosity and allows me to discover emerging trends, new research findings and innovative methodologies that I would not otherwise have encountered to expand my knowledge base.

JTD: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?

Dr. Furia: Reviewing papers is considered an important part of academic service. Reviewers may feel a sense of duty to support the academic community by ensuring that only quality research gets published, which helps maintain the integrity of academic journals. Data sharing is essential to the advancement of science and the development of new knowledge. It fosters transparency, collaboration, innovation, and efficiency, all of which accelerate the pace of discovery. While there are challenges to overcome, the benefits far outweigh the obstacles, and a growing number of initiatives are making data sharing easier and more accessible. It’s a critical practice for promoting openness and advancing research in any field.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Andrei I. Gritsiuta

Dr. Andrei Gritsiuta, MD, PhD, is a general surgery resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA, with extensive expertise in cardiothoracic surgery and clinical research. He earned his medical degree from Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia and completed a residency and fellowship in thoracic surgery at the Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center. Subsequently, he pursued a postdoctoral fellowship in lung biology at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Gritsiuta has trained at several world-renowned institutions, including Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Rush University Medical Center, and the University of Basel. He also completed a specialized robotic thymectomy course at the Charité Clinic in Berlin. His research focuses on advancing minimally invasive and robotic thoracic surgery techniques to enhance patient outcomes. Moving forward, he will continue his training in cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, where he aims to further contribute to surgical innovation and patient care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Gritsiuta: A good reviewer needs a solid grasp of the subject matter to properly evaluate the research, assess the methodology, and determine its clinical relevance. Being objective and fair is essential, as reviewers should provide honest and constructive feedback that helps improve the work while respecting the effort of the authors. Attention to detail is crucial for identifying flaws, inconsistencies, or gaps in the research. Integrity and ethics are also fundamental, as reviewers must maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and uphold the credibility of the peer-review process. Good communication skills are necessary to deliver feedback that is clear, helpful, and encouraging rather than just pointing out mistakes. At the end of the day, a great reviewer is not only a gatekeeper for scientific quality but also plays an important role in mentoring and advancing research.

JTD: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?

Dr. Gritsiuta: Getting IRB approval is a crucial step for any research involving human subjects. It’s not just a bureaucratic hurdle, it ensures that studies are conducted ethically, safely, and responsibly. The IRB helps protect participants by making sure risks are minimized, consent is properly obtained, and vulnerable groups are safeguarded. Skipping this step can lead to serious consequences. Without IRB approval, a study might be unpublishable, funding could be pulled, and institutions could impose penalties. More importantly, it could put participants at risk and damage trust in the research community. Journals, conferences, and funding bodies almost always require IRB approval, so there’s no shortcut here. In the end, IRB approval isn’t just about compliance—it’s about ensuring research is done the right way to benefit both science and the people it aims to help.

JTD: Would you like to say a few words to other reviewers?

Dr. Gritsiuta: To all reviewers who dedicate their time and expertise to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes—your work is invaluable. The peer-review process is the backbone of academic integrity, ensuring that research is rigorous, reliable, and impactful. Your meticulous evaluations, constructive feedback, and commitment to scientific excellence help shape the future of medicine and research. While your contributions may often go unnoticed, they are deeply appreciated by authors, journals, and the broader scientific community. Keep up the incredible work, knowing that your efforts are driving innovation, improving patient care, and upholding the highest standards of scholarship. Thank you for your dedication!

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Atsuto Katano

Atsuto Katano, MD, PhD, is a radiation oncologist with expertise in advanced radiotherapy techniques, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). He has extensive clinical experience in thoracic radiation therapy, particularly in the treatment of lung and esophageal cancers. With a strong foundation in medicine and physics, he applies a multidisciplinary approach to optimizing radiotherapy strategies. His recent work focuses on stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in various malignancies, evaluating its efficacy, toxicity, and clinical applications. He has received multiple awards, including the Best Oral Presentation Award from the Asian Oncology Society and the Platinum Medal from the Japan Radiological Society.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Katano: A reviewer should possess strong ethics, expertise, fairness, and a constructive approach. Peer review is a crucial mechanism for ensuring the quality and integrity of academic research, playing a key role in maintaining the accuracy and reliability of scientific findings. Therefore, a high sense of ethics is essential. This includes maintaining confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and providing an objective and unbiased evaluation.

JTD: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Katano: Consistently dedicating even small amounts of time to peer review is essential. Rather than waiting for long, uninterrupted periods, I prioritize short, regular time slots in my schedule. This approach allows me to contribute to the scientific community without compromising my clinical and research responsibilities. Peer review plays a vital role in upholding research quality, and by making it a continuous habit, I can stay actively engaged while effectively balancing my other commitments.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Fayez Kheir

Fayez Kheir, MD, MSc, works at Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He is an interventional pulmonologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. He holds a master in clinical research and attended medical education scholars’ program. He has served on numerous editorial boards and guidelines panel. Dr. Kheir’s research focuses on developing and testing minimally invasive procedures in interventional pulmonary focusing on patient-relevant outcomes. He is an active speaker, mentor and has been involved in multiple clinical guidelines. He has designed multiple medical trials, invited reviewer for multiple medical journals, and leads as well as co-authored over 130 manuscripts.

Dr. Kheir emphasizes that reviewers play a crucial role in safeguarding the quality, integrity, and practical utility of a published study for daily clinical practice. Reviewers ought to be experts in the specific research area they are asked to evaluate. They need to offer appropriate feedback that facilitates the improvement of the manuscript, demonstrate critical thinking by discerning both the strengths and weaknesses of the study, strictly adhere to the timeline set by the journal, and communicate their comments to the authors in a clear and highly detailed fashion.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Kheir stresses that obtaining approval from the institutional review board (IRB) is a fundamental and indispensable step in conducting human research. This approval ensures that studies adhere to ethical standards and regulatory requirements, while also protecting the rights, welfare, and overall well-being of the participants. Neglecting the IRB approval process can result in severe consequences, including violations of ethical norms, doubts being cast on the credibility of published data, infringement of patient rights, and damage to the credibility of the authors and their affiliated institutions.

“Engaging in peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process as it enhances the quality of research, disseminates knowledge accurately and reliably, ensures the integrity of the published manuscript as well as contributes to translating such finding into daily clinical practice by physicians,” says Dr. Kheir

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Federico Monaca

Dr. Federico Monaca graduated in 2012 from the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Rome. He completed his residency at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli with top honors, earning full marks cum laude. Currently, he serves as a Senior Clinical Research Fellow at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. At the Trust, he leads clinical and translational research projects centered on identifying predictive factors of response in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. He is also a PhD candidate, and his research focuses on exploring the role of cancer stem cells in lung cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. He has authored over 25 publications, including abstracts and peer-reviewed papers, and has contributed as a sub-investigator to more than 40 clinical trials. This extensive engagement in clinical research has been a cornerstone of his career thus far. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Monaca believes peer review is fundamental to scientific integrity and progress. Acting as a quality-control measure, it verifies research is robust, accurate, and credible prior to publication. When manuscripts are examined by field experts, methodological flaws, inconsistencies, or reasoning gaps that could undermine findings' validity can be identified. Peer review also boosts the trustworthiness of published work, assuring the scientific community and public that research meets established rigor and ethics standards. This process safeguards science's reliability and spurs collaboration and innovation through constructive feedback, enhancing work quality. Additionally, peer review is crucial for accountability, as researchers know their work will be evaluated by peers, thus motivating them to uphold high standards.

To reduce biases in peer review, Dr. Monaca emphasizes evaluating manuscripts solely on scientific merit, methodology, and relevance, regardless of authors' affiliations or reputations. He actively combats unconscious biases by separating personal preferences from the review. He adheres to journal guidelines for fair and consistent evaluations. If a conflict of interest arises, he discloses it to the editorial team and, if needed, steps aside from the review to preserve the process's integrity. Ensuring a proper peer-review process for all is essential, so as not to penalize authors with potentially valuable work.

“Balancing my roles as a scientist and doctor demands careful time management, and I view peer review as an important part of my professional duties. I allocate time by treating it as part of my contribution to the scientific community, often dedicating specific hours during quieter periods of my schedule. Prioritization is key. I assess the urgency of the review request and only accept assignments when I am confident I can deliver a thorough and timely evaluation without compromising my other responsibilities. Peer review, while time-consuming, is an integral part of advancing science, and I consider it a worthwhile investment in the field,” says Dr. Monaca.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Peter Kardos

Peter Kardos, MD, is affiliated with the Hospital-based Group Practice in the field of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Allergology at Lungenzentrum Maingau in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. He serves as the First Author of the German Cough Guidelines (last updated in 2025) and holds the position of National Leader in the ERS NEuroCOUGH Clinical Research Initiative. Moreover, he is a member of the Board of Directors of the German Airway League and an Honorary Member of the German Respiratory Society.

In Dr. Kardos’ view, a peer reviewer should provide comments that help improve the quality of the respective publication. Even though bias is inevitable, he believes it is still the best instrument we have to ensure credibility, quality and reliability in scientific publications.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shota Yamamoto

Shota Yamamoto is a research member in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He obtained his MD from Yamaguchi University and his PhD from Tokai University. His research traverses the entire spectrum from bench to bedside, with a focus on uncovering the mechanisms underlying lung inflammation and fibrosis. Specifically, he delves into collagen turnover within the extracellular matrix of the pulmonary interstitium. He also examines both qualitative and quantitative alterations in the extracellular matrix structure. To achieve this, he utilizes second harmonic generation imaging on matrices derived from lung fibroblasts, in tandem with proteomics approaches that incorporate both top-down and bottom-up strategies. In the realm of clinical research, he is actively engaged in developing clinical practice guidelines through systematic reviews and meta - analyses. Dr. Yamamoto's interdisciplinary approach effectively bridges the gap between basic science and clinical applications. His ultimate goal is to deepen the understanding of pulmonary diseases and, in turn, improve patient care. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Yamamoto believes that a constructive review furnishes clear, evidence-based feedback. Such feedback not only pinpoints the weaknesses or limitations of a manuscript but also proffers actionable suggestions for enhancement. It strikes a balance and is respectful, with the intention of elevating the quality and lucidity of the research. Conversely, a destructive review typically fixates solely on the negative elements, refraining from providing any guidance. Moreover, it frequently employs harsh or dismissive language, which can demoralize authors and impede the refinement of their work.

In Dr. Yamamoto’s opinion, peer review serves as the cornerstone of scientific rigor. It functions as a quality-control process that verifies the validity, originality, and significance of research findings before publication. By involving experts in the field, peer review ensures that studies meet high methodological standards, promotes transparency, and fosters an environment of constructive criticism. This critical appraisal ultimately builds trust in the scientific literature and drives the continuous improvement of research.

“I choose to review for JTD because it is at the forefront of advancing research in respiratory diseases—a field of immense clinical and scientific importance. JTD’s commitment to soliciting high-quality, global articles, with a particular emphasis on contributions from East Asia, not only enriches the diversity of perspectives but also facilitates the dissemination of innovative ideas across international borders. This approach aligns closely with my passion for fostering meaningful advancements in the field,” says Dr. Yamamoto.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Takashi Murashita

Takashi Murashita is an assistant professor of the Department of Surgery at Washington University in Saint Louis. He is a cardiac surgeon with 20 years of experience in practicing medicine, and his major duty is the clinical management of adult patients with cardiovascular disease. He treats conditions such as aortic disease, valvular disease, coronary artery disease, arrhythmia, and heart failure. He is the director of surgical treatment for coronary artery disease. His expertise is coronary artery bypass grafting with multi-arterial grafts. His previous research focused on the clinical outcomes of surgical treatment for cardiovascular diseases. He has published over 60 scientific papers in peer-reviewed medical journals, and a total of 12 book chapters. He is an ad hoc manuscript reviewer for over 15 journals.

“Reviewing papers helps me learn new things. Peer review is one of my priorities in my works,” says Dr. Murashita, who points out that a reviewer should be willing to learn new things, since it is a good opportunity to know the most updated literature. Reviewers should take appropriate time to review papers multiple times and be objective in interpreting the result of studies.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Murashita stresses that it is crucial for authors to share their research data, because some studies would benefit from statistical reviews. That would eliminate a subjectivity from studies. Also, reviewers are not always able to tell if the statistical method was correct.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Nuttapol Rittayamai

Nuttapol Rittayamai, MD, serves as an Associate Professor of Pulmonary Medicine within the Division of Respiratory Disease and Tuberculosis at the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. His research endeavors are centered around noninvasive respiratory support, with a special emphasis on high-flow oxygen therapy. Additionally, he delves into respiratory physiology in mechanically ventilated patients and the study of respiratory muscle function in COPD. To date, he has published more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, contributing significantly to the field of pulmonary medicine.

Dr. Rittayamai believes that peer review is a vital process. It enables experts in a particular field to assess the quality and transparency of a manuscript comprehensively. During this process, not only is the research methodology scrutinized, but ethical aspects are also evaluated. By doing so, it upholds high-quality standards within the scientific literature, fostering trustworthiness among researchers and the broader scientific community. This is essential as it ensures that the knowledge disseminated through scientific publications is reliable and based on sound principles.

In Dr. Rittayamai’s opinion, biases in peer review can be mitigated. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should disclose it prior to accepting the task of reviewing a manuscript. This transparency allows for a more objective assessment of the reviewer's input. Additionally, implementing a two-way anonymous evaluation system can effectively prevent biases. In such a system, neither the reviewer knows the identity of the author nor does the author know the identity of the reviewer. This anonymity reduces the likelihood of personal biases, such as favoritism or prejudice, influencing the review process, thus promoting fairness in the evaluation of manuscripts.

Dr. Rittayamai advocates for data sharing in scientific writing. He emphasizes that sharing research data is crucial to ensure the reproducibility and transparency of research. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method, as it allows other researchers to verify and build upon existing findings. However, he also acknowledges the importance of data protection. Steps must be taken to safeguard the identifiable information of research participants. In his view, data sharing can be achieved through various means. These include using data depositories, where researchers can store and share their data; providing supplemental data along with the manuscript, which can contain additional details relevant to the study; or implementing restricted access, where data is made available to authorized researchers under certain conditions. This way, the benefits of data sharing can be realized while still protecting the privacy and rights of research participants.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Donatas Zalepugas

Dr. Donatas Zalepugas is a senior consultant thoracic surgeon at the University Hospital Bonn and Helios Hospital Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, Germany. He is an expert in minimally invasive thoracic surgery, robotic thoracic surgery, airway reconstruction surgery, interventional bronchoscopy, and robotic navigational bronchoscopy. His research focuses on integrating advanced imaging technologies into surgical practice to enhance preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation. In recent studies, he collaborated on developing a mixed-reality system that overlays real-time 3D-reconstructed imaging onto patients using a video pass-through head-mounted display. This innovative approach aims to improve surgical planning, particularly for complex oncological cases in thoracic surgery.

Dr. Zalepugas believes that peer review holds a central position in the scientific realm. It is a process that resonates with concepts of wisdom, truth, and accountability. He draws parallels between peer review and biblical teachings. For instance, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, which states "Test everything; hold fast to what is good", mirrors the scientific practice of carefully examining research before it is accepted as reliable knowledge. Peer review can be regarded as a form of stewardship, signifying the responsibility to seek truth and use knowledge judiciously. By closely scrutinizing research findings, it acts as a safeguard against the dissemination of misinformation, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific exploration as a pursuit of truth. Additionally, the act of researchers submitting their work for review by others for correction and improvement highlights the communal nature of knowledge, similar to the biblical principle in Proverbs 15:22, "Without counsel, plans fail. With many advisors, they succeed". In essence, peer review is not merely a scientific requirement but also a moral and ethical practice that contributes to the establishment of scientific consensus.

In Dr. Zalepugas’ opinion, applying for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is of utmost importance when it comes to research involving human subjects. The IRB plays a vital role in ensuring that such research is conducted in an ethical, safe, and regulatory-compliant manner. It assesses the study's design, potential risks, and benefits to safeguard participants from harm, protect their rights, and ensure that informed consent is obtained. Research must adhere to ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, as laid out in the Belmont Report. In Germany, IRB approval is mandatory for prospective studies to comply with regulations like the U.S. Common Rule or the Declaration of Helsinki. The IRB's oversight ensures that risks are minimized and that participants are fully informed about the potential risks and benefits associated with the research. Ethical supervision not only enhances the credibility of the research but also makes its findings more trustworthy and suitable for publication. Omitting the IRB approval process is not just a procedural oversight; it undermines the integrity of the research and can lead to severe ethical, legal, and professional consequences.

“JTD focuses on thoracic diseases, surgery, and oncology. Those are the research fields I am most engaged in. Reviewing articles enhances critical thinking and analytical skills. It also provides insight into the peer-review process, helping to refine my own writing and research methodologies. I believe that seeking knowledge and refining our understanding of the world aligns with the principles of wisdom and stewardship. Through peer review, I can contribute to ensuring that scientific findings in thoracic medicine are accurate, ethical, and beneficial to human health. Moreover, reviewing is an act of service to the scientific community, reflecting the value of humility and collaboration. By offering constructive feedback to authors, I can help refine research that could improve patient care and advance medical knowledge. In this way, my role as a reviewer is not just about science but also about serving others with integrity and compassion,” says Dr. Zalepugas.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Fiona L Day

Dr. Fiona Day is a Conjoint Associate Professor at the University of Newcastle, and Senior Medical Oncologist at the Calvary Mater Newcastle, Australia. She treats all thoracic malignancies and has a strong research interest in oesophageal cancer. She is the Co-Study Chair of the AGITG PALEO clinical trial which aims to provide dysphagia relief and prolonged survival to patients with oligometastatic oesophageal cancer. She is a Principal Investigator and Sub-Investigator on many other Phase I – III clinical trials. Her overarching research interest regards individualized patient care, spanning from molecularly-targeted treatment to interventions for smoking cessation. She has co-authored 30 manuscripts with more than 2,000 citations.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Day: Peer review is critical in objectively noting missing or incomplete data, identifying incorrect attribution (causation vs correlation, for example), and helping place the research findings in the context of the broader field of knowledge. Peer review is often also multidisciplinary, and hence may identify other relevant applications of the results. The quality of a draft manuscript is almost always improved by peer review, in a form of collaboration. As an author, I have been a beneficiary of this process, as well as a frequent reviewer.

JTD: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Day: To ensure the review is objective, I first consider the work in isolation (independent of existing knowledge), beginning with its hypothesis and the quality of the research design. The results, analysis and conclusions should all be consistent with the initial hypothesis and design, and only in the Discussion do the findings of others become relevant.

JTD: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Day: Peer review isn’t possible during the busy clinical working day due to patient needs. It is completed after hours, sometimes in multiple episodes to allow time for thorough consideration of the work.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Haralabos Parissis

Haralabos Parissis is a British-trained Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeon. He completed his National Training Number (NTN) training and obtained the Certificate of Completion of Training in Cardiothoracic Surgery (CCST) in 2005, following a competitive selection process. Over the past 15 years, he has served as an independent Attending Surgeon in Dublin and Belfast, UK. During his training, he pursued two advanced fellowships. One was a one-year fellowship in heart and lung transplantation at the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle, UK, under the mentorship of Prof. John Dark. Additionally, he completed a one-year advanced fellowship in off-pump arterial revascularization at the Essex Cardiothoracic Center in London. In 2017, he joined Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare (JHAH) in Saudi Arabia, where he held the position of Chief Cardiothoracic Surgeon for five years. During his tenure, he established and led the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at JHAH while concurrently serving as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. The program integrated the excellence of the Saudi Aramco Medical Services Organization (SAMSO) with the clinical strengths of Johns Hopkins Medicine. He is currently a practicing Consultant CT Surgeon at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, UK. His professional interests include teaching and mentoring medical students and core trainees. He also maintains a busy schedule as a reviewer for various journals while managing a demanding clinical practice. Learn more about him here.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Parissis: We all thrive towards improving the level of evidence in our scientific research. By selecting the correct sample, using sound methodology, various tools of statistical analysis and predefined well measured outcomes, we attempt to overcome various biases. Peer review plays a crucial role in advancing scientific research by ensuring the credibility, accuracy, and reliability of published studies. It serves as a critical checkpoint to minimize biases, validate methodologies, and enhance the overall quality of evidence. Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, with new research and tested concepts emerging regularly. By undergoing real-time review, research is critically assessed and therefore peer review helps maintain scientific rigor and quality control. Additionally, peer review fosters collaboration and knowledge sharing within the scientific community, allowing researchers to build upon existing findings. It also ensures that reported data meet high academic and ethical standards, ultimately contributing to the integrity and progress of scientific research.

JTD: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Parissis: The beauty of peer reviewing is multifaceted. It stimulates one’s brain to think critically, promotes communication, and enhances scientific sharing. It is an attempt to come close to the truth, by using well-defined tools, testing them and using them in the best available way. It is a rewarding process with multiple benefits. Beyond its academic value, peer reviewing is a continuous learning experience. It challenges me to stay updated with the latest research, sharpens my analytical skills, and ultimately helps me grow both professionally and personally. It is a powerful motivator, making the process fulfilling despite being anonymous and non-profitable. Surely, it keeps your interests alive and improves you as a person.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jacob Hessey

Jacob Hessey is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina, and a Trauma and Acute Care Surgeon at a Level One Trauma Center. In addition to clinical practice, he serves as the Associate Program Director for the Surgical Critical Care Fellowship. His research interests focus on surgical stabilization of rib fractures and ICU nutrition. Connect with him on X @jhessey11.

In Dr. Hessey’s opinion, currently, it has become remarkably easy to access medical information through various platforms, such as social media and artificial intelligence. Peer review serves a crucial function in ensuring the quality control and validity of such information. It provides constructive feedback that significantly enhances the overall quality of research works. Moreover, the peer-review process frequently gives rise to new research ideas. This is because it enables respectful critiques from colleagues, which can spark novel perspectives and approaches.

Dr. Hessey points out that being aware of both personal biases and potentially unconscious biases is of great importance. Before reviewing a manuscript, he makes an effort to set aside any prior beliefs he might hold. By maintaining an open and curious mindset, he is able to evaluate the data objectively as a reviewer. Additionally, he believes that it is essential to support any differences in opinion with evidence. This helps to ensure that his evaluation is based on solid grounds rather than subjective feelings.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Murat Yildiz

Dr. Murat Yildiz is a cardiac surgeon currently working as an aortic research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania. He completed his surgical training at University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, where he developed a deep expertise in aortic disease. His research focuses on advancing surgical outcomes and refining operative techniques to improve patient care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Yildiz: Peer review is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific research. It serves as a critical checkpoint, ensuring that studies are accurate, methodologically sound, and supported by evidence before publication. Beyond safeguarding research quality, peer review also benefits researchers themselves by deepening their understanding of scientific methods and critical analysis. For me, the most important aspect of peer review is its role in enhancing the reliability of published research while fostering constructive feedback and scholarly discourse—both of which are crucial for advancing science.

JTD: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Yildiz: Despite its importance, the peer-review system has several limitations. One of the biggest challenges is that it is time-intensive, requiring reviewers to carefully evaluate manuscripts while authors often face long wait times for feedback. At the same time, reviewers are typically uncompensated, which may limit the pool of available experts and contribute to delays. Another key limitation is inconsistency. Different reviewers may provide contradictory feedback, leading to variable and sometimes unpredictable decisions on manuscript acceptance or rejection. This lack of standardization can make the process less transparent and, at times, frustrating for authors. Implementing a structured review template could help reduce inconsistency by ensuring that reviewers focus on the same key aspects of a manuscript, leading to more uniform and objective evaluations.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Sze Yuen Peter Yu

D. Peter Yu is a specialist in Cardiothoracic Surgery in Hong Kong. He is the Associate Consultant (Surgery) of HKU Health System, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong. His clinical and research interests concern uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery, sublobar resections, pneumothorax, localization of difficult pulmonary nodules, and the use of digital chest drain devices.

Dr. Yu reckons that the peer-review system serves the purposes of ensuring the quality of the research article and coherence with the main focus of the journal. It should provide the researchers with constructive opinions for further refinement of the article. It should be objective, independent, and bias-free. Reviewers designated ought to be those with expertise or strong interest in that particular topic of the submitted paper. Those considered genuinely substandard or of little value to the scientific literature should be objectively excluded from publication.

Dr. Yu emphasizes several key points for reviewers. Firstly, they must ensure that research outcomes have clinical significance, which is more vital than just achieving statistical significance. Clinical significance implies that the findings can have a real impact on patient care. Secondly, those not “first-in-literature” articles may deserve further review and acceptance for publication, because “consistency” across different studies in the literature as a whole contributes to the establishment of “causation”. Thirdly, studies with low sample size should not be considered identical to low quality, as researchers might have tried their best to conduct the study in times of multiple limitations, to which the reviewers should duly give credits. All these shall remind reviewers that the acceptance or rejection of an article for publication should be a decision based on a constellation of factors.

“JTD is a journal integrating the expert input of different specialties relevant to thoracic diseases. The peer review for JTD articles is also a valuable learning process for me. The review system is succinct and easy to use. This gives more convenience to the reviewing process,” says Dr. Yu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Michael Shackcloth

Michael Shackcloth is a Consultant Thoracic Surgeon at Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, one of the biggest Thoracic Surgical Units in the UK. His specialist interests include surgery for emphysema, thoracic malignancies and minimally invasive thoracic surgery. He graduated from Manchester University in 1994 and completed his basic surgical training in Manchester. He moved to Liverpool for his cardiothoracic training and was appointed a consultant at Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital in 2007. He is Associate Editor of the European Journal of Surgical Oncology, Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons Thoracic tutor, and national online training programme director for cardiothoracic surgery. His research interests include peri-operative treatment in lung cancer. Connect with him on X @michaelshackcloth.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Shackcloth: Peer review is the foundation of scientific integrity and progress. In my own field of surgery, where patient outcomes depend on the reliability of published research, the peer-review process helps ensures that only high-quality, evidence-based findings make it to clinical practice. Peer review acts as a safeguard against flawed methodologies, biases, and unsubstantiated claims. By subjecting research to scrutiny from experts in the field, we uphold rigorous standards, ensuring that conclusions drawn are not just statistically significant but clinically relevant. For example, in thoracic surgery, innovations such as minimally invasive techniques like VATS and robotic lobectomy have gained acceptance only after extensive peer-reviewed studies demonstrated their safety and efficacy.

JTD: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Shackcloth: In conducting a review, objectivity is paramount. The goal is always to advance science and patient care, ensuring that only robust, high-quality evidence is published as ultimately this informs clinical decisions. An objective review must be grounded in established scientific principles, methodology, and statistical analysis. Any claims that cannot be supported by data, and subjective opinions should be minimized unless backed by evidence. It is important to eliminate bias when conducting a review. This includes avoiding conflicts of interest, being aware of cognitive biases (such as confirmation bias), and considering all perspectives, even those that challenge conventional thinking.

JTD: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Shackcloth: Life as a thoracic surgeon is busy. However, as outlined above the peer-review process is essential to maintain scientific integrity. A timely review is of utmost importance for researchers. When committing to a review, I make sure I allocate a set time period to conduct the review. If I cannot conduct the review in a timely manner, it is important to decline it so another reviewer can be invited rather than ignore the email.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ryo Nonomura

Ryo Nonomura, MD, PhD, serves as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University Hospital. He graduated from Shimane University in 2012 and obtained his PhD from Tohoku University in 2025. His research interests lie in the pathogenesis and epidemiology of spontaneous pneumothorax, as well as the perioperative risk assessment in lung cancer through the use of quantitative imaging. He employs 3D imaging software to analyze body shape characteristics in pneumothorax cases and explores minimally invasive surgical approaches, such as thoracoscopic and robot-assisted surgery, for the treatment of lung cancer.

According to Dr. Nonomura, peer review is of utmost significance in the academic and scientific realm. It plays a crucial role in maintaining transparency and fairness within the publication process. By subjecting papers to peer review, the quality of both the individual manuscripts and the journals that publish them is ensured. This process helps to filter out substandard research and promotes the dissemination of high-quality, reliable information.

In Dr. Nonomura’s view, a good review should not only point out flaws but also provide guidance on how to address them. Additionally, reviewers are expected to remain objective and refrain from emotional responses. While they should draw on their expertise in the relevant field, it is essential that they evaluate the paper based on general scientific principles rather than their personal opinions. This approach ensures that the review process is fair and helpful to the author.

“I have long felt that JTD conducts transparent peer reviews. The submitted papers are of high quality, and this motivated me to become a part of the team,” says Dr. Nonomura.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Sebastian Reindl

Sebastian Reindl, MD, is both a trained thoracic surgeon and a cardiac surgeon, and is currently in training as a palliative care physician. He serves as the managing senior physician in thoracic surgery at the University Hospital Augsburg, Germany, within the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery. His memberships in the German Society of Thoracic Surgeons (DGT) and the German Society of Thoracic, Vascular and Cardiac Surgeons (DGTHG) indicate his active participation in the professional surgical community in Germany. In his clinical practice, he focuses on minimally invasive thoracic oncology, which involves the surgical treatment of cancer in the thoracic region using less invasive techniques. He also has experience in thoracic trauma surgery, dealing with injuries to the chest area. Additionally, he is involved in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in thoracic diseases, a life-saving treatment that provides respiratory and circulatory support. His recent projects include the osteosynthetic reconstruction of the sternum after trauma and sternotomy, a complex surgical procedure aimed at restoring the structure and function of the breastbone. He is also involved in mapping rib fractures with associated injuries to the lung, diaphragm, and mediastinal organs, which helps in better understanding and treating these complex trauma cases. He uses innovative technologies such as augmented reality and 3D printing to educate young students and residents in basic surgical skills and thoracic surgery. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Reindl reckons that peer review helps maintain the integrity and progress of scientific knowledge by rigorously evaluating research before it reaches the public or the wider academic community. Therefore, it ensures the quality, accuracy, and credibility of scientific research. By having experts evaluate the work, it adds credibility, ensuring that the conclusions are supported by evidence. Peer review fosters the advancement of science. It filters out unsupported or flawed studies, enabling the scientific community to build on solid foundations.

In Dr. Reindl’s opinion, the existing peer-review system is often criticized for its susceptibility to bias and subjectivity. Reviewers, who are typically experts in the field, may bring their own personal beliefs, preferences, or professional conflicts into their assessments. This can result in favoring studies that align with the reviewer’s opinion or rejecting work that challenges established paradigms. The lack of transparency and accountability in traditional anonymous peer review only exacerbates these issues, making it difficult to identify and correct biased decisions. To address these challenges, more objective and transparent practices, such as open peer review, could help mitigate the influence of bias and subjectivity.

“Peer reviewing in science is a vital process that not only ensures the quality and accuracy of research but also encourages self-reflection and inspiration. Self-reflection in clinical medicine plays a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness and compassion of healthcare providers. By regularly reflecting on their experiences, doctors and clinicians can assess their clinical decisions in challenging situations. When reviewing others' work, scientists are encouraged to critically evaluate their own approaches, methodologies, and assumptions. This reflection can lead to a deeper understanding of their own research practices and highlight areas for improvement. Additionally, peer reviewing exposes scientists to new ideas, perspectives, and innovative approaches, sparking creativity and inspiration,” says Dr. Reindl.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Nika Samadzadeh Tabrizi

Nika Samadzadeh Tabrizi, MD, is an integrated cardiothoracic surgery resident at the Cleveland Clinic in the USA. She graduated Magna Cum Laude from Albany Medical College in 2024 and was inducted into the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society. During her medical school years, she received recognition for her research, such as a Distinction in Research for her thesis on the safety of transoesophageal echocardiographic guidance in mitral valve edge-to-edge repair and the Dean’s Senior Research Award upon graduation. Her research interests span thoracic surgery, the management of multiple primary lung cancers, and are expanding to include aortopathies, aortic and aortic valve surgery, and global cardiac surgery. Connect with her on X @NikaSamadzadeh.

According to Dr. Tabrizi, peer review is essential in upholding the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of scientific research. Peer reviewers play a vital role in assessing studies for accuracy and rigor before they reach clinicians, who often rely on this evidence to guide patient care. Quality patient care is dependent on well-designed and focused research, and as gatekeepers, peer reviewers have a responsibility to continuously raise the standards of scientific evidence.

“I extend my deepest gratitude to all reviewers who have generously devoted their time to peer review, especially those who have reviewed my research and provided invaluable feedback to enhance my work,” says Dr. Tabrizi.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)