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
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)
