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

Axel Semmelmann, University of Freiburg, Germany

Jin-Soo Park, University of Sydney, Australia

Kathryn E Engelhardt, Medical University of South Carolina, USA

Lohuwa Mamudu, California State University, USA

Mark I. Block, Memorial Healthcare System, USA

Sebron Harrison, New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, USA

Jean Deschamps, Cleveland Clinic, USA

Pablo G. Sanchez, University of Chicago, USA

Jason Muesse, University of Arkansas, USA

Maximilian Vorstandlechner, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Germany

Siok Siong Ching, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

Jeffrey B. Velotta, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, USA

SubramanyaShyam Ganti, Appalachian Regional Health, USA

Erik R. de Loos, Zuyderland Medical Center, The Neatherlands

Magdalena Iuliana Rufa, Robert Bosch Hospital, Germany

Lizabeth A O'Connor, Elliot Hospital, USA

Hidefumi Nishida, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Japan

Chatuthanai Savigamin, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, USA

Mamoru Takahashi, Japanese Red Cross Otsu Hospital, Japan

Ryan Denu, MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA

Charles Wong, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong, China

Catherine Chen, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA

Rachel L. Medbery, Emory Clinic, USA

Raphael Spittler, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany

Pedro Augusto Reck Dos Santos, Mayo Clinic, USA

Uffe Bodtger, Zealand University Hospital, Denmark

Andrew Sage, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Canada

Lim Beng Leong, Ng Teng Fong Hospital, Singapore

Jeremy L. C. Smelt, St. George’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Jincheng Wu, Novartis, Switzerland

Yonatan Dollin, University of California San Diego, USA

Debarshi Datta, Florida Atlantic University, USA

Victor Duong, Northern Health, Australia

Jovan Milosavljevic, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA

Jenalee N Coster, Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital, 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)

Axel Semmelmann

Working as a consultant anesthetist at the University Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Dr. Axel Semmelmann serves currently as lead consultant of the thoracic anesthesia group. He focuses on thoracic surgery in general, but also pediatric thoracic surgery, anesthesia for interventional bronchoscopy and lung transplantation. His interests cover postoperative pulmonary complications and how the anesthetic team could contribute to a better perioperative care and optimize individualized medicine.

Dr. Semmelmann has identified several limitations of the existing peer-review system and proposed ways to enhance it. He notes that the quality of peer review is highly dependent on the individual reviewer's capabilities. A lack of objectivity and ineffective feedback can impede the process. To improve it, he advocates for completely anonymizing manuscripts during review, so that the origin of the work does not influence the assessment. He emphasizes that peer review should focus on key aspects such as the relevance and innovation of the research, the authenticity of the content, the clarity and correctness of the methods section, the clarity of the overall message, and a concise, realistic discussion with a specific conclusion. A high-quality review should not just critique but also support the article, offering clear, constructive, and precise suggestions for improvement. Additionally, he suggests that post-review discussions among reviewers could further elevate the quality of the review.

Dr. Semmelmann defines an objective review as one that is free from personal bias. Such a review is grounded in the existing evidence and scientific foundation of the topic, making references to relevant literature. Besides evaluating the content, it also assesses how the research is presented in terms of structure and style. To ensure objectivity in his own reviews, he rates different elements of the manuscript (content, presentation, structure, etc.) separately. He focuses on whether the content effectively answers the research question, avoiding being swayed by superficial aspects, and then systematically applies the key review criteria he has outlined.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jin-Soo Park

Dr. Jin-Soo Park is an Oesophagogastric and General Surgeon, as well as a Clinical Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney. His training journey includes General Surgery in Australia, followed by subspecialty fellowships in upper GI and HPB surgery at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Australia, and complex foregut and oesophageal surgery with the Division of Thoracic Surgery at Toronto General Hospital in Canada. His academic achievements are notable, with a medical degree (BMed/MD) from the University of New South Wales, a Master of Surgery (MS) from the University of Sydney, and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) from the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, where he delves into novel investigations of extra-oesophageal reflux disease. He is an active member of professional organizations such as RACS, AANZGOSA, and IFSO. His contributions to the field are evident through his authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters on benign oesophageal pathology, oesophageal malignancy, and obesity surgery. Additionally, he regularly engages in peer review for international journals in these areas and supervises students pursuing higher research degrees like MPhil and MD.

Dr. Park reckons that peer review plays a crucial role in academic and scientific endeavors. It acts as a quality-control measure, ensuring the accuracy and credibility of research. By identifying errors, biases, and unfounded claims before publication, it upholds the standards of the field in terms of methodological soundness, ethical rigor, and logical coherence. Reviewers also provide constructive feedback, enhancing the clarity, depth, and scope of the work. Moreover, peer review prevents the dissemination of misinformation, which is particularly vital in the medical field where flawed research can have harmful consequences.

According to Dr. Park, a lack of transparency can be a hurdle to effective peer review. Traditional peer review is usually anonymous and closed, which can hide reviewer accountability and lead to inconsistent or low-quality reviews. Since reviewers are offering their time without remuneration, it tends to be balanced with full-time clinical work, making it slow and time-consuming at times. Furthermore, different reviewers might give conflicting feedback or apply different standards, or even reject innovative or controversial work that challenges mainstream views.

Lastly, Dr. Park would like to say a few words to all his peers, “Your dedication, often unseen, forms the backbone of scientific progress. By giving your time, expertise, and careful thought to evaluating the work of others, you uphold the standards of integrity, rigor, and truth that define meaningful research.”

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Kathryn E Engelhardt

Kathryn E. Engelhardt, MD, MS, is an Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). She has a passion for peer review and has held or currently holds a position on the editorial board for Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Annals of Thoracic Surgery Short Reports, the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, and the Society of Thoracic Surgery e-book. She developed peer-review curriculum for the surgical residents at MUSC and has given talks at national meetings on the subject. She is a Health Services Researcher trying to improve the quality of thoracic oncology care delivery at the local, system-wide, and nation-wide level through a combination of large database utilization and outcomes analyses, local quality improvement, and implementation science. Her current grant support through the MUSC Hollings Cancer Center aims to improve shared decision making in early-stage lung cancer treatment. Connect with her on X @KateEEngelhardt.

JTD: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Engelhardt: I find it helpful to have a pretty rigid set of criteria when evaluating a study. Reviewers should ask questions like: Is the research question set up appropriately by the introduction such that the gap in the literature is clear? Are the objectives clearly stated? Is the design of the study appropriate to answer the objectives of the study? This allows you to divorce personal biases from your evaluation of the study. Part of the point of peer review is to ensure that the author's bias has not influenced the conduct of the study. In this way, I find it helpful to play devil's advocate and ensure that alternate hypotheses have been evaluated fully.

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

Dr. Engelhardt: Research is best done in a community and not in a silo. For that reason, every person who does research is part of this community. A community is only as strong as its weakest link; therefore, especially in this time of misinformation, it is our duty as researchers to ensure that the manuscripts that are published have undergone rigorous review. This is the primary motivation I have for conducting peer-review. Secondary motivators are that it allows me to stay up to date with current methods and hot topics in my field and it allows me to have lots of practice thinking critically and evaluating studies and manuscripts, which makes me more efficient in my own research endeavors.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Lohuwa Mamudu

Dr. Lohuwa Mamudu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Health at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF), in the United States. He holds a Ph.D. in Statistics from the University of South Florida. Serving as a Statistician/Data Analyst and Research Consultant, he plays important roles as an Associate Editor of the Preventing Chronic Disease Journal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an Editorial Review Board Member of the Cancer Control Journal. His research, which is data-driven, focuses on cancer, infectious diseases, chronic diseases, mental health, immigration health, and health disparities. He collaborates with the National Institutes of Health and the Tennessee Cancer Registry in his capacities as a Data Analyst and researcher. Additionally, he is the Director/Mentor of the Interdisciplinary Health Science Cancer Research Lab and Co-Director of the Center for Cancer Prevention, Health Disparities Research and Training at CSUF, and a Co-Investigator of a multi-year NIH grant-funded aging research program at the university. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Mamudu points out several strategies that can potentially minimize biases in peer review. Double-blind review, which involves removing the identities of both authors and reviewers, is crucial. Avoiding asking authors to recommend reviewers is essential as it is unethical and can introduce bias. Establishing clear, specific review criteria helps guide the evaluation process. Training reviewers to recognize and overcome potential biases, both conscious and subconscious, is also important. Selecting reviewers with diverse backgrounds, expertise, and perspectives enriches the review. Standardizing the review process reduces variability. Organizing open discussions among reviewers promotes knowledge sharing, understanding, and consistency. Providing reviewers with feedback on their performance helps improve the quality of reviews. Overall, reviewers must approach the task objectively, pragmatically, and follow the scientific method.

“Reviewers should continue with the great work. Science is the only means to save humanity and our ecosystem and improve our quality of life. The decision of reviewers is massive in contributing to a better future for humanity and ensuring that people continue to believe and trust in research and science. As such, our decision as reviewers should be objective and strongly supported by scientific provenance and approach, logic, and common sense. They should avoid any conflict of interest and biases,” says Dr. Mamudu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mark I. Block

Dr. Block attended undergraduate and medical school at Yale University. He completed his General Surgery training at the University of Chicago and his Thoracic Surgery at Washington University in St. Louis. He also completed a surgical oncology fellowship at the National Cancer Institute, studying tumor immunology. He was on the faculty at the University of California, San Francisco and then the Medical University of South Carolina before joining the Memorial Healthcare System in Hollywood, Florida in 2004, where he serves as the Chief of the Division of Thoracic Surgery. His clinical interests include lung cancer, airway surgery, advanced airway procedures, and benign and malignant esophageal diseases. He has active research interests in the management of pleural effusions, AI for lung nodule management, and AI for working with large health databases. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

According to Dr. Block, a reviewer should possess qualities such as curiosity, skepticism, generosity, and critical thinking, along with discipline. These qualities enable a reviewer to approach manuscripts with an inquisitive mindset, question the validity of the research, offer helpful feedback, think analytically, and maintain a structured evaluation process.

Dr. Block is motivated to engage in peer review for multiple reasons. Firstly, he sees it as a way to contribute to the scientific community. With his wealth of knowledge and unique perspective, he aims to identify significant developments in his field and enjoys the process of helping promising ideas gain recognition while also ensuring that work lacking scientific rigor or significance does not receive unwarranted validation. Secondly, peer review helps him stay updated on the latest developments and ideas in his specialty, keeping him at the forefront of his field. Finally, being a reviewer allows him to better understand how to conduct and present research, enhancing the quality of his own work.

“I think that JTD is an important outlet for developments in the field of thoracic disease. There are few journals specifically devoted to this specialty, and even fewer that maintain high-quality standards,” says Dr. Block.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Sebron Harrison

Dr. Sebron Harrison is an Assistant Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Chief of the Division of Thoracic Surgery at New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, and the co-leader of the thoracic oncology Disease Management Team through the Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell Medicine. He completed his general surgery training at University of Alabama-Birmingham and then his cardiothoracic surgery training at Weill Cornell Medicine and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. His busy clinical practice consisting mostly of surgery for thoracic malignancies is centered in historically underserved communities. He believes strongly in thoracic surgery education, and he has served as the program director for the cardiothoracic surgery fellowship at Weill Cornell for several years.

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

Dr. Harrison: A healthy peer-review system includes subject matter experts who both understand the importance and potential for clinical impact of the research at hand. These experts must also have deep knowledge of the current literature in order to prevent low value redundancy in our scientific journals.

JTD: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Harrison: Reviewers must check their own biases as much as should the writers of manuscripts. For example, reviewers must also keep in mind their role is to review the manuscript that has been submitted, not the manuscript they wish had been submitted or the manuscript they would have written. There can be much non-productive discussions and comments regarding manuscripts that do not materially resemble the one actually submitted.

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

Dr. Harrison: There are dramatic, practice-changing manuscripts, and there are the majority of manuscripts which slowly advance science. But these are the manuscripts clinicians are often searching for when confronted with a challenging clinical decision or when formulating their own research hypotheses. It is very exciting to play even a small role in a process which so significantly impacts both clinicians and patients.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jean Deschamps

Dr. Jean Deschamps is a clinical intensivist at Cleveland Clinic’s Cardiovascular ICU. He earned his medical degree at McGill, completed residencies and fellowships in internal medicine, critical care, and cardiovascular ICU, and holds Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada certification in Internal Medicine and Critical Care Medicine, and National Board of Echocardiography diplomas in adult critical‑care echocardiography. His scholarly work spans venous congestion assessment, extracardiac ultrasound, right‑heart physiology, mechanical circulatory support, ECMO complications, fluid-responsive hemodynamics, and evidence‑synthesis in critical care. He has obtained competitive grant support for advanced ultrasound education, ARDS ultrasound-guided ventilation strategies, Venous Excess Ultrasound for cardiac congestion, perioperative hemodynamic monitoring, and simulation-based ECMO training. He moderates international sessions, reviews for leading journals, and teaches at POQI, STS, and AKI‑CRRT conferences.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Deschamps: The foremost requirement is humility. Although a manuscript may appear concise, each line of its methods section can conceal months of negotiation with limited funding, ethical approvals, and imperfect data. A humble stance guards against hasty criticism and invites the reviewer to inquire why a particular approach was adopted rather than presuming it was a misstep. The second quality is constructiveness. Detecting weaknesses is only the starting point; the reviewer’s contribution is to accompany each concern with clear, feasible recommendations—refining the hypothesis, strengthening the statistical plan, or adding references. Such advice transforms the review into a tool for advancement rather than an instrument of rebuke. Finally, open-mindedness is indispensable. Questions that seem peripheral within one discipline may be pivotal to progress in another. The reviewer ensures that innovative ideas receive thoughtful, rigorous assessment by remaining receptive to unfamiliar topics, methods, or priorities. In short, humility, constructive intent, and open-mindedness underpin exemplary peer review.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Deschamps: Peer review acts as science’s primary quality‑control mechanism. Subjecting manuscripts to independent scrutiny before publication filters out studies whose methods or reasoning remain insufficiently robust, thereby maintaining the trust that both scholars and the broader public place in the scientific record. That filtering function also spares readers the task of disentangling unreliable claims from valid insights, allowing them to focus on evidence that has met a recognized standard. Beyond policing quality, peer review supplies authors with fresh intellectual vantage points. External reviewers can identify overlooked confounders, suggest alternative analyses, or question implicit assumptions. This constructive challenge mitigates the tunnel‑vision that often develops after months of concentrated work, helping research teams refine their questions, sharpen their methods, and broaden the relevance of their findings. Thus, peer review safeguards scientific integrity and enriches the creative process that drives discovery for society.

JTD: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Deschamps: Objectivity rests on freedom from bias and rigorous evidence-based reasoning. A review should weigh findings independently of the reviewer’s hypotheses, institutional loyalties, or competing projects. Thoroughness underpins this impartial stance. Each component—introduction, design, statistical approach, results, interpretation—must be scrutinized, with notes explaining how specific strengths or deficiencies influence overall merit. Offering actionable suggestions grounds, the critique in objective evidence. Explicit rationale transforms a verdict from unexplained opinion into a transparent assessment that editors and authors can follow. Completing structured checklists, referencing reporting guidelines, and cross-checking statistical claims against raw figures further minimize subjective drift. By combining deliberate detachment from personal agendas with meticulous, documented analysis, a reviewer delivers an objective appraisal that safeguards scientific integrity and helps authors refine their work.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Pablo G. Sanchez

Dr. Pablo G. Sanchez is a thoracic surgeon specializing in advanced lung disease and transplantation, serving as Surgical Director of the Lung Transplant and Adult Respiratory Failure ECMO Program at the University of Chicago. His laboratory focuses on improving organ preservation by modulating enzymatic changes that affect endothelial viability, using ex vivo lung perfusion to develop small molecule treatments targeting heparinase activity and enhance endothelial preservation. Through glycoengineering-enabled multi-omics, his team identifies novel pathways to mitigate ischemia-reperfusion injury, while collaborating with the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Radiology to develop CT-based pretransplant frailty predictors for improved surgical outcomes. Learn more about him here.

To Dr. Sanchez, effective peer review hinges on data-driven objectivity. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, prioritizing whether the work introduces novel insights or enhances existing knowledge. If the data presented are novel or new or add to the existing literature, the reviewer should help the authors focus the manuscript, improve communication of the message, and on some occasions facilitate transmission or representation of the data for easier understanding of the main findings.

“Reviewers and the peer-review process are fundamental. Being objective and collegial in our reviews make science better. They also allow authors to refocus their message on many occasions, providing an easier interpretation of their findings,” says Dr. Sanchez.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jason Muesse

Jason Muesse is an Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, specializing in lung and esophageal cancer surgery. Trained in general surgery at Houston Methodist and cardiothoracic surgery at Emory University, he researches esophageal perforation treatment and nutritional needs in esophageal cancer patients. He practices at Baptist Hospital and mentors general surgery residents, many of whom have entered cardiothoracic training programs nationwide. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Muesse indicates that today's physicians have limited time to keep up with field breakthroughs. A robust peer-review process ensures only high-quality, high-interest manuscripts are published. It gives authors and readers confidence that each manuscript was evaluated by competent peers, with all submissions carefully scrutinized before publication. This maintains journal credibility and helps physicians efficiently access valuable research.

In Dr. Muesse’s opinion, reviewers should assess whether a manuscript could potentially impact clinical practice, even in minor ways. If it has such potential, it warrants rigorous scrutiny. Even if reviewers do not personally alter their practice based on the conclusions, the possibility of influencing others’ approaches demands careful evaluation. The most valuable manuscripts are those that inspire practical application, prompting reviewers to consider how the findings can be integrated into real-world clinical settings. This focus ensures that research with tangible clinical relevance receives the attention it deserves.

“I try to review as many manuscripts as I feel that I am comfortable reviewing in that field. If I am asked to review a manuscript in an area that is outside of my comfort zone, I decline it so that the author can get a more honest review and a potentially better chance at publication from a more knowledgeable reviewer,” says Dr. Muesse.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Maximilian Vorstandlechner

Maximilian Vorstandlechner, a 2021 graduate of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU), currently serves as a resident in the Division of Thoracic Surgery at LMU University Hospital. Specializing in lung transplantation, his research explores the respiratory microbiome, transplantation immunology, and histocompatibility, with a focus on unraveling the mechanisms of acute and chronic allograft dysfunction. By integrating clinical insights with translational science, Vorstandlechner aims to improve post-transplant outcomes and redefine strategies for managing immune-mediated complications in thoracic organ transplantation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Vorstandlechner: A reviewer should have a thorough understanding of the subject matter to critically and insightfully assess a manuscript’s methodology, scientific validity and clinical relevance. Just as essential is the ability to offer constructive feedback - comments that help authors refine and improve their work rather than simply point out flaws. Objectivity is also fundamental; each manuscript must be evaluated on its own merits, free from personal biases or preconceived notions. Ultimately, a good reviewer contributes to the scientific dialogue by offering precise, balanced, and forward-looking commentary that supports the advancement of the field.

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

Dr. Vorstandlechner: A healthy peer-review system is one that is transparent, equitable, and centered on the continuous improvement of scientific quality. Rather than being adversarial, it should promote respectful dialogue between reviewers and authors, with the shared goal of refining the research for the benefit of both science and clinical practice. Reviewers should be well-supported, with clear expectations and acknowledgment of their contributions. Authors, in turn, should receive feedback that is detailed, constructive and actionable. Particularly in clinical research, where patient outcomes are ultimately affected, the review process should also emphasize the translational and practical implications of the work.

JTD: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Vorstandlechner: While bias in peer review cannot be entirely eliminated, it can be actively minimized through awareness, self-reflection and a disciplined review approach. I make a conscious effort to focus strictly on the content and scientific quality of the manuscript, setting aside any knowledge of the authors’ identities or affiliations whenever possible. My reviews are methodical and structured - I aim to be precise, constructive, and context-aware. I highlight both strengths and areas for improvement, and I often suggest ways the research could be better framed or applied in clinical settings. Rather than approaching peer review as a gatekeeping role, I see it as a collaborative process aimed at enhancing the clarity, rigor, and real-world impact of the research. By maintaining this mindset, I work to reduce the influence of subjective bias and contribute to a fairer, more effective review system.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Siok Siong Ching

Dr. Siok Siong Ching is a senior consultant in Upper GI Surgery at Changi General Hospital, Singapore. His surgical career began as a trainee in Wales and England, UK. After years of clinical research on surgical ultrasonic scalpels, he earned his Doctor of Medicine. Returning to Singapore in 2009, he completed advanced training and became a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in 2015. His expertise lies in Minimally Invasive Upper GI and Obesity & Metabolic Surgery.​ He has published research on Helicobacter pylori, ultrasonic energy devices, ventral hernia repair, bowel sounds, knot tying, and bariatric surgery, etc. For over a decade, he has regularly taught basic and advanced surgical skills. His teaching covers sterile techniques, proper use of instruments like scalpels and forceps, and advanced skills in minimally invasive upper GI and obesity/metabolic surgeries, combining theory with hands-on practice.​ Recently, he focuses on Obesity Surgery projects and serves as an examiner in postgraduate surgical exams. Learn more about him here. Learn more about him here.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Ching: Reviewers should possess several key qualities in order to evaluate the work fairly without personal bias or conflict of interest, and base their judgments on evidence instead of personal preferences. They should have a strong understanding of the subject matter, and their knowledge will help them recognize gaps, inaccuracies and outdated information. Attention to detail will ensure that references are checked, errors in methodology, data collection, statistical analysis, presentation or interpretation are detected, and any inconsistencies in arguments or narratives are noticed and highlighted to the authors. When writing the review, it should be completed timely to meet deadlines to avoid delays in decision making by the editor. Feedback should be provided constructively, not just criticism; with empathy and respect, understanding the authors’ efforts behind the work.Feedback should be written clearly, logically and well-structured, pointing out specific areas for improvement, so authors are able to understand and revise the manuscript. Reviewers should also exercise consistency and applies the same standards to all reviews without favouritism.

JTD: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Ching: A reviewer should follow the journal’s guidelines, respect confidentiality of unpublished data and adhere to ethical standards and maintain professionalism in all aspects of judgement and communications with the journals and authors. Unconventional approaches or innovative ideas should be viewed with open-mindedness and evaluated objectively and fairly. Analytical and critical thinking have to be applied when assessing the manuscript for strength and weaknesses systematically, and certain assumptions need to be questioned and claims need to be validated.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jeffrey B. Velotta

Dr. Jeffrey B. Velotta, MD, FACS, works in the Division of Thoracic Surgery at Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center. He also holds positions as a Clinical Professor in the Department of Clinical Science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine and a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery at UCSF School of Medicine.​ He attended medical school at George Washington University, then completed his general surgery residency at UCLA Medical Center. During that period, he also finished postdoctoral research in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Stanford University School of Medicine. Later, he completed his cardiothoracic surgery training at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.​ His clinical and research interests include innovative techniques and regionalization pathways for lung and esophageal cancer. His recent research focuses on improving lung cancer screening uptake in Asian Americans and identifying key factors in the rising incidence of lung cancer in non-smoking Asian women. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Velotta reckons that peer review is a fundamental step for scientists and clinicians to ensure that accurate and credible information is pursued and published. Everyone in the scientific community needs to be held accountable, and peer review is a necessary way to help achieve this.

In Dr. Velotta’s opinion, a healthy peer-review system features efficient turnaround times and detailed yet concise, constructive comments for authors. The key is for reviewers to remain unbiased and base their assessments on the available data and science.

“I am motivated to conduct peer review by learning the latest and greatest science in our field of thoracic disease. The peer-review process also allows me to learn methodological styles that I may not have always come across and to adapt my ways of critical thinking and evaluating the science. I enjoy staying the most up-to-date in the field and it helps me be a complete surgeon scientist,” says Dr. Velotta.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

SubramanyaShyam Ganti

Dr. Subramanya Shyam Ganti, MD, FCCP, is currently working in the Department of Pulmonary Critical Care at Appalachian Regional Health in Harlan, Kentucky. He completed his Internal Medicine residency at Central Michigan University and his Pulmonary Critical Care Fellowship at Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center. During the final year of his fellowship, he also pursued a Clinical Educator Fellowship.​ His areas of interest include ARDS, medical education, simulation, shock, and critical care ultrasound education. With a passion for teaching, he serves as the Associate Program Director for the Internal Medicine Residency at Appalachian Regional Health in Harlan, KY. He is a member of the American Thoracic Society, CHEST, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Connect with him on X @Shyamgantismc.

In Dr. Ganti’s opinion, there are several limitations of the existing peer-review system and improvement measures. Firstly, some reviews fail to be honest and constructive; instead of providing useful feedback to authors, they may be negative or offer no feedback at all. This should be avoided, and that is why journals have established rules for reviewers to prevent such situations. The core goal is to enhance readers' experience and knowledge. Secondly, personal prejudices and conflicts of interest (COIs) should be avoided, and reviewers should follow the guidelines set by journals.

According to Dr. Ganti, an objective review is an evaluation based on facts, evidence, and standardized criteria, rather than personal opinions, emotions, or biases. It strives to be fair, balanced, and impartial, offering useful insights that others can trust.​ He ensures the objectivity of his reviews through fact-based analysis, transparency, and acknowledgment of bias.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Ganti believes that it is extremely important for authors to disclose any COI in research. Full transparency is crucial for maintaining research integrity, reader trust, and scientific credibility. COI can affect research in various ways, such as leading to the misinterpretation of results, causing publication bias, and making authors withhold or downplay findings that are unfavorable to an affiliated organization.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Erik R. de Loos

Erik R. de Loos is a thoracic and trauma surgeon at the Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, The Netherlands, and has been a staff member there since 2011. His clinical expertise covers minimally invasive thoracic surgery, chest wall surgery, and the management of thoracic, pelvic, and acetabular injuries.​ Since 2015, he has served as vice-chair of the general surgical training program and chair of the thoracic surgical training program at his institution. He is actively involved in many national and international courses on minimally invasive thoracic surgery, chest wall surgery, and trauma surgery. He is a certified Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course director and currently chairs the Dutch ATLS Society, representing the Dutch Association for Trauma Surgery (NVT). Additionally, he is an executive board member of the Chest Wall International Group (CWIG).​ His research mainly focuses on minimally invasive thoracic surgery (especially uniportal VATS), chest wall pathologies (including oncological conditions, trauma, and pectus deformities), and perioperative care. He obtained his PhD from Maastricht University with a thesis titled “Pectus Excavatum: Improvements in Surgical Care”. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. de Loos considers the peer-review process highly valuable, as it greatly improves the quality and robustness of scientific work. His research group submits many papers to PubMed-indexed journals, and almost all reviewer feedback is insightful, helping identify overlooked issues and enhance manuscript quality.​ However, there is room for improvement. Firstly, journals often struggle to find suitable reviewers promptly due to the high volume of submissions, leading to review processes that take months, frustrating authors and potentially resulting in outdated findings being published. However, when too many reviewers accept invitations, authors may face excessive and contradictory feedback, making it hard to respond thoroughly and on time. A possible solution is to maintain a small, high-quality pool of dedicated reviewers per journal to avoid overburdening them.​ Secondly, he thinks (associate) editors should have more discretion in evaluating a manuscript's scientific quality and making acceptance decisions. Multiple review rounds with different reviewers can lead to conflicting opinions, creating unnecessary noise that distracts from core assessments and delays publication.

In Dr. de Loos’ opinion, reviewers must empathize with the submitting research team. As authors, they hope their work is reviewed promptly, objectively, critically, and constructively to improve quality and identify unforeseen flaws. This should be done without bias, personal agendas, unfounded remarks, or reproach. “In short, treat fellow researchers as you would like to be treated,” adds he.

“As a reviewer, I’m increasingly encountering manuscripts that appear to be largely written by artificial intelligence. While AI can be a helpful tool in scientific writing, it should remain just that—an adjunct, not a replacement. Reflecting on my earlier remarks about the peer-review process, I can recall two extreme experiences as an author. In one case, we submitted an invited editorial to a well-established journal, but it took over a year to complete the peer-review process. In another instance, a paper we submitted was reviewed by more than ten reviewers simultaneously, resulting in over 60 pages of responses to their comments. Such extremes risk demotivating research groups and should be avoided. The primary purpose of peer review must always remain clear: to provide a timely, fair, and critical assessment of a manuscript’s validity, quality, and originality, ensuring it is suitable for publication,” says Dr. de Loos.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Magdalena Iuliana Rufa

Magdalena Luliana Rufa is a senior cardiac surgeon (Oberärztin) at the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert Bosch Hospital in Stuttgart. She completed her medical studies at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila” in Bucharest and earned her doctorate at the University of Tübingen in 2021. Her dissertation on coronary reoperations was awarded magna cum laude. Since 2018, she has been board-certified in cardiac surgery and holds an additional qualification in intensive care medicine. Her clinical and scientific interests include coronary bypass surgery, minimally invasive techniques, off-pump procedures, the use of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation, and surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation. She is currently focusing on expanding minimally invasive cardiac surgery and developing future applications in robotic cardiac surgery. Since 2020, she has been a fellow of the German Society for Thoracic, Cardiac and Vascular Surgery and the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery, and she is committed to advancing innovative, patient-centered surgical care.

Dr. Rufa thinks that the peer-review system is vital for scientific quality control but has notable limitations. A key issue is reviewer burden: many reviewers are clinicians with intense schedules, juggling long surgeries and emergency duties. Peer review becomes an additional, unpaid task, often squeezed into late hours, which can compromise the depth and objectivity of reviews. Bias is another challenge—stemming from the reviewer’s research focus, institutional affiliation, or fatigue. To improve these, institutions should recognize peer review as a core academic duty. Allocating protected time for clinicians (e.g., one dedicated day per week) for research, peer review, and international exchange would foster a balanced academic-clinical life. Maintaining a strong link between science and clinical practice is crucial, as neither thrives in isolation.

According to Dr. Rufa, a good reviewer must combine expertise with integrity. They should approach each manuscript with transparency, fairness, and openness to diversity, avoiding bias—conscious or unconscious—related to gender, institutional affiliation, country of origin, personal training, or the novelty of a topic. Objectivity requires focusing solely on scientific merit, setting aside personal preferences. Self-awareness is equally important: reviewers should decline if they lack topic knowledge or time for a thoughtful evaluation, as rushed reviews harm science. Ultimately, reviewers should act as collaborators in advancing knowledge, providing constructive feedback with ethical rigor and continuous self-reflection.

“My motivation as a peer reviewer stems from a fundamental belief: we must give to receive. If we are not willing to dedicate time to review the work of our colleagues, students, and future doctors—who may one day care for us—then we risk betraying the very principles outlined in Hippocrates' code of ethics. It is our duty to honor our mentors, uphold the integrity of science, and contribute to the development of future generations. I am motivated by the guidance I received from outstanding mentors, who not only gave me numerous opportunities in surgical training but also supported me in my early scientific endeavors. They helped me navigate my first manuscript submissions, understand statistical analyses, and identify research themes that could drive meaningful change. In turn, I feel compelled to give back by supporting others in their journey—just as I was supported,” says Dr. Rufa.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Lizabeth A O'Connor

Dr. Lizabeth O’Connor currently serves as the Chief Quality Officer and Director of Clinical Research at Elliot Hospital in Manchester, New Hampshire. She has been practicing clinically in the field of thoracic surgery since 2004.​ She earned a Master’s degree in Public Health from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2016, with a focus on biostatistics and epidemiology. In 2021, she completed a year-long certification program in Clinical Research from Harvard Medical School. Additionally, she is certified by ACRP as a principal investigator for clinical trials. Her research focuses on pain management, analysis of patient-reported outcomes, and the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols within thoracic surgery and thoracic trauma. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Dr. O’Connor reckons that peer review is a critically important aspect of scientific research. By engaging experts to assess the quality, validity, and originality of a manuscript, it ensures that published medical literature meets standards of scientific rigor and integrity. Ultimately, the peer-review process fosters confidence in the integrity of published scientific findings.

In Dr. O’Connor’s opinion, reviewers should provide authors with constructive feedback aimed at refining the work—addressing weaknesses, suggesting ways to clarify and strengthen the analysis—while remaining fair, objective, and free from personal bias. They should check that the research question is clearly defined, the methodology is sound, and the conclusions are appropriate.

“Providing peer review is an important way to contribute to the scientific community and advance knowledge. Given the time commitment, it’s crucial to only accept review invitations if confident in meeting the deadline—or to request a realistic extension in advance. Blocking time in the schedule for the review ensures a high-quality, meaningful assessment. As experience grows, following a standard review approach can reduce the time required,” says Dr. O’Connor.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hidefumi Nishida

Hidefumi Nishida is affiliated with St. Luke’s International Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. He graduated from Tohoku University in Japan and received training both in Japan and at the University of Chicago in the United States. His research focuses on the strategy and treatment of aortic dissection, heart failure treatment (including mechanical circulatory support), and common cardiac procedures. Recently, he has been exploring ways to enhance the outcomes of aortic valve repair and valve-sparing aortic root surgery, with several ongoing research projects in these areas.

Dr. Nishida emphasizes the significance of peer review in the scientific process. He views it as essential for refining research ideas, enhancing the quality and credibility of scientific work through expert feedback. Even if a paper is rejected, the constructive comments from reviewers can guide the development of more robust future projects. Additionally, peer review plays a key role in advancing science by ensuring published research meets rigorous standards of validity, fostering mutual inspiration and respect among researchers, and creating a collaborative environment that drives progress.

As a reviewer, Dr. Nishida highlights the importance of respecting authors, recognizing the long and demanding process behind each submission—from formulating research questions to collecting data, analyzing results, and writing the manuscript. He also stresses the need to thoroughly review related published literature to understand the study’s context, asking critical questions such as the nature of the research question, existing knowledge on the topic, and the new insights the paper offers. This thoughtful and respectful approach ensures feedback supports both the integrity of the scientific process and the authors’ continued work.

Dr. Nishida strongly believes authors should follow reporting guidelines like STROBE and CARE when preparing manuscripts. These guidelines ensure all essential research components are reported clearly and transparently, providing a useful framework for structuring work, refining ideas, and strengthening the paper’s narrative. From a reviewer’s perspective, adherence to these guidelines simplifies assessing a study’s validity, reproducibility, and completeness, ultimately contributing to higher-quality publications and more trustworthy scientific evidence.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Chatuthanai Savigamin

Chatuthanai Savigamin, MD, MSc, MPH, is a physician from Thailand. He obtained his medical degree and Master of Science from the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and went on to earn a Master of Public Health with a concentration in Social and Behavioral Sciences from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Currently, he serves as a research program coordinator in the Division of Rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. His pulmonology research focuses on the behavioral aspects of e-cigarette use, the clinical characteristics of pulmonary sarcoidosis, and the impact of air pollution on the lungs. Additionally, he is involved in projects related to dysautonomia, particularly Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), with an emphasis on its clinical presentation and pathophysiology. Spanning both clinical medicine and public health, his work aims to enhance understanding of complex and underrecognized conditions. Learn more about him here.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Savigamin: Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific process. It offers a rare opportunity to receive constructive, unbiased feedback that can improve not only the quality of a single manuscript but also shape future directions in each field. Beyond correction or critique, peer review helps ensure that published research meets rigorous standards, something that is increasingly vital in the era of big data and rapid information exchange. As the volume of scientific output continues to grow, peer review serves as a crucial filter that upholds the credibility, relevance, and integrity of the literature we all rely on.

JTD: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Savigamin: As a junior researcher, I view each opportunity to review a manuscript as a privilege. I always begin by asking myself: What can I contribute to this work? How can my feedback help strengthen it for the benefit of the broader scientific community? I draw upon my own research experiences, along with the guidance I’ve received from mentors’ past and present and try to step into the authors’ shoes. The goal is never to judge or criticize harshly, but rather to help shape the manuscript into the strongest version it can be. Thoughtful peer review is not about finding flaws—it's about offering insight that supports growth, clarity, and rigor in the research process.

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

Dr. Savigamin: For me, peer reviewing is a way to give back to the scientific community. I still remember one of my earlier research projects took years to get published simply because no one was willing to review it. That experience stayed with me. It made me realize how essential it is for researchers to support one another. So now, if I have the time and someone invites me to review a manuscript, I will do my best to say yes. I want to help ensure that others don’t face the same delays and frustrations I once experienced. By making time for peer review, we help move science forward—together—for the greater good.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mamoru Takahashi

Mamoru Takahashi, MD, PhD, serves as Vice Director of the Department of Thoracic Surgery at the Japanese Red Cross Otsu Hospital and a visiting researcher in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Kyoto University, Japan. He earned his M.D. from Kyoto University’s Faculty of Medicine in 2006 and his Ph.D. from the university’s Graduate School of Medicine in 2020. He also completed a postdoctoral research fellowship in lung transplantation at the Latner Thoracic Surgery Research Laboratories, University of Toronto, Canada. His research focuses on lung cancer (radiological screening and perioperative nutritional support) and lung transplantation (organ preservation and ischemia-reperfusion injury), with support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Takahashi believes that peer review is crucial to scientific publication, as it boosts the accuracy, transparency, and overall quality of manuscripts through critical evaluation by field experts. By integrating reviewers’ feedback into revisions, authors can enhance their work’s clarity, rigor, and scientific value. Reviewers are tasked with providing objective assessments and constructive input to uphold the integrity of the scientific process. While peer review is time-consuming and demanding, he thinks it is rewarding: it allows engagement with cutting-edge clinical and experimental research, contributes to sharing meaningful, novel findings, and offers valuable learning experiences. Often, he adds, the process also inspires and motivates his own research and clinical practice.

Acknowledging that biases are inevitable, Dr. Takahashi thinks reviewers must focus solely on a work’s scientific quality. He stresses avoiding influence from irrelevant factors like authors’ institutional affiliations, country of origin, or reputation. The key to reducing bias lies in maintaining objectivity—evaluating the manuscript based on its methodology, data, and conclusions, not on the identities of the authors.

Dr. Takahashi stresses that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential. He clarifies that having a COI does not inherently make research inaccurate or unreliable, but studies with COIs require careful evaluation. Proper disclosure is critical to assessing the validity and transparency of research findings: it helps readers identify potential influences on the study’s design, analysis, and conclusions.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ryan Denu

Ryan Denu, MD, PhD, is a physician-scientist and Instructor at MD Anderson Cancer Center, specializing in sarcoma. His work spans clinical practice in sarcoma medical oncology and basic/translational research, with a focus on unraveling the epigenetic and transcriptional regulation of sarcomas. His academic journey began at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he earned a BS in Molecular Biology and completed MD/PhD training via the Medical Scientist Training Program—his PhD research centered on identifying causes of genomic instability in cancer. He later pursued postgraduate clinical training: a residency in Internal Medicine at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, followed by a Medical Oncology fellowship at MD Anderson. In July 2025, he joined MD Anderson’s faculty. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Denu thinks that peer review is vital as it acts as a “critical check” for research, much like post-tennis match feedback from coaches or teammates. Just as reviewing match footage reveals missed flaws—such as a poorly positioned overhead or ill-targeted approach shots—peer review uncovers gaps, errors, or areas for improvement in manuscripts that authors may overlook. It refines work, fixes mistakes, and strengthens the quality of research before it is shared, ensuring credibility and rigor in scientific discourse.

In Dr. Denu’s opinion, a constructive review maintains a professional, respectful tone, balancing recognition of a manuscript’s strengths with clear identification of weaknesses. It offers specific, actionable feedback, prioritizes big-picture improvements while noting minor issues (without excessive nitpicking), and aims to enhance the work without diverting from its core message or burdening authors with unnecessary tasks. In contrast, a destructive review lacks respect, ignores strengths, provides vague or unhelpful criticism, or focuses on trivial flaws—ultimately undermining the author and the research process.

“I want to say thank you to all the other reviewers out there who have reviewed my work over the years and contributed to making my manuscripts better. Science doesn’t move forward without critical eyes and generous minds like yours. So even if your name isn't on the paper, your impact is written all over it. In a field where lives are on the line, your behind-the-scenes efforts help ensure that what reaches the bedside is sound, ethical, and impactful. Keep going. Medicine is better because of you,” says Dr. Denu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Charles Wong

Dr. Charles Wong is a Respiratory Medicine specialist based in Hong Kong, holding key roles as Associate Consultant in the Department of Medicine at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital and Honorary Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Department of Medicine. After earning his Respiratory Medicine fellowship, he pursued advanced training in Pleural Medicine and Research at the Centre for Innovative Pleural Research, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth, Australia. His research focuses on pleural disease, thoracic ultrasound, and risk stratification in respiratory conditions—contributions recognized with prestigious honors, including the APSR/Hong Kong Young Investigator Award (2021), ERS Young Scientist Sponsorship (2021), and APSR/ERS Young Investigator Award (2024). Beyond research, he actively supports the scientific community as a peer reviewer for multiple international journals. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Wong thinks that though biases in peer review are unavoidable, they can be minimized by centering evaluations on objective scientific criteria: prioritizing assessments of methodological soundness, analytical rigor, and critical flaws that impact findings’ reliability. Maintaining impartiality, disclosing conflicts of interest, and following a structured review framework boost fairness and consistency—ensuring the focus stays on the work’s scientific merit, not authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, or publication history.

In Dr. Wong’s opinion, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is vital for ethical research involving human participants—it safeguards participants’ rights, safety, and dignity, while establishing accountability and transparency. Omitting it risks severe ethical breaches, legal consequences, and damaged research credibility. Most journals and funders require IRB approval, so skipping it endangers publication and institutional support. Even well-intentioned studies without IRB approval lack structured accountability, risking becoming ethical cautionary tales.

“My motivation arises from a respect for the scientific process and a commitment to upholding the integrity of academic publishing. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly communication, and participating in it enables one to stay engaged with emerging research, sharpen critical thinking, and contribute to the advancement of the field. It is also a meaningful way to give back to the academic community that has shaped my professional growth,” says Dr. Wong.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Catherine Chen

Catherine Chen, MD, MSHI, is an Associate Professor in the division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, TX. She received her medical degree at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and completed internal medicine residency and pulmonary critical care fellowship at Washington University in St. Louis. She is additionally board certified in Clinical Informatics and serves as the associate program director for the clinical informatics fellowship. Her research focuses on best practices for implementation of critical care guidelines and the effect of implementation on patient-centered outcomes. She is also studying the effect of health policy implementation on incidence of critical illnesses and was the recipient of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Research Grant in 2024. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Chen: Reviewers should be mindful of the role they are playing in shaping the evidence that guides how medicine is practiced. Excellent reviewers should be able to set aside their own preconceived notions of the manuscript’s place in science and determine if the question, methods, and interpretation of results are sound, regardless of whether the study’s outcomes are positive or negative. 

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Chen: Objective, thoughtful reviews are a cornerstone in how novel science is disseminated. The current political climate in the United States is very anti-science and anti-intellectual, which makes the peer-review process even more important. Clinical practice is founded upon the body of evidence that results from the peer-review process.

JTD: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Chen: In my opinion, an objective review focuses on three things:

1. Does the background clearly explain the scientific need for the question the study is trying to answer?
2. Is the scientific process that the authors followed robust?
3. Are the authors appropriately interpreting the results that came about from the scientific process?

Both positive and negative studies can and should inform evidence-based practice, and it is important that the reviewers treat manuscripts describing both positive and negative outcomes in the same fashion.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rachel L. Medbery

Rachel L. Medbery, MD, is an Assistant Professor of Surgery in the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Emory University School of Medicine and serves as Quality Officer for General Thoracic Surgery at the Emory Clinic. A board-certified thoracic surgeon, she specializes in minimally invasive and robotic approaches to lung and esophageal disease. She earned her BS in Biology and MD, cum laude, from Emory University, where she also completed her general surgery residency, research fellowship, and cardiothoracic surgery fellowship. She has authored over 40 peer-reviewed publications on lung cancer screening, surgical quality improvement, and health equity. Previously, she was the first female thoracic surgeon in Central Texas, where she developed the region’s first robotic thoracic program and advanced access to lung cancer screening. She now leads Emory Healthcare’s Lung Cancer Screening and Incidental Nodule Program and remains dedicated to improving outcomes and equity in thoracic oncology care. Learn more about her here.

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

Dr. Medbery: While there are numerous limitations to the current peer-review system, I personally believe that lack of transparency is one of the largest.  Reviewers know who the authors are, but reviewers themselves stay anonymous.  As a result, there may be unintentional bias and variable quality in the review process. To eliminate bias, blinding the authors and their respective institutions could allow for a fair review process regardless of prior reputation. Moreover, once a paper is published, allowing readers to have access to reviewer comments would allow for additional interpretation and analysis of the manuscript.

JTD: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Medbery: Reviewers need to keep in mind that surgeons and other healthcare providers have only a limited amount of time to stay current with new research as it gets published. When reviewing research, in addition to the quality of the work, I personally think about (1) the timeliness of the research and (2) the ability to easily read the manuscript and interpret the results. A high-quality paper that is easy to read and likely to be of interest to surgeons will likely be well-received and is thus worthy of publication.  

JTD: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Raphael Spittler

Dr. Raphael Spittler is a senior cardiac electrophysiologist at the University Medical Center Mainz, Germany, specializing in invasive and conservative treatments for atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. He also serves as Deputy Director of the Department of Electrophysiology and Rhythmology. His research focuses on three key areas: catheter ablation of arrhythmias, AI applications in arrhythmia diagnostics and prediction, and sudden cardiac death prevention in specific patient groups. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Spittler thinks that reviewers must prioritize four core checks: assessing a paper’s originality, methodological rigor, and whether results justify conclusions; evaluating ethical compliance; ensuring clarity of presentation; and confirming alignment with the journal’s focus. Feedback should be objective, constructive, and centered on helping authors strengthen their work.

Dr. Spittler regards Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure as a “crucial cornerstone” for scientific trust and transparency. Openly declaring potential conflicts lets reviewers and readers critically assess findings in context, upholding the integrity of research by ensuring no hidden influences undermine credibility.

“Balancing clinical, research, and personal responsibilities is indeed challenging, so I treat peer review as an integral part of my scientific duty rather than an ‘extra task’. I usually schedule short, focused blocks of time—often in the evenings or during quieter clinical days—to work on reviews without distraction. Careful planning and setting realistic deadlines help me contribute meaningfully while keeping the workload manageable,” says Dr. Spittler.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Pedro Augusto Reck Dos Santos

Pedro Augusto Reck dos Santos is a Thoracic Surgeon and Associate Professor of Surgery at Mayo Clinic Arizona. He earned his medical degree from Brazil’s Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), where he also completed initial training, before moving to Canada to pursue a Master of Science at the University of Toronto—focused on in vivo lung perfusion for lung metastases treatment. He further honed his expertise with clinical fellowships in Thoracic Surgery and Lung Transplantation at the same institution. His clinical and research interests span management of end-stage lung disease, extracorporeal life support (ECLS), thoracic oncology, and translational science. He is also deeply committed to mentoring medical students, fellows, and residents. Connect with him on X @Pedroreck.

Dr. Santos thinks that there are key limitations of the current peer-review system: bias favoring established authors or familiar methods (risking rejection of innovative work), subjective evaluations (leading to inconsistent standards or unhelpful/toxic feedback), slow timelines (delaying manuscripts for months), and limited transparency in decisions. To address these, he proposes structured reviewer training to reduce bias, greater transparency (e.g., open reviewer identities or reviews) for accountability, objective scoring rubrics, and digital platforms to speed up processes and enhance quality control.

According to Dr. Santos, strong reviewers must have:

• Field expertise: a solid grasp of the subject to assess scientific merit and originality.
• Impartiality & integrity: unbiased, confidential reviews free of conflicts of interest.
• Thoroughness: critical examination of methodology, clarity, significance, and ethical concerns.
• Timeliness: prompt reviews to keep the publication process on track.
• Constructive Professionalism: Empathetic, solution-focused feedback (not personal criticism) to strengthen manuscripts.
• Clear communication: respectful, actionable comments for editors and authors.
• Openness to novelty: willingness to evaluate unconventional ideas, paired with sound judgment to recognize a study’s potential.

When reflecting on his review experience, Dr. Santos shares no specific anecdotes but highlights the privilege of evaluating original research, calling it a valuable opportunity to engage with new scientific projects.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Uffe Bodtger

Dr. Uffe Bodtger is a professor and consultant at Zealand University Hospital (Denmark) and the University of Southern Denmark. As a respiratory physician with nearly 20 years of clinical experience, he specializes in the invasive work-up of suspected lung or pleural cancer and the management of obstructive lung diseases. His research focuses on multiple areas: invasive diagnostic procedures (e.g., EUSb and ultrasound-guided techniques) led by respiratory physicians, non-pharmacological interventions for chronic lung disease patients (such as singing for COPD and breathing retraining for asthma), improving lung cancer screening selection criteria with low-dose CT, non-invasive lung cancer work-up procedures, and international studies on pleural infection. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Bodtger believes that research and proper evaluation both require time, yet peer reviews are unpaid and not part of any researcher’s official job duties. Meanwhile, publications are critical for researchers seeking funding or positions—creating a problematic mismatch. This challenge is amplified by alternative publishing channels: peer-review-free online platforms, low-quality online journals, and even fake journals. To address this, he suggests two solutions: first, reimburse peer reviewers (e.g., via significant, combinable Open Access publication fee reductions, with major publishers collaborating on a reimbursement system); second, universities should require documentation of a minimum number of peer reviews from researchers. While not a complete fix, these steps would help.

“There are several layers in question and answers. From a personal perspective, it is a pleasant way to get inspired and informed concerning all aspects of research: from research question to final presentation. From a community perspective, being a researcher is also to engage, help and support other researchers. During my career, I’ve learned a lot from peer reviews of my research, thus the peer review process is highly educative. From a global knowledge perspective, the goal of a peer review is to improve good research and to stop bad research. We all gain from this gate keeper function that ensures scientific integrity,” says Dr. Bodtger.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Andrew Sage

Dr. Andrew Sage is an Assistant Scientist with the Toronto Lung Transplant Program at the Toronto General Hospital Research Institute and an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto. His research focuses on developing and translating novel biomarkers, medical devices, and computational tools to support surgical decision-making during lung transplantation. A major focus of his lab is the creation of digital twins of ex vivo human lungs, combining experimental data with machine learning to simulate organ function and predict transplant outcomes. His lab also explores advanced robotics, AI-driven algorithms, and ex vivo organ perfusion to enhance transplantation science, with the broader goal of extending these innovations to other solid organs. Learn more about him here.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Sage: Peer review is essential because it provides an objective check on research. Researchers deeply involved in a project can lose perspective and overlook weaknesses or areas for improvement. In my view, peer review helps identify these gaps, strengthens the work, and signals to readers that the study has been rigorously evaluated, increasing confidence in its conclusions.

JTD: What do you regard as a destructive review?

Dr. Sage: I consider a destructive review to be one that focuses on disagreement for its own sake, without engaging constructively with the study. It offers criticism without suggesting how the work could be improved, and it closes off dialogue by not being open to a thoughtful response from the authors. A truly helpful review should challenge ideas, when necessary, but also consider how the study might be expanded or refined.

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. Sage: Data sharing is important because it promotes transparency, which is essential in science. It allows others to understand the thought process behind a study, see what types of data were collected, and how they were analyzed. Not every study can produce a publicly available dataset, particularly when personal health information is involved. In transplantation research, sharing often happens through collaborations that grow out of workshops and conferences, where researchers come together to exchange methods and establish common standards. The key is ensuring that clinical data are shared responsibly, with clear processes that protect patients while still advancing science.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Lim Beng Leong

Dr. Lim Beng Leong is an Emergency Physician at Ng Teng Fong Hospital in Singapore’s western region. He also serves as a Senior Clinical Lecturer at the National University of Singapore and an Editorial Board Member of the European Journal of Emergency Medicine. His research focuses on emergency patients with acute illnesses in respiratory, critical care, neurological, and endocrinological fields. Recent publications cover topics such as hyperoxemia in COPD patients, high-flow oxygen vs. non-invasive ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure, transdermal glyceryl trinitrate in acute stroke, and subcutaneous fast-acting insulin analogues vs. IV insulin infusion in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

Dr. Lim points out two key limitations of the current peer-review system. First, reviewers may learn a study’s affiliated centers, which could bias their evaluation of authors. Second, authors often fail to declare if they used artificial intelligence (AI) in manuscript writing. To address these, he proposes two solutions: journals should request two manuscript versions—one with author/center details and a “blinded” copy (without affiliations) for reviewers to avoid bias; additionally, journals must require authors to disclose AI use (and its extent) so reviewers can assess the study’s novelty accurately.

In Dr. Lim’s view, an objective review interprets a study’s impact on clinical practice based primarily on presented data, not subjective opinions. To keep his own reviews objective, he grounds conclusions strictly in the study’s data and its stated limitations, avoiding overreach or over-conclusions that go beyond the evidence provided.

Dr. Lim thinks that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is critical. All COIs must be declared upfront, as they can influence multiple study stages: desired clinical outcomes, sample size, subject recruitment, and ultimately the interpretation of results (including how findings are framed to potentially change clinical practice). Undisclosed COIs risk undermining the study’s credibility and trust in its conclusions.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jeremy L. C. Smelt

Jeremy L. C. Smelt is a Consultant Thoracic and Robotic Surgeon at St. George’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, where he serves as clinical and robotic lead. He also practices at Cleveland Clinic London, holding the position of thoracic robotic lead. His specialist interests include minimally invasive surgery (both keyhole/VATS and Robotic/RATS), lung cancer surgery, and thymectomy for myasthenia gravis—with around 95% of his surgical practice now being minimally invasive.​ He completed his basic medical training at Nottingham University and pursued higher surgical training in the London Deanery, earning BMBS, BMedSci (Hons), DOHNS, FRCS (CTh), and PhD degrees. His PhD focused on assessment and simulation in cardiothoracic training. He is actively involved in medical education, teaching on courses such as the Royal College of Surgeons in England’s CCRISP (Care of the Critically Ill Surgical Patient), Student Surgical Skills, Cardiac Advanced Life Support, and the Royal Society of Medicine Anatomy Course. He also serves as Thoracic Course Director for the SCTS Human Factors course.​

As a prolific author, he has published numerous peer-reviewed papers (most as first author) and contributed textbook chapters. He enjoys reviewing manuscripts for several journals. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Smelt thinks that peer review acts as a critical filtering system in science. It ensures that only the most relevant, highest-quality research reaches the target audience—weeding out work that lacks reader interest or suffers from flaws in design or implementation.

Acknowledging that biases are inevitable, Dr. Smelt shares his approach to mitigating them. He pays little attention to where the research is conducted and maintains an open mind during evaluation. His focus is on what the research reveals and how it can enhance patient outcomes, and he embraces the idea that his personal views can be challenged and corrected.

“Peer review enables me to keep up to date with current practice and therefore I treat it as a learning process for me. I am lucky enough to have an occasional break between meetings and clinic where I prioritise this practice on a weekly basis,” says Dr. Smelt.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jincheng Wu

Jincheng Wu is a seasoned computational biologist and leader specializing in Data Science and Translational Research in oncology. His career began with foundational academic research, culminating in a Ph.D. in Chemical and Biological Engineering from SUNY at Buffalo. During his doctoral studies, his work focused on stem cell engineering and single-cell analysis, leveraging computational modeling to unravel cell growth and differentiation in bioreactor systems. He served as a Bioinformatics Scientist at MedImmune/AstraZeneca, where he led single-cell RNA-Seq analysis for target discovery in immuno-oncology and autoimmune diseases, and built advanced analytics pipelines for antibody sequencing to support antibody discovery and affinity maturation. At Novartis, he advanced to an Associate Director role in clinical biomarker and translational research, bringing expertise across early- and late-phase clinical trials to co-lead exploratory data analysis. His recent work encompasses studies on intratumoral STING agonists, IL-1β pathway blockade, clonal hematopoiesis in cancer, and the application of spatial transcriptomics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Wu: A healthy peer-review system hinges on fairness, transparency, and constructive feedback. It must engage field experts capable of providing unbiased, thorough evaluations. The process should adopt double-blind review to eliminate biases tied to authors’ identities. Additionally, the system should foster open communication between reviewers and authors, nurturing research improvement and innovation.

JTD: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Wu: An objective review is evaluated solely on the research’s content and quality—free from personal biases or external influences. To maintain objectivity in my own reviews, I focus intently on the study’s methodology, data analysis, and derived conclusions. I also contextualize the work against existing literature to assess its originality and scientific significance.

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. Wu: Yes, I believe it is crucial for authors to share their research data. Data sharing promotes transparency and reproducibility in scientific research, allowing other researchers to validate and build upon the findings. It also enables secondary research for researchers to re-use the data for other research topics and therefore maximize the value of the work.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yonatan Dollin

Captain Yonatan Dollin is an officer in the United States Air Force and a physician internist, currently completing a fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). He earned his medical degree from Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine in New York and completed his Internal Medicine residency at Wright State University in Ohio. With 9 publications (60 citations and an H-Index of 3), he has served as Principal Investigator for a randomized controlled trial (NCT05355974). His recent research, conducted with UCSD’s Advanced Lung Disease department, focuses on Interstitial Lung Disease—including developing an AI-driven tool to screen large populations for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Additionally, he is working on a project that uses advanced transcriptomics and deep learning AI to better understand sub-populations in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Dr. Dollin thinks that the academic and medical worlds face challenges from rumor, misinformation, and low-quality research making false claims—all of which harm patients. The peer-review process acts as a protective layer against such flawed articles, advancing the pursuit of scientific truth. It also lends credibility to publications, ensuring that innovations are adopted by the broader medical community.

In Dr. Dollin’s opinion, reviewers need to focus on multiple key elements.

• A clear mission statement/purpose that unifies all subsections of the paper.
• A logical organizational strategy and coherent progression of thought throughout the manuscript.
• High-quality, recent references.
• Data that support every statement made.
• Consistency across the entire manuscript.
• The authors’ understanding of the target audience, with writing tailored to that group.
• Strict adherence to scientific and statistical integrity.
• Avoiding personal bias or letting authors’ credentials influence the fair assessment of the research’s accuracy, consistency, and scientific method.

“Both the academic and medical world suffer from rumor, misinformation, and low-quality research studies making false claims to the suffering and detriment of real-life patients. Your commitment to high-quality research, scientific and statistical integrity, and pursuit of truth not only combats this scourge but makes a profound impact on the quality of medical care given in the world. Our patients depend on researchers to innovate, make advances, and create data that lead to high-quality guidelines and tangible improvements in patient care. Never underestimate your importance!” says Dr. Dollin.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Debarshi Datta

Dr. Debarshi Datta is an internationally recognized data scientist and academic leader whose work bridges artificial intelligence, data science, biostatistics, healthcare, and population health. As an Assistant Professor of Data Science at Florida Atlantic University’s Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, he drives the advancement of AI-powered decision support systems that turn complex medical data into actionable insights for patient care. His research focuses on predictive modeling of COVID-19 outcomes, early detection of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, and machine learning-based evaluation of long COVID interventions. His combination of rigorous statistical methods and cutting-edge machine learning has led to pioneering models for disease prognosis, mortality risk assessment, and early diagnostic prediction. Widely funded and honored, he has secured support from the National Science Foundation (NSF I-Corps), the All of Us Research Program, Smart Health COVID-19 initiatives, and institutional Alzheimer’s research programs. His work is published in leading journals like Diagnostics and Frontiers in Digital Health, and he is frequently invited to speak at high-profile venues such as SciPy, JupyterCon, and the Symposium on Data Science & Statistics. Beyond research, he is dedicated to teaching and mentoring: he designed graduate curricula in healthcare data science and founded FAU’s AI/ML Club to train future scientists. His blend of technical expertise, innovative research, and translational impact positions him as a thought leader shaping AI’s role in healthcare and precision medicine.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Datta: As a peer reviewer, I balance expertise, fairness, and constructive engagement. Drawing on my background in data science, healthcare research, and statistics, I evaluate technical rigor, originality, and relevance—guided by objectivity and integrity to ensure transparent, evidence-based feedback. I place strong emphasis on clarity and constructive critique, offering authors actionable suggestions that strengthen their research design, analysis, and presentation. At the same time, I highlight the innovative contributions of the work to encourage scholarly growth. I respect the confidentiality of the review process and adhere to high professional standards, completing reviews with thoroughness and timeliness. Ultimately, I see the role of a reviewer as not only a gatekeeper of scientific quality but also as a mentor-like contributor to the advancement of knowledge, fostering research that has impact and lasting value for the field.

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

Dr. Datta: IRB approval is essential for human-participant research. It ensures studies follow ethical principles, federal regulations, and institutional policies—safeguarding participants’ rights, privacy, and well-being, while minimizing risks. Beyond participant protection, IRB oversight boosts scientific rigor and credibility by promoting transparency, informed consent, and accountability. It also provides legal/regulatory protection for investigators and institutions, and is often required for external funding and peer-reviewed publication.

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

Dr. Datta: As a busy doctor-scientist, I manage peer review by being strategic and structured with my time. At the start of the week, I review invitations, accepting only manuscripts that closely align with my expertise and declining others to avoid overcommitment. I set aside an uninterrupted 45–60-minute block midweek to read each manuscript efficiently—starting with the abstract, figures, and tables, then focusing on the introduction, discussion, and methods while taking concise notes. I use a checklist to organize my thoughts and dedicate another 30–45 minutes to draft my review, separating major and minor concerns and summarizing my recommendations. I then spend 15–20 minutes reviewing my draft to ensure clarity and adherence to journal guidelines before submitting it. When needed, I break the process into short daily sessions of 10–15 minutes to tackle parts of the manuscript, and I reflect monthly on trends in the reviews I handle to improve my efficiency and inform my own research. This approach typically requires 2–3 hours per week, enabling me to provide high-quality peer reviews without compromising my clinical, research, or personal responsibilities.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Victor Duong

Victor Duong is a Respiratory and Sleep Medicine physician at Northern Health (Victoria, Australia) and a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. His research focuses on improving the management of malignant pleural effusion through innovative ambulatory care models and digital health technologies. He is particularly interested in how remote monitoring and telehealth can be leveraged to predict pleural effusion recurrence and reduce unplanned hospital admissions for individuals with malignant pleural disease. He is passionate about translating research into practical, person-centred solutions that enhance care delivery and support clinicians in improving the outcomes that matter most to patients.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Duong: Peer review provides independent assessment that helps maintain the quality and credibility of scientific research. It ensures that work is accurate, relevant, and clearly presented. For me, reviewing is also a way of “paying it forward” – many generous reviewers have improved my own manuscripts, and I see it as part of contributing to the research community. It’s also a valuable way to stay current and learn from the work of others.

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

Dr. Duong: IRB review protects research participants and ensures studies are conducted responsibly. Human research relies on volunteers who contribute their time and trust, so it is important we can justify the study’s aims and balance potential benefits against risks and opportunity costs. Skipping this process would compromise the ethical basis of the work and diminish confidence in the findings.

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

Dr. Duong: Balancing clinical and research work is always demanding, but I see peer review as part of professional practice rather than an extra task. When I accept a review, I schedule a few focused sessions over several days to read carefully and consider my feedback. This helps ensure a fair and useful review without rushing the process.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jovan Milosavljevic

Dr. Jovan Milosavljevic, MD, MS, serves as an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in New York. His academic and clinical training path is robust: he earned his medical degree from the University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine in Serbia, completed an internal medicine residency at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, and pursued subspecialty training in clinical endocrinology at Montefiore-Einstein—where he also completed an additional dedicated research fellowship. During this fellowship, he furthered his expertise by obtaining a Master of Science in Clinical Research Methods from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. His research focuses on four key areas: diabetes, diabetes technology, implementation science, and health services research. Notably, his work currently receives support from a Junior Faculty Development Award from the American Diabetes Association, which funds his efforts to integrate continuous glucose monitoring into primary care settings—aiming to enhance diabetes management and patient outcomes at the primary care level.

JTD: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Milosavljevic: Reviewers should prioritize fairness, scientific rigor, and constructive feedback. It’s important to assess whether the methods are sound, and that conclusions are supported by data. Especially for early-career authors, thoughtful critique can help strengthen both the current manuscript and future research.

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. Milosavljevic: Yes, data sharing is crucial because it promotes transparency, reproducibility, and trust in scientific findings. It allows others to validate results, build on existing work, and accelerate discovery, which is especially important in fields like clinical research, where real-world data can inform practice and policy.

JTD: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?

Dr. Milosavljevic: Work done as a reviewer is vital and often invisible, yet it shapes the quality and integrity of science. By offering the time and expertise, reviewers not just evaluating papers. They are mentoring authors, strengthening research, and advancing the field in meaningful ways.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jenalee N Coster

Jenalee N. Coster, MD, is a minimally invasive thoracic surgeon practicing at Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital in Richmond, VA. She earned her medical degree from the University of Maryland, followed by a surgical internship at the University of Virginia and surgical residency at Loma Linda University. Her thoracic surgery residency was completed at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Heart Institute (general thoracic track), and she furthered her expertise with an advanced lung transplantation fellowship at UPMC in Pittsburgh, PA. Her research and clinical interests focus on three key areas: enhanced recovery after surgery, improving diagnosis and time to treatment for early-stage lung cancer, and exploring inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in lung transplantation.

Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Coster indicates that the manuscript review process is time-consuming amid busy clinical schedules, and finding dedicated, meticulous reviewers for the wide range of research topics in the field can be challenging. She encourages medical students and residents—though not yet “experts”—to participate, keeping the pool of reviewers fresh and growing. She also supports acknowledging and offering awards for strong review work, especially for early-career physicians and residents, to boost engagement.

In Dr. Coster’s opinion, an objective review is to make the manuscript better. She reads the paper first completely to get an overall sense of their goals and outcomes. Then she takes it section by section to make sure that each portion of the manuscript is progressing to address the overall goal and question of the paper and make sure it is easy to understand and appropriately formatted for the journal. She reviews a manuscript how she would want a manuscript of hers reviewed, and she hopes to continue to improve the manuscript to get it to publishing.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)