In 2026, 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.

Taehoon Lee, Ulsan University Hospital, Republic of Korea

Vasileios Ntinopoulos, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland

Marta Kelava, Cleveland Clinic, USA

Alissa Blessing, Vienna General Hospital, Italy

Aahd Kubbara, University of Minnesota, USA

Ruvistay Gutierrez-Arias, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

Darren Turner, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, USA

Anusha Manje Gowda, Mary Washington HealthCare, USA

Joseph D. Forrester, Stanford University, USA

Mujtaba Mubashir, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, USA

Sodai Nagata, University of Tokyo, Japan

Divya A. Shankar, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, USA

Anne L. Castro, The Medical College of Wisconsin, USA

Shelton Lo, UnitedHealth Group, USA

Benjamin Bleiberg, University of Pennsylvania, USA

James Hall, NYU Langone Health, USA

Michael P. Brönnimann, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland

PJ Kim, University of California, USA

Jinyong Bae, University of West Florida, USA

Craig D. Williams, OSU/OHSU College of Pharmacy, USA

Pim S. van Sambeeck, Radboud University Medical Center, Netherlands

Stephen G. Swisher, MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA

Krishan Bansal, University of Bristol, England

Lorna Tu, BC Cancer – Surrey, Canada

Masanori Okada, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi Ube Medical Center, Japan

Noriko Kishi, Kyoto University Hospital, Japan

Tiago Pastilha, Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Mondego, Portugal

Thijs Feuth, Turku University Hospital, Finland

Taehoon Lee

Dr. Taehoon Lee, MD, PhD, is an interventional pulmonologist and Professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, Republic of Korea. He also serves as the Director of the Robotic Bronchoscopy & Interventional Pulmonology Center. His clinical and research interests focus on advanced diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy, including rigid bronchoscopy, EBUS, medical thoracoscopy, and robotic-assisted bronchoscopy. Learn more about him here.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Lee: Peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific research. It serves as a critical checkpoint before research findings are disseminated to the scientific community. Through peer review, experts in the same field evaluate whether the study design, methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions are scientifically sound.

Beyond simply identifying errors, peer review also helps improve manuscripts by providing constructive feedback that strengthens the clarity, rigor, and impact of the work. In this sense, peer review functions not only as a quality control system but also as a collaborative process that ultimately advances scientific knowledge.

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

Dr. Lee: When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should aim to provide fair, objective, and constructive evaluations. The goal is not merely to criticize but to help improve the quality of the research and the manuscript. Reviewers should carefully assess whether the study question is meaningful, the methodology is appropriate, and the conclusions are supported by the data.

It is also important to maintain professionalism and respect toward the authors. Even when significant limitations are identified, comments should be clear, specific, and constructive. In addition, reviewers should be mindful of potential conflicts of interest and evaluate the work solely on scientific merit.

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

Dr. Lee: My primary motivation for peer reviewing is a sense of responsibility to the scientific community. As researchers and clinicians, we all benefit from the peer review system when our own work is evaluated and improved by colleagues. Participating in peer review is therefore a way of contributing back to the field. In addition, reviewing manuscripts allows me to stay updated with the latest developments in interventional pulmonology and related areas. It also provides an opportunity to critically reflect on research design and methodology, which ultimately improves my own research and clinical work. For me, peer review is both a professional duty and an intellectually rewarding process.

(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)

Vasileios Ntinopoulos

Dr. med. Vasileios Ntinopoulos, MEBCTS, is a Swiss Board-certified cardiac surgeon and attending physician (Oberarzt) at the Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, and the Allianz Herzchirurgie Zürich-St. Gallen. He graduated with distinction from the Medical School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, where he also obtained an MSc in Clinical Research Methodology with distinction, and completed his doctoral studies (Dr. med.) at the University of Zurich. He is actively engaged in both surgical/clinical practice and research. His research spans multiple aspects of adult cardiac surgery, as well as the emerging applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in cardiac surgical practice. He has authored 20 peer-reviewed publications, including 13 as first author and 2 monographs, and is an independent clinical researcher with experience across the full research cycle. His current projects focus on the use of large language models and generative AI for data extraction from unstructured electronic health records. Visit Dr. Ntinopoulos’s ORCID, Web of Science and LinkedIn for more information.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Ntinopoulos: Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential means for the dissemination of research results, making peer review a cornerstone of scientific progress. Through this process, reviewers critically evaluate the quality, validity, and originality of research before it is published, ensuring that only reliable and well-conducted studies enter the scientific record. Peer review helps maintain high standards, improves the clarity and rigor of research through constructive feedback, and fosters trust within the scientific community. As such, it plays a vital role in advancing science, supporting academic progress, and guiding future research directions.

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

Dr. Ntinopoulos: Biases are inevitable in peer review, but their impact can be minimized through a combination of structured practices and self-awareness. Reviewer blinding helps reduce biases related to author identity, while involving multiple and diverse independent reviewers limits the influence of any single viewpoint. Standardized review criteria and reviewer training can help evaluations remain objective and focused on key scientific aspects. Open peer review can further increase accountability and transparency. In addition, reflective practice allows reviewers to critically examine their own assumptions. Ultimately, maintaining a strong focus on the substance of the research, rather than language, style, or preconceived expectations, is essential for ensuring a fair and balanced review process.

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. Ntinopoulos: Peer review is often a behind-the-scenes effort, but its impact on scientific progress is significant and far-reaching. By dedicating time and expertise, reviewers provide essential support to the scientific community, helping to uphold the quality and integrity of research. First-hand access to non-published work and early awareness of emerging trends at the forefront of scientific fields are unique advantages of peer reviewing. Importantly, reviewer feedback helps shape and refine studies, contributing to the direction of future research. Peer reviewing may not always be visible, but it is invaluable, driving innovation, strengthening scholarship, and advancing science as a whole.

(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)

Marta Kelava

Dr. Marta Kelava is Vice Chair of Research in the Division of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology at Cleveland Clinic. Her academic work focuses on perioperative outcomes research in cardiothoracic surgery, with particular emphasis on postoperative pulmonary complications, perioperative neurocognitive dysfunction, and regional anesthesia after cardiac surgery. She works within multidisciplinary research teams and collaborates extensively on outcomes-based clinical investigations, with ongoing trials focused on improving outcomes in complex cardiac surgical populations. She is also actively engaged in academic peer review and mentorship of trainees involved in clinical research. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

JTD: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?

Dr. Kelava: I believe every review should ultimately serve a constructive purpose. A good review does more than identify weaknesses; it offers clear suggestions to improve the manuscript and strengthen its scientific message. If I see potential in a study, I make every effort to suggest revisions that may elevate it to a high-quality level. At the same time, some manuscripts, projects, or ideas are fundamentally limited from the outset, and honest feedback delivered early is equally constructive. Not every research question is salvageable, and recognizing that early can be just as valuable as refining work that has clear potential.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Kelava: Peer review is fundamental to science, yet it often remains undervalued. It is one of the few mechanisms that helps ensure scientific rigor, methodological soundness, and clinical relevance before findings enter the literature. I would also like to congratulate the Journal of Thoracic Disease (JTD) for its monthly reviewer initiative, which recognizes physicians who volunteer their time and expertise in the service of the scientific community. Much of this academic work remains invisible, despite being essential to maintaining quality and integrity in research. This is becoming increasingly challenging in clinical medicine, where the demands of daily practice often leave little room for scholarly work, and these contributions are not always adequately incentivized.

JTD: Why do you choose to review for JTD?

Dr. Kelava: I enjoy reading novel work. Reviewers are uniquely positioned at the forefront of science; it is a privilege to encounter new ideas before they enter the broader literature. There is also genuine satisfaction in helping strengthen a manuscript and contributing, even in a small way, to making good work better. JTD aligns closely with my areas of clinical and academic interest, which makes that contribution especially meaningful.

(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)

Alissa Blessing

Dr. Alissa Blessing completed her medical studies at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and is currently affiliated with the Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology at the Vienna General Hospital and the Medical University of Vienna. Her primary clinical and research areas encompass pulmonary pathology, gastrointestinal pathology, and molecular pathology. A central theme of Dr. Blessing’s work is the integration of precise morphological diagnostics with advanced molecular techniques to better understand tumor biology. Currently, her research projects focus on detailed morphological studies and in vitro drug testing utilizing lung cancer cell cultures. Through this research, she aims to contribute to the development and evaluation of more targeted therapeutic strategies in thoracic oncology.

Dr. Blessing thinks that the strength of peer review lies in collaborative quality control. She considers a diverse panel of reviewers crucial to examining the scientific rigor of an article from multiple perspectives. This multidisciplinary approach allows her to best utilize her highly specialized background in morphological and molecular pathology to scrutinize specific aspects of a manuscript. In doing so, she effectively complements other reviewers whose primary focus might be in different domains, ultimately ensuring a well-rounded and robust evaluation of the research.

In Dr. Blessing’s view, an objective review is defined by an impartial assessment of a study’s methodology, data, and conclusions, completely free from personal or institutional bias. To maintain this standard of objectivity, the first step is to avoid reviewing work from research groups with whom she has personal ties. During the review process itself, she actively disregards the authors’ identities and affiliations. This disciplined approach allows her to concentrate fully on the scientific integrity of the manuscript and ensures her feedback is driven purely by the objective quality of the research.

"I am fortunate that my institution allocates protected research time and encourages involvement in peer review to help uphold the standards of scientific quality. Any review work I cannot manage during these regular hours, I typically complete on the weekends. Ultimately, I find the process deeply rewarding rather than burdensome; I truly enjoy exploring new research concepts, assessing methodological approaches, and critically reflecting on emerging projects in the field," says Dr. Blessing.

(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)

Aahd Kubbara

Dr. Aahd Kubbara is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine physician affiliated with the University of Minnesota, where he contributes to both patient care and fellowship education. His work focuses on interstitial lung disease (ILD), with particular interest in ANCA-associated vasculitis lung involvement. He is actively involved in fellowship program operations, curriculum development, and trainee evaluation. His recent academic efforts include multicenter research on interprofessional teaching in the ICU, as well as projects examining delays in ILD diagnosis and their clinical impact. He also engages in scholarly writing, peer review responses, and national and international conference participation within pulmonary and critical care medicine.

Dr. Kubbara indicates that peer review serves as a quality control step, ensuring methodological rigor, validity, and clinical relevance before publication. In pulmonary and critical care, it helps prevent premature conclusions and improves how findings are interpreted and applied to patient care.

In Dr. Kubbara’s opinion, a good reviewer should prioritize validity over novelty—focus on study design, bias, and appropriate analysis. One should assess clinical relevance, especially for critical care outcomes; and provide objective, constructive feedback and recognize both limitations and incremental contributions.

“Peer reviewing strengthens critical appraisal skills, provides early insight into emerging data, and helps improve the quality of literature guiding patient care. I learn a lot from reviewing papers regarding how researchers are generating questions. It adds to my foundational knowledge by exposing me to literature I would’ve not come across otherwise. It also reflects academic responsibility within the field,” says Dr. Kubbara.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ruvistay Gutierrez-Arias

Ruvistay Gutierrez-Arias is a Physical Therapist with a master’s degree in Clinical Epidemiology and a PhD candidate in Biomedical Research Methodology and Public Health at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain. He worked for 10 years in the Intensive Care Unit at the Instituto Nacional del Tórax (Santiago, Chile), providing respiratory care and physical rehabilitation to patients with highly complex cardiorespiratory conditions (including lung and cardiac surgery, ECMO, and transplantation). He currently serves as Head of the Rehabilitation Department, Chair of the Research and Scientific Support Committee, and Coordinator of the Home Ventilation Program for patients with chronic respiratory diseases at the Instituto Nacional del Tórax. He also teaches at Andrés Bello University and chairs the Ethical-Scientific Committee of the Servicio de Salud Metropolitano Oriente (Santiago, Chile). His research focuses on physical rehabilitation and respiratory care for critically ill patients, and he also collaborates as a methodological advisor in other areas—particularly in evidence synthesis studies (systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and umbrella reviews). Learn more about him here.

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

Dr. Gutierrez-Arias: One of the primary limitations is the wide variability in requirements and evaluation criteria used by journals—even those under the same publisher—for peer reviewers to assess manuscripts. This complicates the reviewer’s task, as they must spend additional time understanding both the specific requirements and the online platforms needed to complete their reviews. To address this, a consensus should be established to define minimum evaluation criteria, starting with journals from the same publishing house. Furthermore, peer review is rarely compensated. It is a time-intensive process typically performed on a voluntary basis, leading to decreasing interest among researchers with advanced methodological training in serving as peer reviewers. This could be improved by providing monetary compensation to reviewers or, as some journals already do, offering discounts on article processing charges for authors who have previously conducted peer reviews for the journal.

JTD: What do you consider to be an objective review?

Dr. Gutierrez-Arias: An objective peer review is one in which the evaluation of the manuscript focuses on its content and the way it is presented. In other words, an objective peer review should avoid, for example, focusing on the authors of the manuscript as a criterion for evaluation. Journals should ensure double-blind peer review; at a minimum, they must ensure that reviewers do not know the authors of the manuscript and should remove any data that would allow the authors to be identified. Not all types of manuscripts should be subject to this, since, for example, narrative reviews should be written by specialists in the field, who should be evaluated. To review manuscripts and be as objective as possible, I use guidelines such as PRISMA, and STROBE to guide and organize my comments.

JTD: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Gutierrez-Arias: It is crucial for authors to disclose all potential COIs related to the conduct of clinical studies. Currently, authors are typically required to disclose financial conflicts—such as affiliations with companies that develop a specific device or manufacture a drug under study. However, consideration should be given to whether, in the future, researchers should also be required to disclose conflicts related to their preconceptions before initiating a study. For example, a physical therapist evaluating the effect of a rehabilitation program on patients who have undergone lung cancer surgery should disclose whether they hold a pre-existing belief about the intervention’s effectiveness. The extent to which COIs influence research largely depends on the researchers’ integrity. While disclosed conflicts do not inherently invalidate a study, they provide critical context for reviewers and readers to assess the work’s objectivity.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Darren Turner

Dr. Darren Turner obtained his medical degree from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. During medical school, he studied large animal models of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and novel stem cell therapeutics, bridging his early science background to his current cardiothoracic focus. He is currently a general surgery resident at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Amid residency training, he sought to pursue his research interests in cardiothoracic surgery as a postdoctoral research fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in the division of Cardiothoracic Surgery. His research interests span clinical outcomes research in congenital heart surgery, pediatric cardiac and lung transplantation, and translational research related to mechanical circulatory support and tissue engineering.

JTD: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?

Dr. Turner: To me, this type of review is an analytical process that identifies specific shortcomings of a body of work and at the same time offers some suggestions to improve the work. I think another key part of this feedback is that it is actionable and not personal.

JTD: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Turner: It is crucial to the advancement of science that ideas and theories are shared amongst peers in order to ensure reproducibility, thereby advancing a given field. Peer review, integral to the academic writing process, is also crucial to maintaining scientific integrity. Furthermore, collaborative writing between mentor and mentee is a form of scientific education and knowledge transfer, providing unique opportunities for mentorship and camaraderie.

JTD: Why do you choose to review for JTD?

Dr. Turner: Peer review is the backbone of scientific integrity. As someone who has benefited from thoughtful feedback about my own work, I feel the professional obligation to give back to the community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Anusha Manje Gowda

Anusha Manje Gowda is a board-certified Hematology-Oncology physician at Mary Washington HealthCare in Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA. She completed her fellowship in Hematology and Oncology at St. Joseph's University Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey, following residency training at the same institution. Prior to her clinical career, she conducted post-doctoral research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, contributing to NIH-funded cardiovascular trials including REDUCE-IT. She is an active clinician-researcher with publications spanning hematologic malignancies, thoracic malignancies, coagulation disorders, oncologic emergencies, and drug toxicities. Her recent work includes case reports on mediastinal Ewing’s sarcoma, pemetrexed-induced cutaneous toxicity, and platinum hypersensitivity. She is actively engaged in clinical trials at her institution and serves as a peer reviewer for several medical journals. She is board certified in Hematology and Oncology and is a member of the American Society of Hematology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Gowda indicates that a healthy peer-review system is one that is meticulous, constructive, and timely. It should uphold scientific integrity by ensuring that the research article is methodologically sound, clinically relevant, and ethically conducted. Reviewers should provide feedback that is not only critical but also constructive to help authors strengthen their work. Reviewers should have a transparent, fair, and bias-free approach to reviewing articles. A healthy peer-review system also respects the time and effort of both authors and reviewers; timely reviews prevent unnecessary delays in publishing important research. A healthy peer-review process fosters a culture of collegiality and mutual respect within the academic community. The entire scientific community benefits when reviewers approach manuscripts with intellectual curiosity and a genuine desire to advance the field.

Dr. Gowda reckons that a key principle for reviewers to keep in mind is that behind every manuscript is a team of people who have invested significant time and effort into their work, and that sense of respect should shape the entire review process. Reviewers need to critically evaluate whether the methodology is sound, the conclusions are supported by the data, and the statistical analysis is appropriate. But beyond the technical checklist, it is important to ask—does this work add something meaningful to the existing literature? Is the clinical relevance clear? She thinks that reviewers should ensure clarity in feedback and avoid vague comments like "this needs improvement"; specific, actionable suggestions are what authors need to move forward. Reviewers should resist the urge to rewrite a paper in their own voice, explaining that the job is to evaluate and guide, not to impose stylistic or philosophical preferences on someone else's work. Additionally, conflict of interest is something reviewers must be honest about: if there is a personal or professional relationship with the authors, or if the topic overlaps too closely with competing research, it is better to be honest and recuse oneself than to compromise the integrity of the review.

“Reviewing articles is something I started as part of being an active member of the academic community. Over time, it has also enhanced by clinical and research skills and has made me a better physician and a researcher. Reading manuscripts before they are published keeps me intellectually sharp, I am exposed to new ideas, emerging methodologies, and evolving perspectives in my field. There is also a sense of giving back. So many of my own publications have benefited from thoughtful reviewers who pushed me to think more critically and present my work more clearly. Being on the other side of that process is like paying it forward. The anonymity of the peer-review process allows me to be completely honest in my assessment without worrying about professional awkwardness or politics. When I review a paper, I am in some small way contributing to the quality of research that will eventually influence how patients are treated,” says Dr. Gowda.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Joseph D. Forrester

Dr. Joseph D. Forrester is an acute care surgeon at Stanford University and the medical director of the trauma program and chest wall injury program for Stanford Health Care. His research is focused on optimizing the operative and non-operative management of patients with complex chest and abdominal wall injury, both in the acute and chronic settings. He especially enjoys clinical trials evaluating these issues.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Forrester: Peer review is essential to ensuring that published work is impactful, understandable, and influential. There is benefit for the authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is also critical for the reviewers, ensuring they stay up to date on modern literature and research themes. 

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

Dr. Forrester: As a reviewer, it is critical to remember that each author is trying to do their best. Comments should be constructive and help the authors make the most out of their manuscripts and research projects. 

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

Dr. Forrester: I don’t have a story, but a word of advice. Have residents and medical students learn to review manuscripts early. There is no faster way to make you a good science writer than editing and critically reviewing others work. 

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mujtaba Mubashir

Dr. Mujtaba Mubashir is a final year cardiothoracic surgery fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, the U.S., with an interest in pursuing academic cardiac surgery focused on heart and lung transplantation. He completed his general surgery residency at the Cleveland Clinic and earned his medical degree from Aga Khan University, where he was recognized as the Best Graduate and the 9th Gold Medalist. He currently serves on the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) Executive Committee, the STS Task Force on Resident and Trainee Development, and the CTSNet JANS Editorial Committee. His academic portfolio includes acting as a reviewer for several academic journals, along with multiple peer-reviewed manuscripts, book chapters, podcasts, and presentations at national meetings. He is a recipient of several national research awards and nominations, and is passionate about surgical education, mentorship, and using multimedia to disseminate impactful research to a wider audience. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Mubashir believes peer review is an invaluable aspect of medical education that drives medicine forward. Objective, transparent reviewers maintain trust in the peer review process and the published literature—critical in an era of evidence-based practice, where the medical field and public rely on peer-reviewed data. A reviewer should approach the task with an understanding of its significance, focusing on objectively evaluating research for integrity, novelty, and soundness. This requires deep subject-matter expertise, methodological literacy, the ability to provide constructive feedback, and personal ethical integrity. He finds peer review highly rewarding and encourages colleagues to participate to advance medical literature and patient care.

Dr. Mubashir thinks the current peer review system relies on the voluntary effort of busy clinicians, with inherent bias and inter-reviewer inconsistency leading to common publication delays and variable research quality. He adds that peer review standards are often inconsistent, and suggests reinforcing it through formal training—ideally during early medical education—with standardized reviewer training. He also believes broader statistical knowledge, particularly in interpreting and applying statistics in different scenarios, would improve the quality of peer reviews.

In Dr. Mubashir’s opinion, reporting guidelines help authors present results in a standardized way, which also simplifies the review process. These guidelines create a predictable manuscript structure, allowing reviewers and readers to assess data validity, account for potential biases, and fully understand how data are collected, interpreted, and analyzed. This ultimately strengthens trust in the peer review process among medical professionals and the public. He emphasizes that adhering to reporting guidelines is an integral part of the research process and should be closely followed.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Sodai Nagata

Dr. Sodai Nagata is a Research Fellow in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at the University of Tokyo, and a thoracic surgeon at the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan. He received his M.D. from Nagasaki University and completed his surgical training at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Kanto Rosai Hospital, and the University of Tokyo Hospital. His specialties include lung cancer and mediastinal tumor surgery, particularly video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), as well as lung transplantation. His research interests broadly focus on clinical research in lung transplantation and perioperative management in patients with advanced lung disease. In addition to his clinical and research activities, he is actively engaged in peer review for international journals. He has authored several publications in leading cardiothoracic surgery journals.

Dr. Nagata reckons that peer review plays a crucial role in advancing science by refining research through diverse and critical perspectives. By incorporating feedback from experts with different backgrounds and viewpoints, manuscripts are strengthened in terms of methodological rigor, clarity, and clinical relevance. This process not only improves the quality and reliability of individual studies but also ensures that published findings meaningfully contribute to the existing knowledge.

In Dr. Nagata’s opinion, a reviewer should possess expertise, objectivity, and a constructive attitude. Beyond assessing the study design and clinical relevance, he notes, it is important to carefully examine whether the arguments are logically consistent throughout the manuscript. In particular, the conclusions should be closely evaluated to ensure they are fully supported by the data and do not overstate the findings. Reviewers should aim to provide clear and constructive comments that help authors strengthen their work. Attention to detail, respect for ethical standards, and a professional, timely approach are also essential.

“Peer review offers a unique opportunity to engage with a wide range of manuscripts and to learn from diverse perspectives and the latest findings in the field. It is a rewarding experience that not only contributes to the advancement of science but also sharpens one’s own critical thinking and academic skills. I would encourage fellow reviewers to continue their efforts, as this work plays an essential role in maintaining the quality of scientific research while also supporting their own professional growth,” says Dr. Nagata.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Divya A. Shankar

Divya A. Shankar is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, as well as a pulmonary and critical care physician at Boston Medical Center. She earned her medical degree at Boston University and completed her Internal Medicine residency and Pulmonary/Critical Care fellowship at Boston Medical Center, where she also served as a T32/F32 Research Fellow. She is currently an Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences Fellow at Boston University. Her research focuses on optimizing care quality and clinical outcomes for patients with interstitial lung diseases through health services research and implementation science approaches.

Dr. Shankar reckons that a constructive review delivers clear, actionable feedback to help authors strengthen their research and elevate manuscript quality. It raises thoughtful questions regarding study design, analytical methods, result interpretation, and presentation clarity, while identifying potential bias, confounding factors, and unaddressed limitations that authors may have overlooked. In contrast, a destructive review tends to be overly dismissive, vaguely critical, or judgmental without providing specific, meaningful guidance for revision and improvement.

In Dr. Shankar’s opinion, full Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is fundamentally important for academic integrity. While a declared COI does not automatically invalidate research findings, transparency is indispensable for preserving trust and credibility in the scientific community. Proper disclosure enables readers, reviewers, and editors to interpret results objectively and assess whether financial, professional, or personal interests may have influenced study design, data analysis, or the reporting of outcomes.

“Peer review is essential to maintaining the integrity, quality, and rigor of scientific research. As an early-career researcher, I see participating in the peer-review process as both a professional responsibility and an important opportunity for continued learning. Reviewing manuscripts strengthens my own skills in critical appraisal, data interpretation, and scientific writing, while also allowing me to contribute to advancing high-quality research in the field,” says Dr. Shankar.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Anne L. Castro

Anne L. Castro is an Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology at the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She attended medical school at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine and completed residency and fellowship training in Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine at Duke University Medical Center. Her research focuses on perioperative and acute pain management using multimodal, opioid sparing approaches, the integration of pain psychology into perioperative care, and anesthesiology education. She also serves as an Associate Program Director for the Anesthesiology Residency program at MCW and is actively involved in teaching and mentoring.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Castro: Peer review is essential to maintaining a high standard of academic discourse by providing diverse expert input on emerging scientific findings. Beyond that, it allows for bidirectional learning and discussion, which not only help improve the scientific process and dissemination skills of authors but also of reviewers. I always learn something when I engage in peer review.

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

Dr. Castro: While peer review can be viewed with apprehension by aspiring authors, it is important to remember that a thoughtful, constructive review can help identify ways that authors can grow and improve in their research methodologies, execution, interpretation of findings, and dissemination skills. It is important for reviewers to be thoughtful, honest, and as constructive as possible in order to maintain a high level of academic rigor and also to support the development of their academic peers. If done in a constructive way, it can be more akin to a mentorship experience than the gauntlet it is often considered to be.

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. Castro: Thank you for all that you are doing to support the scientific community, often sharing your own time and resources to do this work. I hope that you enjoy and find it as beneficial as I do!

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shelton Lo

Dr. Shelton Lo serves as the Director of Population Health at UnitedHealth Group. He previously worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow within the Epidemiology and Community Health Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. He earned his Doctor of Public Health degree from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. His research investigates environmental and social factors affecting cardiopulmonary health, with a primary focus on air pollution exposure and chronic respiratory conditions including COPD. His recent studies leverage large population datasets to analyze how long-term residential ozone exposure influences respiratory health outcomes. Beyond research, Dr. Lo has delivered lectures at Harvard University and the University of California, San Diego, teaching epidemiology and public health methodologies while mentoring students. He remains dedicated to promoting rigorous, transparent and influential scientific research. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Lo: Though indispensable to academia, peer review still has notable shortcomings. Review quality fluctuates greatly based on reviewers’ professional proficiency, available time and personal academic stance. Slow evaluation progress also hinders the timely dissemination of valuable research findings. Additionally, reviewers seldom receive effective feedback, making it difficult for them to assess the practical value of their comments. Enhancing consistency and transparency is key to optimization. Issuing standardized assessment guidelines, adopting unified evaluation criteria and rewarding high-quality reviews can effectively lift overall performance. Systematic training, particularly for early-career researchers, also helps elevate the standard of peer review.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Lo: Solid domain expertise stands as the fundamental requirement for reviewers. Sound judgment and professional ethics are equally crucial. Reviewing aims not merely to assess academic work, but to facilitate its improvement. Competent reviews feature clear viewpoints, specific analysis and constructive suggestions. They identify existing flaws and offer feasible solutions. Fairness and objectivity are essential when evaluating studies that adopt divergent research approaches. Meanwhile, reviewers should maintain respectful communication, bearing in mind that every manuscript embodies the authors’ diligent efforts.

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

Dr. Lo: Peer review underpins the quality of academic publications, and participating in this process is an inherent professional obligation for all researchers. It also brings substantial personal growth. Keeping engaged in reviewing keeps pace with cutting-edge advances, and sharpens critical thinking regarding study design, data analysis and result interpretation. Having received insightful feedback on my own papers, I am motivated to pass on the same sincere and careful evaluation to fellow researchers.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Benjamin Bleiberg

Dr. Benjamin Bleiberg is a hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania. He held the position of chief fellow in 2025 and is currently pursuing a Master of Science in Clinical Epidemiology. His research focuses on immunotherapy and targeted therapy selection, treatment sequencing, administration duration and biomarker validation, with a particular focus on circulating tumor DNA analysis. He also conducts comparative effectiveness research and clinical trials aimed at optimizing treatment outcomes for patients with thoracic malignancies, including non-small cell lung cancer. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Bleiberg reckons that rigorous peer review is fundamental to credible scientific advancement. Impactful clinical research ultimately guides real-world clinical practice. Clinicians adopt evidence-based interventions only when they fully trust the validity of the published findings. Such credibility rests on authors submitting sound research and reviewers conducting critical, impartial assessments. Peer review safeguards the authenticity and proper interpretation of published studies, and bridges laboratory discoveries and clinical application.

In Dr. Bleiberg’s opinion, when evaluating manuscripts, reviewers should be mindful of the context in which the research takes place. Reviewer comments should focus on improving the quality of the manuscript rather than changing the scope of the proposed research. Retrospective data and smaller studies can be very impactful in rare diseases or in under-researched practice settings, while other questions may require larger prospective trials or meta-analyses. The key questions to keep in mind are: “Does the research provide novel insights or a new understanding of the central research question?” and “Is the methodology appropriate to answer the proposed question?”

“I usually reserve dedicated, recurring blocks of time for peer review responsibilities to allow for focused and timely evaluation of articles. This ensures that I can limit distractions and that these responsibilities are part of my normal calendar rather than an additional, unscheduled burden. Participating in peer review has both improved the quality of my research and helped me stay up-to-date on important evidence gaps and emerging questions in the field. Critically evaluating work from other authors and seeing the benefits and limitations of novel study designs have significantly impacted the direction of my research. Viewing peer review activities as not only a service to the academic community but also an opportunity to expand my own horizons has helped me prioritize and protect this time,” says Dr. Bleiberg.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

James Hall

Dr. James Hall is a cardiothoracic intensivist and emergency physician at NYU Langone Health and NYU Long Island School of Medicine. He engages in medical education across undergraduate, graduate and continuing medical education levels, alongside interdisciplinary curriculum design. He directs two clinical rotations and serves as lead faculty for the Health Systems Science, Ethics, and Professionalism course at the medical school. His research and academic initiatives cover echocardiography and other ultrasound applications, critical care optimization for cardiac surgery, cognitive bias and clinical decision-making, healthcare policy formulation and ethical deliberation. He holds committee positions with the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians, and takes part in international collaborations spanning global medicine, wilderness medicine and overseas medical education. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Hall: Peer review underpins scientific integrity, yet it faces notable drawbacks including tight time limits, uneven reviewer expertise, and unpaid reviewing work that discourages top scholars from taking part. Review standards also vary drastically; evaluators may prioritize methodology, innovation, statistical validity or clinical significance differently. Besides, well-polished papers tend to gain more favor than substantial studies with flawed writing. Verifying reviewers’ methodological expertise can effectively mitigate such issues.

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

Dr. Hall: Self-awareness and proactive adjustment serve as the core approach to curb bias. Personal preconceptions and routine clinical practice may trigger subjective approval or disapproval toward research topics, rather than judging the work by its actual quality. Remaining mindful and critical of one’s own standpoints is fundamental to impartial evaluation. Inviting multiple reviewers and conducting repeated assessment rounds can further reduce biased judgment. Meanwhile, even skeptical comments can deliver valuable insights, provided the feedback is rigorous and evidence-based.

JTD: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Hall: COI disclosure is indispensable, as transparency sustains scientific credibility and public confidence. This is especially true for industry-sponsored or corporate-conducted studies. Undisclosed interests render research findings unreliable and hard to interpret. Sound research methodology can even be manipulated to reach predetermined favorable conclusions. All declared conflicts of interest call for heightened examination of the relevant study.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Michael P. Brönnimann

Michael P. Brönnimann, MD, is a Swiss board-certified interventional radiologist and Visiting Scholar of Interventional Radiology at Stanford University. He also serves as an Attending Radiologist in the Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology at Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. Holding the European Board of Interventional Radiology (EBIR) credential, he further honed his subspecialty expertise through an interventional radiology fellowship at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. His clinical practice and academic research focus on minimally invasive image-guided oncologic and vascular interventions, with key interests in CT-guided lung biopsy, liver-directed therapies and percutaneous tumor ablation. His research focuses on optimizing procedural safety, minimizing complications, establishing imaging-based risk stratification systems, and translating technological advances into standardized, patient-centered interventional oncology practices. He strives to refine complex technical procedures into safer, unified and clinically feasible protocols applicable across multidisciplinary thoracic and oncological care pathways. Learn more about him here.

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

Dr. Brönnimann: A sound peer-review system serves as the scientific conscience of the medical community. It acts not only as a quality gatekeeper, but also as a constructive mechanism to enhance the scientific merit, logical clarity and clinical value of academic research. In my opinion, effective peer review is underpinned by academic integrity, efficient editorial management and a respectful academic atmosphere. Manuscripts ought to be evaluated based on methodological rigor, external validity, reproducibility and clinical significance, instead of research novelty alone. In the medical field, peer review needs to differentiate superficial observations from solid, replicable findings that can truly elevate clinical care. A well-functioning review system should feature predictable schedules, transparent timelines, explicit screening standards, strict conflict-of-interest oversight and well-grounded editorial decisions. All statistical issues, including research assumptions, effect sizes, multiple testing bias and missing data, must be clearly addressed where applicable. Ultimately, high-standard peer review demands solid expertise, sufficient time commitment and strong professional accountability, and reviewers’ valuable contributions deserve due academic recognition.

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

Dr. Brönnimann: Reviewers need to combine rigorous scientific scrutiny with clinical professional responsibility. The core evaluation lies in whether a study addresses valuable clinical or scientific questions, and whether its findings can optimize patient enrollment criteria, unify clinical protocols, improve patient prognosis or guide subsequent research directions. When assessing clinical and interventional research papers, reviewers must thoroughly examine patient selection criteria, pre-specified study endpoints, standardized complication definitions, objective outcome indicators, statistical reliability and overall reproducibility. Technical details are especially critical for image-guided and interventional research, ensuring full understanding and feasible replication of clinical procedures by peers. This requires complete documentation of puncture approaches, equipment selection, imaging guidance protocols, anticoagulation regimens, operational workflows and quality control standards. Taking CT-guided lung biopsy research as an example, reviewers should verify standardized definitions of pneumothorax, distinguish radiological signs from clinical symptoms, confirm unified complication grading systems, and check transparent reporting of sample sizes and follow-up periods. They also need to confirm that proposed complication prevention strategies are backed by solid clinical evidence rather than mere technical experience. A qualified review should separate major factors undermining research validity from minor expression flaws. Reviews shall remain rigorous, impartial and solution-oriented, assisting authors in improving their research while strictly complying with academic ethics, regulating conflicts of interest, and staying aware of personal academic limitations and potential biases.

JTD: Why do you choose to review for JTD?

Dr. Brönnimann: I choose to review for the JTD because it occupies an important position at the interface of thoracic medicine, oncology, imaging, surgery, and minimally invasive therapies. Its international, peer-reviewed, open-access profile makes it a valuable platform for timely dissemination of clinically relevant and translational research. This aligns closely with my background in interventional radiology, particularly CT-guided lung biopsy, image-guided thoracic interventions, and strategies to reduce complications. My reviewer perspective is shaped by the need to translate technically complex procedures into reproducible standards: clear eligibility criteria, standardized technique, predefined complication reporting, and clinically meaningful endpoints. I also value JTD’s openness to practice-oriented research. In thoracic oncology and image-guided therapy, progress increasingly depends on high-quality data, structured outcome reporting, and emerging tools such as imaging-based or AI-assisted risk stratification. Reviewing for JTD allows me to help authors strengthen methodological clarity, clinical relevance, and procedural reproducibility, so that important thoracic research can translate more reliably into patient care.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

PJ Kim

Dr. PJ Kim serves as Associate Professor in the Departments of Medicine and Radiology at the University of California, San Diego. His research focuses on heart transplantation and the longevity of cardiac allografts.

Dr. Kim thinks a key drawback of the existing peer-review system lies in the lack of a universally recognized mechanism to reward reviewers who dedicate spare time to assessment work. Relevant platforms such as Publons have helped drive gradual improvements in this regard.

According to Dr. Kim, high-quality reviews aim to offer practical feedback to support authors in getting their work published. Free from conflicts of interest, evaluations can remain constructive and unbiased.

Dr. Kim believes full disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest (COIs) is essential, even for seemingly irrelevant ones. COIs exert profound direct and indirect impacts on research outcomes. Related ethical education should be incorporated into early academic training and delivered periodically to all researchers.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Jinyong Bae

Jinyong Bae, DO and MPH candidate, is a U.S. Army Major within the Medical Corps and an experienced flight surgeon with over ten years of active-duty service. He currently trains in the Residency in Aerospace Medicine program at Fort Rucker, Alabama, in collaboration with the University of West Florida, where he also pursues a Master of Public Health specializing in environmental health. His clinical and research portfolio covers aerospace medicine, occupational and environmental health, and aeromedical risk assessment. His recent scholarship centers on aeromedical waiver adjudication, epidemiology of in-flight medical emergencies, environmental hazard assessment, and occupational risk factors affecting aviation safety. He is actively pursuing dual board certification in aerospace medicine and occupational medicine through the American Board of Preventive Medicine.

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

Dr. Bae: The conventional peer-review system suffers from multiple inherent drawbacks. It remains vulnerable to various forms of bias, including confirmation bias toward mainstream theories and unconscious prejudice regarding authors’ institutional backgrounds and nationalities. Additionally, a limited pool of uncompensated expert reviewers bears excessive workload, creating persistent bottlenecks and substantially prolonging publication timelines. Most importantly, current workflows rarely verify experimental reproducibility, exacerbating the replication crisis prevalent across biomedical disciplines. Multiple targeted reforms can address these issues. Structured open peer review, which discloses reviewer comments and identities after publication, enhances accountability and transparency. Pre-registration of study protocols and wider adoption of preprints enable early community evaluation and distribute reviewing burdens evenly across academia. Furthermore, formal academic recognition and standardized credentialing for reviewing activities can effectively incentivize participation. For high-risk clinical subspecialties that directly impact patient safety, rigorous reviewer screening and full methodological transparency are particularly essential.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Bae: Qualified reviewers require profound domain expertise to evaluate study design, statistical analyses and the validity of research conclusions. Intellectual integrity is equally critical; reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively based on presented evidence instead of personal preconceptions. Beyond technical proficiency, outstanding reviewers deliver specific, evidence-based and actionable feedback. Peer review should serve to refine manuscripts collaboratively rather than function as a rigid gatekeeping mechanism.

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

Dr. Bae: My motivations derive from professional obligation and intellectual fulfillment. Professionally, peer review operates on reciprocity; every published study relies on unpaid expert evaluation, and reviewing manuscripts represents my commitment to sustaining a healthy academic ecosystem. On a personal level, critically appraising cutting-edge literature sharpens my clinical judgment and exposes me to innovative methodologies and global practice patterns. In essence, peer review acts as high-value continuing medical education, benefiting both individual reviewers and the entire scientific community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Craig D. Williams

Dr. Craig D. Williams is a Clinical Professor of Pharmacy at the OSU/OHSU College of Pharmacy and an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Family Medicine at OHSU. He received his PharmD degree from the University of California, San Francisco, and completed his residency training at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. He is a board-certified pharmacotherapy specialist (BCPS) and a fellow of the National Lipid Association (FNLA). His research focuses on the optimal use of pharmacotherapy for acute and chronic disease management, with particular interest in atherosclerosis, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. He has received research funding from the American Diabetes Association, the American Lung Association, and the National Institutes of Health, and was the first pharmacist to serve on the national guideline writing committee for the American Diabetes Association.

“I cannot imagine developing a study protocol or treating a complex patient without some consultation and inclusion of my peers,” says Dr. Williams, who believes that peer review is an essential part of scientific research and should be regarded as a natural extension of everyday professional practice. To him, peer review provides an opportunity to seek input from respected peers, helping ensure that research is conducted and reported to the highest possible standard.

To minimize potential bias in peer review, Dr. Williams tries to ensure full and transparent disclosure. While certain conflicts of interest may require exclusion from specific activities, most can be appropriately managed through open disclosure. By providing complete information, reviewers and readers are able to make their own informed judgments regarding potential sources of bias, while allowing the scientific community to continue advancing clinical research collaboratively.

According to Dr. Williams, institutional review board (IRB) approval is an important safeguard for clinical research. Although most investigators strive to conduct research ethically, he recognizes that factors such as grants, promotions, patents, and other professional incentives may influence decision-making. He therefore considers IRB review, like peer review, to be an essential mechanism for maintaining ethical standards and preserving the integrity of clinical research.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Pim S. van Sambeeck

Dr. Pim S. van Sambeeck is a resident and PhD candidate in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. His research primarily focuses on ascending aortic surgery, with particular interest in its hemodynamic and biomechanical consequences, while also contributing to broader research in cardiothoracic surgery. His recent work includes studies on quality of life following ascending and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, as well as clinical and experimental research on aortic biomechanics. Through the integration of clinical and translational research, he aims to improve the understanding of the mechanical and functional outcomes of aortic interventions and ultimately enhance patient care. Learn more about him here.

Dr. van Sambeeck believes that a good reviewer should combine scientific rigor with fairness and a constructive mindset. Reviewers should possess solid methodological knowledge, pay close attention to detail, and critically evaluate both the scientific validity and clinical relevance of a study. He emphasizes that reviewers should assess manuscripts based on their scientific merit, regardless of the authors' reputation or institutional affiliation. In addition, he considers timely and constructive feedback essential, as it should help authors improve their work rather than simply identify its shortcomings.

According to Dr. van Sambeeck, balancing clinical duties, PhD research, and peer review requires careful time management. He usually completes peer reviews in the evenings or between clinical responsibilities, while ensuring that he remains sufficiently focused to provide thoughtful and thorough comments. He believes that peer review should be regarded as an integral part of academic responsibility rather than an additional burden. At the same time, he considers the review process a valuable learning opportunity, allowing him to keep up with new research topics, methods, and emerging evidence.

Dr. van Sambeeck considers data sharing to be an important development in scientific research because it improves transparency, enables independent verification of research findings, and facilitates further analyses and meta-research. Shared datasets are particularly valuable in surgical, experimental, and biomechanical research, where sample sizes are often limited. Data sharing, however, should always be balanced with patient privacy and data protection requirements and carried out within appropriate ethical and legal frameworks.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Stephen G. Swisher

Dr. Stephen G. Swisher, MD, is Division Head of Surgery, the Charles A. LeMaistre Distinguished Chair in Thoracic Oncology, and Professor in the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. His research focuses on developing novel therapeutics through neoadjuvant lung cancer trials with surrogate endpoints, particularly major pathological response (MPR). His interests also include oligometastatic lung cancer and selective organ-preservation approaches in esophageal cancer. Dr. Swisher has authored more than 535 peer-reviewed publications and has an H-index of 111. His research has been supported by the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI). He is also an active member of numerous professional organizations and has served on many national and institutional committees.

Dr. Swisher believes that peer review is critical because it provides an unbiased evaluation of scientific merit and helps ensure trust in research findings. In his view, a healthy peer-review system relies on acknowledged experts in the field who serve as reviewers on a non-compensated basis.

To minimize potential biases during the review process, Dr. Swisher emphasizes the importance of selecting reviewers independently rather than relying on those suggested by manuscript authors. He also recommends asking reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest to help maintain the fairness and integrity of peer review.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Krishan Bansal

Dr. Krishan Bansal is a Clinical Research Fellow in the Academic Respiratory Unit at the University of Bristol. A graduate of the University of Cambridge, he has established a strong early-career research record in respiratory medicine. His research focuses on respiratory infection, particularly community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and pleural infection. He is a co-applicant on several major grant proposals in CAP and serves as interim study coordinator for a number of large clinical trials in pleural infection. His recent work includes the SPIRIT randomized controlled feasibility trial of first-line medical thoracoscopy for pleural infection, research on the diagnostic implications of pleural fluid cell differential, and population-based analyses of readmissions and mortality following hospitalization for CAP.

For Dr. Bansal, peer review is the process through which individual research findings become trustworthy scientific knowledge. Beyond serving as a quality-control mechanism, effective peer review is also a collaborative process that helps authors identify weaknesses, improve the clarity of their work, and present their findings more honestly, particularly regarding study limitations. In clinical research, where published evidence directly influences patient care, rigorous peer review ultimately contributes not only to scientific progress but also to patient safety.

Dr. Bansal regards a healthy peer-review system as one that is timely, constructive, and fair. Reviewers should evaluate whether a study's conclusions are supported by the data rather than whether they would have designed the study differently, with criticism aimed at improving the manuscript rather than dismissing it. He also highlights the importance of transparency through clear editorial expectations, structured feedback, and appropriate disclosure of conflicts of interest. In addition, he considers a sustainable peer-review system should recognize reviewers' voluntary contributions, involve early-career researchers, and remain open to publishing negative or less “exciting” findings to reduce publication bias.

Despite the demands of clinical and research responsibilities, Dr. Bansal treats peer review as an integral professional commitment. He accepts review invitations only when they fall within his expertise and when he can meet the review deadline, declining promptly if he cannot in order to avoid delaying authors. His review process involves reading a manuscript early, reflecting on it while continuing his clinical work, and then completing the review in a focused session. He puts it, “I also regard reviewing as time reinvested rather than lost: it keeps me current with the literature, sharpens my own scientific writing, and repays the careful reviews my own manuscripts have received.”

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Lorna Tu

Dr. Lorna Tu is a Medical Physics resident at BC Cancer – Surrey, Canada, specializing in Radiation Oncology Physics. She completed her PhD in Medical Physics at the University of British Columbia and BC Cancer – Vancouver. Her research focuses on predicting lung cancer outcomes using radiomics and machine learning.

JTD: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Tu: There are several limitations with the existing peer-review system. One is that it is a time-intensive process. Thoroughly evaluating manuscripts, receiving feedback, and ultimately publishing an article require considerable time. The review process is further prolonged by the growing number of manuscript submissions and the relatively small pool of qualified reviewers who are willing to volunteer. To encourage reviewer participation, some journals offer incentives such as publication credits or formal recognition for completed reviews. Another limitation is the variability in reviewer feedback. Reviews may differ or even provide contradictory recommendations. While conflicting recommendations are not necessarily a flaw and may reflect legitimate differences in scientific judgment, they can make manuscript revisions and editorial decisions more challenging. One way to improve the process would be to publish reviewer comments and author responses alongside accepted manuscripts, allowing readers to better understand how a manuscript evolved throughout the review process.

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

Dr. Tu: Although peer review is time-consuming, it is an important professional responsibility and a meaningful part of being a scientist. I am grateful to the reviewers whose thoughtful feedback has improved my own work, so I prioritize contributing to the peer-review process. Before accepting an invitation, I assess whether the manuscript falls within my area of expertise and whether I can meet the requested deadline. I also limit the number of reviews I accept at the same time so that I can devote sufficient attention to each manuscript while balancing my clinical and academic responsibilities. Everyone has a different working style, but I prefer to reserve dedicated blocks of time for peer review so that the manuscript remains fresh in my mind. Before submitting my review, I revisit my comments during another dedicated session to ensure they are constructive, balanced, and reasonable.

JTD: Is it important for authors to disclose conflicts of interest (COIs)? To what extent would COI influence a research?

Dr. Tu: Yes, it is important for authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Full disclosure is essential for maintaining transparency and integrity in scientific research. A conflict of interest has the potential to influence multiple stages of the research process, including study design, data collection, and interpretation of the results. The extent of its influence depends on the specific circumstances. Disclosure allows readers to make informed judgments about whether financial, professional, or personal interests may have introduced actual or perceived bias into the conduct or interpretation of the research. However, a disclosed conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that the research is flawed or invalid. Conversely, an undisclosed conflict of interest can undermine confidence in both the research and its authors.

(by Alan Liu, Masaki Lo)

Masanori Okada

Dr. Masanori Okada is the Medical Director of the Division of Thoracic Surgery at the National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi Ube Medical Center in Ube, Yamaguchi, Japan. He is a thoracic surgeon with expertise in the surgical management of thoracic diseases, including lung cancer, pneumothorax, empyema, and mediastinal tumors. His clinical practice focuses on minimally invasive thoracic surgery, particularly video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). In recent years, he has been actively working to expand the indications for uniportal VATS to further reduce surgical invasiveness and enhance postoperative recovery. His academic interests include the development of evidence-based surgical strategies and the advancement of minimally invasive techniques in thoracic surgery. Through both clinical practice and research, Dr. Okada is committed to improving surgical outcomes while delivering patient-centered care that takes into account each patient's social background and quality of life.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Okada: Independent peer review by third parties ensures the accuracy and validity of academic papers, thereby enhancing their credibility. It also plays a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of the scientific process and preventing scientific misconduct. Furthermore, constructive peer review helps improve the quality of scientific manuscripts. Ultimately, this process promotes and maintains the high standards throughout the scientific community.

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

Dr. Okada: While a double-blind peer review process can eliminate bias based on author information, such as institutional affiliation, it cannot completely eliminate bias on the part of reviewers themselves. Such bias may arise from reviewers’ preconceptions or misconceptions shaped by their experience and knowledge, as well as from their level of interest in the manuscript. To minimize these biases, I first focus on the authors’ main conclusions and arguments—the central elements of any scientific paper—and then assess whether the study is conducted using scientifically sound methods, whether the data are sufficient to support the conclusions, and whether the interpretation of the findings is valid. I usually skim the Introduction and Background sections first but reserve a more thorough reading until after completing this initial evaluation. This approach helps me evaluate the scientific merit of the study as objectively as possible by minimizing the influence of prior knowledge or narrative framing.

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

Dr. Okada: To ensure the ethical conduct of research, it is essential to determine whether the potential benefits outweigh the associated risks. However, researchers may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks of their own work, making it difficult to maintain complete impartiality. Therefore, review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is independent of the investigators, is essential. An IRB conducts a comprehensive review to determine whether a proposed study is scientifically and ethically appropriate, thereby enhancing its credibility. Without IRB review, the ethical and scientific integrity of the study may be called into question. Furthermore, without independent ethical review, even scientifically valuable research may not be evaluated fairly because concerns about its ethical integrity may overshadow its scientific merits.

(by Alan Liu, Masaki Lo)

Noriko Kishi

Dr. Noriko Kishi currently serves at the Department of Radiation Oncology at Kyoto University Hospital. Her clinical and research interests include high-precision radiotherapy, particularly intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), for thoracic malignancies, including lung and mediastinal tumors, as well as hepatic and other cancers. Her recent work has focused on adaptive radiotherapy, which enables treatment plans to be modified in response to anatomical and tumor changes during the course of treatment. She is also involved in research on the clinical application and optimization of IMRT and SBRT, including SBRT for oligometastatic disease.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Kishi: Peer review is valuable both for helping authors improve the scientific quality and presentation of their work and for maintaining the overall quality and credibility of journals. More importantly, reviewers should provide constructive comments on how a manuscript can be improved and how the significance and appeal of the research can be communicated more effectively. I therefore try to keep these principles in mind when preparing my reviews.

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

Dr. Kishi: I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline a review when I believe that I may not be able to evaluate the manuscript impartially. I have also experienced having a manuscript rejected because of what I perceived as clear reviewer bias. Therefore, I believe that developing effective methods to recognize and minimize bias remains an important challenge in peer review.

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

Dr. Kishi: Reviewing manuscripts while managing busy clinical and research responsibilities can be demanding. However, peer review also provides a valuable opportunity to learn about new research and to improve our own scientific thinking and manuscript writing. Even in the era of artificial intelligence, careful evaluation based on human expertise, experience, and judgment remains essential. I hope we can continue to provide thoughtful and constructive reviews that contribute to scientific progress.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Tiago Pastilha

Dr. Tiago Pastilha is a physiotherapist in the Department of Pulmonology at Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Mondego, Figueira da Foz, Portugal. He holds a Master's degree in Physiotherapy with a specialization in cardiorespiratory conditions. His research focuses on pulmonary rehabilitation, with particular interests in promoting physical activity among people with chronic respiratory diseases. His recent work includes peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international scientific conferences, with an emphasis on strategies to enhance physical activity during pulmonary rehabilitation programs. He has also contributed to research projects investigating exercise interventions for individuals with chronic low back pain. Through his research, Dr. Pastilha aims to optimize rehabilitation outcomes and improve patients' functional capacity and quality of life, contributing to the advancement of evidence-based physiotherapy practice in cardiorespiratory rehabilitation.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Pastilha: Peer review is essential because it helps ensure that research is accurate, rigorous, and meaningful before it becomes part of the scientific literature. By having experts critically evaluate a study, authors receive valuable feedback that can improve the quality, clarity, and reliability of their work. Peer review also helps identify errors, methodological weaknesses, or unsupported conclusions that might otherwise go unnoticed. While it is not a perfect system, it encourages accountability and helps maintain trust in scientific research.

JTD: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Pastilha: The quality of a review often depends on the reviewer's experience, expertise, and the time they can dedicate to the manuscript. The process can also be slow, delaying the publication of important findings, and unconscious biases may influence reviewers' opinions. I believe the system could be improved by offering better training for reviewers, providing clearer review guidelines, recognizing reviewers' contributions, and encouraging greater transparency when appropriate.

JTD: What do you regard as a constructive or destructive review?

Dr. Pastilha: A constructive review provides clear, specific, and respectful feedback that helps authors improve their work. It highlights both the strengths of the manuscript and the areas that need improvement, offering practical suggestions rather than simply pointing out flaws. Even when recommending rejection, a constructive reviewer explains the reasons and provides comments that the authors can use to strengthen their research. In contrast, a destructive review is vague, overly critical, or dismissive, without offering useful guidance. Comments that are disrespectful, biased, or focused on the authors rather than the science are unlikely to contribute to a fair review process or to the improvement of the manuscript.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Thijs Feuth

Dr. Thijs Feuth is a pulmonologist at Turku University Hospital and a clinical lecturer and Associate Professor at the University of Turku, Finland. He received his MD from the University of Amsterdam, conducted his PhD research at Utrecht University, and completed his pulmonology training at the University of Turku. He also holds a Diploma in Tropical Medicine & Hygiene (DTM&H) from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. His current research focuses on pulmonary infections, particularly tuberculosis, as well as interdisciplinary work on global lung health and health disparities. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

JTD: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Feuth: All study methods have limitations, all data contain biases, and all scientists have blind spots. Over time, influential philosophers such as Socrates, Hume, and Popper have reminded us how little we can be certain of. Skepticism is therefore one of the foundations of science. New scientific evidence should first pass the scrutiny of peers before it is accepted as scientific knowledge. In an ideal world, we would all read every article as critically as we do when reviewing a manuscript. However, because our time is limited, peer review has become a shared responsibility—like a household chore where someone has to do the dishes. Here, the manuscript is the dish, and the flaws are the spots of dirt. Reviewers not only identify these flaws but also help prevent them. They serve as a second pair of eyes, offering no guarantees, but contributing to the quality of science and scientific publications.

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

Dr. Feuth: Many factors can strengthen or weaken a peer-review system. Journals continue to explore ways to improve the review process, such as structured review forms and different types of incentives. However, I believe it all begins with a genuine willingness to serve science and help others without personal interest. Reviewers deserve some academic recognition for their contributions. Platforms such as Web of Science provide one way to acknowledge review activities, and perhaps these contributions could also be recognized on academic CVs. Financial incentives are another possibility, particularly as it has become increasingly difficult to recruit reviewers. However, if financial rewards become the norm, they may undermine the principle of disinterestedness described by Robert Merton—that scientists should minimize personal interests in order to pursue truth and contribute to the collective advancement of science. Ultimately, a healthy peer-review system is built on mutual respect for both researchers and reviewers, as well as appreciation for the effort they invest in the scientific process.

JTD: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Feuth: Reviewing begins with the courage to accept the responsibility while recognizing your own limitations. It also means being honest about whether a manuscript truly falls within your area of expertise. Once a review is accepted, the task requires more than careful reading. A reviewer must read between the lines—not only examining the data that are presented, but also considering what may be missing. Good reviewers connect the dots, identify potential flaws, and, when necessary, verify critical findings. Above all, reviewing requires skepticism. At the same time, reviewers should remember that researchers are human and eager to learn. I always try to be kind and respectful, acknowledge a manuscript's strengths, and provide recommendations in the same spirit that I would hope to receive when my own work is reviewed.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)