In 2024, ACR reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
January, 2024
Ashwani Kumar Sharma, University of Rochester, USA
February, 2024
Jasmeet Kaur, Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA
March, 2024
Yoshio Masuda, National University of Singapore, Singapore
April, 2024
Shuhei Shintani, Shiga University of Medical Science, Japan
May, 2024
Filippo Maselli, University of Rome, Italy
June, 2024
Veronica Dusi, University of Turin, Italy
July, 2024
Tatsuya Nakao, New Tokyo Hospital, Japan
September, 2024
Akihiro Ishiguro, Tokyo Medical University, Japan
October, 2024
Francesca Di Pressa, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy
January, 2024
Ashwani Kumar Sharma
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma is board certified in radiology with CAQ in interventional radiology and neuroradiology. He is working with University of Rochester, New York. His areas of interest are interventional oncology and other image-guided procedures. He is involved with photodynamic therapy of ductal gastrointestinal cancers and identifying the excellent candidates for PDT in that patient population, and co PI for a phase 1 clinical trial investigating the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for sterilization of deep tissue abscesses. He is also co PI in another project where they are looking for role of ultrasound elastography of liver and spleen before and after TIPS procedure. In addition, he is involved with the wellness and diversity initiative of the department and has recently published on the burnout in interventional radiology.
ACR: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Sharma: Most of us in academic world wants to have a positive impact in our field and in the process advance our career. We want our work to be appreciated by others, however, when we start thinking and living in our silos, we lose track of reality. That’s why peer review of our work is very important. Review is the feedback we receive from our peers. By constructive review one can be critical at the same time helping the author with their experience to analyze the data better, to allow the article to communicate the idea. Constructive reviews attempt to frame critique such that remarks are supportive and attentive to the needs of the author. On the contrary, destructive review is a careless, unprofessional way of undermining and rejecting someone’s work on the basis of non-existent flaws. Reviews that have arrogant, dismissive language are not very encouraging, especially to young authors. Deconstructive feedback risks altering the spirit of the peer-review process, creating something negative, confusing, or potentially damaging to the author.
ACR: 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. Sharma: Reviewers like teachers are the most important members of our society. In our medical education, we don’t have a formal curriculum for paper writing. Learning by doing and failing multiple times before mastering the art of paper writing is the way most people learn this art. Reviewers are doing noble job of furthering science without any incentive. Like most great people don’t get the recognition they deserve, reviewers belong to that category. These are the individuals that are pushing us forward, helping ensure that the medical evidence used to protect our communities arises from sound research practice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Jasmeet Kaur
Jasmeet Kaur currently is a second-year fellow specializing in Hematology and Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, USA. She earned her medical degree from Sri Guru Ramdas Institution of Medical Sciences in India. Following medical school, she pursued residency training in Radiation Oncology at Baba Farid University and Health Sciences, also in India. Subsequently, she undertook an Internal Medicine residency at Saint Joseph Mercy Hospital, affiliated with Trinity Health, in MI, US. Her research interests primarily lie in gastrointestinal and genitourinary oncology, with a particular focus on immunotherapy and targeted therapy.
According to Dr. Kaur, reviewers should possess various skills and abilities to evaluate and provide feedback on academic papers. For a robust peer review, a reviewer's expertise in the subject matter is crucial for accurately understanding and assessing the content. In addition to maintaining objectivity, reviewers must also focus on the content's merits and shortcomings rather than personal biases. Identifying errors, inconsistencies, or other areas that need improvement in the manuscript requires more attention to detail. Furthermore, critical thinking skills enable reviewers to analyze content critically, identifying strengths and weaknesses in arguments, methodologies, and data interpretation.
Moreover, Dr. Kaur points out that reviewers must be ethically aware, adhere to confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and ethically conduct reviews. Reviewer activity should involve effective communication and constructive criticism rather than merely pointing out flaws. It should involve offering suggestions for improvement and helping authors enhance the quality of their work. Commitment to sustaining standard of quality and excellence in the field motivates reviewers to make substantial contributions to knowledge and research through their reviewing activities.
“ACR is an excellent platform for submitting scientifically intriguing case reports or case series that can bring changes in the future of medicine,” says Dr. Kaur.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Yoshio Masuda
Dr. Yoshio Masuda works in the Ministry of Health, Singapore. He received his Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) from the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. His research interests encompass investigating and improving patient outcomes in the fields of surgical oncology and trauma surgery. He is a regular-invited reviewer for international journals and has won multiple grants in support of various projects. He is also active in presenting collaborative works in international conferences. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Masuda believes that peer review is an essential component of manuscript publication. It is important as it allows for the evaluation of a study’s validity, originality, and significance. This enables the maintenance of high standards in existing literature. Pertaining to individual journals, peer review is key in selecting manuscripts that fall within a journal’s scope.
To minimize any potential biases during review, Dr. Masuda thinks that it is the responsibility of a peer reviewer to approach each manuscript with an impartial evaluation of its scientific validity and novelty. Nevertheless, a double-blind peer review may help to reduce any potential bias.
Dr. Masuda’s passion for research stems from witnessing how such studies can translate into real-world outcomes – healthcare policies, guidelines, etc. Naturally, peer review is a crucial aspect of research. He believes that this passion motivates him to devote most of his free time into research – collaborating, analyzing, writing studies and performing peer review. He adds that it may seem tiring but if reviewers really enjoy and appreciate the importance of research, it would seem like a pastime. Moreover, there are career tracks available that cater to physicians who appreciate both clinical work and research (e.g., clinician/surgeon-scientist track). These career pathways are designed to enable sufficient time for physicians to balance both areas of work and bring about impactful change to patients.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Shuhei Shintani
Dr. Shuhei Shintani graduated from Kochi University, and now works at Department of Gastroenterology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Japan. His research area focuses on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), EUS-Elastography, and endoscopic anesthesia and drugs.
Dr. Shintani indicates that peer review acts as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring that research published in scientific journals meets certain standards of accuracy, validity, and relevance.
In addition, Dr. Shintani points out that an objective review is one that presents information, analysis, and judgment without being unduly influenced by personal biases, preferences, or external factors. “To avoid bias, I do not check the author of the paper at all, even if it is an open peer review,” adds he.
“For researchers, making time is one of the most important things. Therefore, I try to find a little free time during the day to do a little peer review,” says Dr. Shintani.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Filippo Maselli
Dr. Filippo Maselli received his Physiotherapy degree from the University of Bari "Aldo Moro" in 2003. After that, he has cultivated his physiotherapy knowledge and practice in the field of musculoskeletal disorders, manual therapy, sports injuries, research and differential diagnosis. He was awarded a PhD degree with full marks in Neuroscience from the University of Genova in 2020. He completed an extensive Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy program granting his status of Orthopedic Manipulative Physical Therapist (Full IFOMPT) from the University of Genova in 2007. Moreover, he completed a Master program in Project Manager in Health from Università di Foggia, in Coordination of Health Rehabilitation Professions from Università di Roma “Sapienza”, in Methodologies and technology to support engagement and communication with the patients from Università di Niccolò Cusano. He is currently pursuing a master's degree in emergency medicine as a student. Moreover, he gained a Post-Graduate Diploma in Human Nutrition from the University of Bari "Aldo Moro", a Post-Graduate Certificate in Manual Therapy from the Curtin University of Perth, and a Master of Science in Rehabilitation sciences of the health professions at the University of Bari "Aldo Moro", in 2009. He has completed several distinguished certifications including spinal manipulation, vestibular rehabilitation and football medicine. He is a Lecturer in the IFOMPT Post-Graduate master’s degree at La Sapienza University of Rome, University of Genova and University of Molise. Moreover, he was a President of the Italian Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Group from 2016 to 2022. Dr. Maselli has published over 60 papers and original experimental research, about clinical trials, case reports, observational studies, editorials, and systematic reviews in internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals. He boasts of more than 20 years of experience in clinical practice and management, being a reference for patients and colleagues from all over Italy. Currently, he joins "La Sapienza" University of Rome as Skill Coordinator of the Master Musculoskeletal and Rheumatological Physiotherapy Program. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Maselli’s opinion, the role that peer review plays in science is crucial. Thanks to the fundamental role, in which peer review plays in the academic world, the quality and credibility of scientific research is guaranteed. Peer review performs an effective evaluation function by monitoring the integrity of scientific works, improving their quality, credibility and readability, validating the results of research, effectively contributing to the progress and diffusion of scientific knowledge.
Dr. Maselli thinks that a review is objective if it meets several criteria. Among the first, be sure to only accept reviews of articles that deal with topics or fields of interest in which one is an expert. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with one or more authors of the paper received for review. Do not use the review to insert quotes that influence the outcome of the paper or that can only benefit the reviewer, without actually improving the quality of the reviewed paper. Also, reviewers should be sure to provide constructive feedback to the authors, to improve the quality of the paper. Provide ideas, suggestions, alternative analysis perspectives of the text, which improve the quality and global clarity of the research, and evaluate the coherence of the results, addressing the weak points.
“I chose to revise for ACR because revisions could help to improve my core knowledge, stimulate continuous study, push one to overcome my cultural and professional limits, and can help create collaborations and new networks,” says Dr. Maselli.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Veronica Dusi
Dr. Veronica Dusi is currently a Clinical Researcher at the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical Sciences of University of Turin (Director Professor Gaetano M. De Ferrari). Her main areas of interest include ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac autonomic nervous system, cardiac neuromodulation, stereotactic radioablation and sports cardiology. She graduated cum laude as an MD and then as a Cardiologist in Pavia. As a medical student, she co-founded, together with Profs. Schwartz and De Ferrari, the International Registry of Left Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation in Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia, that led to the largest study ever published on the topic. She then entered a PhD program focused on cardiac sympathetic denervation, during which she spent almost two years at UCLA, Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, Los Angeles (Dr. K. Shivkumar). Dr. Dusi has published in various medical journals and has been invited as a speaker to over 30 national and international meetings. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
ACR: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Dusi: In my opinion, a constructive review should aim at providing helpful feedback to improve and reinforce the content of the manuscript. Tailored observations, positive comments, and actionable suggestions are crucial components to achieve this important aim. As a result, a good reviewer can help the authors to realize what worked well and what could be enhanced, fostering a growth mindset and encouraging the manuscript development. On the other hand, a destructive review is the one that tends to be overly negative, too generic, or harsh without offering useful insights for improvement. It may focus solely on criticism, often highlighting flaws without recognizing any strengths or providing guidance on how to address the issues. Destructive reviews can demoralize researchers and hinder progress, as they lack the components necessary for meaningful growth. In summary, constructive reviews aim to inform and uplift, while destructive reviews can discourage and alienate.
ACR: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Dusi: Peer review plays a critical role in the scientific process not only by ensuring an unbiased quality control and expert evaluation of the analyzed research, therefore leading to an overall scientific improvement, but also continuously establishing and reinforcing the bilateral credibility and trust that is required in the relationship among the submitting authors, the editorial board and the scientific community in general. The peer-review process has also the pivotal and delicate task to help identifying potential instances of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism or fabrication of data. Reviewers can flag ethical concerns, contributing to the integrity of the research. As such, peer review should be considered an irreplaceable means in the research process and good reviewers should be properly acknowledged.
ACR: Why do you choose to review for ACR?
Dr. Dusi: I chose to review for ACR because it is a modern journal that fully reflects my interest and my commitment towards an open and continuously evolving scientifical research. The easy handling of the entire reviewer process is a great additional bonus.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Tatsuya Nakao
Tatsuya Nakao, PhD, is the President, Consultant and Chief Director at the Division of Cardiovascular Surgery of New Tokyo Hospital, Japan. He became president of New Tokyo Hospital, Japan in June 2023. He also has been serving as an editorial board member of AME Case Reports. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Nakao thinks that peer review is needed to assess a manuscript's quality before publication. The significance of peer review is to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in the journal.
According to Dr. Naokao, peer review helps giving constructive feedback to their colleagues since respectful comments are the key to a good review. On the other hand, impolite comments might be the causes of destructive feedback.
“Peer review should be comprehensive, succinct, and accurate, and comment on the importance, novelty, and impact of the study. I will solve these issues by dividing them up when I am free,” says Dr. Nakao.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Akihiro Ishiguro
After graduating from Shimane University in 2016, Akihiro Ishiguro trained at Aichi Medical University and the National Cancer Center Hospital (Japan). He is currently working in outpatient care and basic research at Tokyo Medical University. His specialties are malignant carcinoma and atopic dermatitis, and he is currently experimenting with the effects of various inhibitors on mast cells.
“A paper should not be self-centered,” says Dr. Ishiguro, who thinks it is necessary for a scientific paper to have objective legitimacy and validity. New facts and results that are different from previous ones are necessary for scientific development. However, the evidence and scientific validity that support this need have to be accepted by many scientists.
According to Dr. Ishiguro, reviewers should be curious, proactive scientists. Deep knowledge of the field will prevent them from being biased. With pertinent observations and actionable suggestions, they can help authors understand how to improve and advance the manuscript. In addition, overly negative or harsh criticism can demoralize researchers and hinder progress.
“ACR is an open, continuously evolving journal that is essential for scientific research. It is also important that the entire process is easy for us to work with as reviewers,” adds Dr. Ishiguro.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Francesca Di Pressa
Dr. Francesca Di Pressa is Senior Resident in Radiation Oncology at University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Policlinico di Modena, Italy. Her major areas of interest are breast, lung and head & neck cancers. One of the items of greatest interest to her is the combination between radiotherapy and systemic therapy, in terms of efficacy and safety. She is currently improving her skills on treatments with SBRT and SRS for brain metastases and body localizations. Learn more about her here.
According to Dr. Pressa, peer review is a crucial part in the papers editing process. It is a sort of “filter” for the manuscript correction and improvement before the publication. It can help authors in focusing on topics that can be unclear for future readers and it can also help reviewers in knowledge update.
To minimize any potential biases during review, before the review, Dr. Pressa usually refreshes the topic of the manuscript, reading the principal scientific evidence in literature. It helps in being fair and focused. The journals should have several blinded reviewers with the aim of minimizing the effects of bias.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
