In 2025, 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.

Aditya Mahadevan, University of California, USA

Pratyusha Vadagam, Johnson & Johnson, USA

Caroline Uyeno, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, USA

Lefa Goodwill Shelile, Sefako Makgatho Health Science University, South Africa

Myoung Soo Kim, National Medical Center, Korea

Takenori Kato, Komaki City Hospital, Japan

Shangcheng Wang, Carolina Medical Center, USA

Tomoki Nishimura, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine Hospital, Japan

Marta Ramirez Ortega, Hospital Universitario Viamed Santa Elena, Spain

Stefano Moretto, Humanitas University, Italy

Payam Katebi Kashi, Anna Health, USA

Koji Yokoyama, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center,Japan

Payal Sahni, Burke Rehabilitation Hospital, USA

Koji Miura, Sakaide City Hospital, Japan

Marie-Laure Matthey Giè, Moncucco Hospital Group, Switzerland

Mudathir Ibrahim, Maimonides Medical Center, USA

Joudia Touri, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium

Khaled Alghueiri, Gießen University Hospital, Germany

Shin-Nosuke Watanabe, Hirosaki University, Japan

Christian Brickmann, Technical University of Munich, Germany

Aditya Mahadevan

Dr. Aditya Mahadevan is a resident physician in internal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. He completed his biochemistry degree at the University of California San Diego, followed by medical school at the University of California Irvine. As he continues his training in pursuit of a career in medical oncology, his research focus has shifted toward gastrointestinal and genitourinary malignancies and management of immune-related adverse events (iRAEs). Learn more about him here.

According to Dr. Mahadevan, peer review plays a key role in advancing scientific discovery. Reviewers have a responsibility to not only verify the accuracy of a manuscript’s comments, but also to aid in improving a manuscript for a journal’s readership.

In Dr. Mahadevan’s opinion, an objective review includes an assessment of a manuscript’s value to the scientific community, rigor, and thorough analysis of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. When reviewing a manuscript, he tries to evaluate these characteristics as independently as possible to respect the time spent by the authors in performing experiments and drafting a manuscript for peer review.

“As a budding translational investigator, I am driven by a desire to help my patients through not only direct patient care, but through innovation and discovery. Peer review allows me to appreciate and evaluate the innovation of others in our pursuit of improving patient care,” says Dr. Mahadevan.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Pratyusha Vadagam

Ms. Pratyusha Vadagam works as an Associate Director, Real-World Value & Evidence, Oncology, Solid Tumors, focusing on lung cancer at Johnson & Johnson in Pennsylvania, . She holds a Master of Science in Pharmacy Administration from Duquesne University and a Master of Pharmacy in Pharmaceutical Chemistry from BITS Pilani, India. Her research interests include health economics and outcomes research, demonstrating clinical and economic value of novel interventions, affordability, patient-reported outcomes, and real-world evidence including primary and secondary research. She explores methodologies to effectively demonstrate the value of interventions that are essential for decision-makers in public health, including clinicians, regulatory agencies, payers, patients & patient advocacy groups, pharmacists, and policymakers. Pratyusha is also a regular invited reviewer for international journals. She has published her work as manuscripts and presented her work at various international conferences, contributing valuable insights to the field. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Pratyusha believes that peer review is crucial for manuscript publication. It validates research, ensuring findings are reliable, original, and significant. By upholding high standards, it filters out weak studies, promoting only top-notch research to the scientific community. Reviewers' constructive feedback helps authors refine their work, enhancing clarity and rigor. This process builds trust in scientific research among the public and institutions.

Pratyusha reckons that reviewers must be objective, avoiding personal biases. They should assess a manuscript's clarity, structure, and research validity, like methodology and data analysis. Checking for originality, proper literature review, and relevance to the journal's scope is essential. Ethical compliance, including conflict-of-interest reporting, also falls under their purview. Despite technological advancements, human reviewers' critical thinking and domain knowledge are irreplaceable. Their feedback should be targeted and constructive to help authors improve.

As a full-time HEOR professional, Pratyusha acknowledges the challenge of finding time for peer review. However, the sense of satisfaction from knowing that her review contributes to improving research quality is highly rewarding. She employs several strategies. Firstly, she prioritizes her commitments, treating peer review as an important professional responsibility alongside her full-time job, given its significance in advancing science and patient care. She sets specific time blocks in her weekly schedule, often after work or on weekends, dedicated solely to peer review activities. This structured approach helps ensure uninterrupted time for the task. She also uses time and work management tools, keeping a daily to-do list in a journal and crossing off completed tasks according to priority. She manages tasks by creating timelines backward from deadlines and setting reminders for when to start reviewing manuscripts. She divides the peer-review process into manageable parts, such as reading, commenting, and drafting feedback, instead of trying to complete it all at once. Finally, she carefully selects manuscripts based on their originality, relevance, and alignment with her expertise and research interests, making the process more engaging and manageable.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Caroline Uyeno

Caroline Uyeno graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, while fulfilling Pre-Medicine coursework and the 5 College Certificate in Culture, Health, and Science. At Amherst, she served as an emergency medical technician (EMT); she also volunteered as a Crisis Responder on the Kids Help Phone. Since 2017, she has supported concussion research at the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, the Concussion Legacy Foundation of , and the Stanford University Brain Performance Center. Ms. Uyeno published research in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, and presented research at the World Congress on Brain Injury and the Society of Academic Emergency Conference. She also wrote her senior thesis on concussion reporting norms in Division 3 collegiate athletes. She is also an analyst at Vista Equity Partners. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

ACR: What role does peer review play in science?

Ms. Uyeno: Peer review plays a vital role in scientific research to maintain quality control, spark innovation, and foster a robust medium for healthy debate. A peer-reviewed article has the stamp of approval by fellow researchers who have devoted time developing an expertise in a field, certifying that the article is accurate, original, and progresses the field’s understanding of a topic. Peer review generates a mutually beneficial relationship between the reviewer and the author. Both parties advance and refine their knowledge and communication skills from the other, whether related to the underpinnings of an ailment, better controlling research methods, or more clearly presenting results and implications. 

ACR: What do you consider as an objective review?

Ms. Uyeno: An objective review is one that focuses on the fact and accuracy of the article, rather than irrelevant variables that may impact the article’s interpretation. I try to enforce objectivity in my reviews by hiding the name and affiliation of the author, as well as re-reading my suggestions for an article to reflect on whether any personal experiences are subjectively influencing my interpretation of the article.

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

Ms. Uyeno: I am motivated to continue participating in the peer-review process to “pay it forward”. I understand the time and effort that goes into conducting, writing and submitting a body of research. I want to continue supporting researchers and offering suggestions on how they can strengthen and progress their work. I am also incredibly appreciative of my mentors who graciously devoted their time to supporting my research ambitions. I am very grateful for all that I’ve learned from my mentors, Dr. Angela Lumba-Brown at Stanford University, Dr. Anne Hunt at University of Toronto, and Dr. Catherine Sanderson at Amherst College who furthered my understanding of concussion, pushed me to become a more diligent researcher, and are outstanding role models for women in science.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Lefa Goodwill Shelile

Lefa Shelile is a surgical trainee at Sefako Makgatho Health Science University in Pretoria, , carrying out clinical duties at the affiliated Dr. George Mukhari Academic Hospital. With a strong inclination towards vascular surgery, he is set to embark on a vascular surgery fellowship later this year. Currently, he is involved in a research project that aims to assess the level of knowledge among primary healthcare workers in , which is pending ethics approval. Additionally, he has been collaborating with the hospital's head and neck unit to study the demographics of head and neck pathologies. Since the start of his surgical career, he has been passionate about research and aspires to make significant contributions to the global research community. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Shelile emphasizes the critical role of peer review in the research landscape. Peer review is essential for enhancing the quality and relevance of research. Without it, research may be rife with bias and challenging for those outside the researcher's field to understand. Peer review acts as a regulatory mechanism to tackle these issues, ensuring that research meets higher standards and is accessible to a broader audience.

When it comes to what reviewers should consider, Dr. Shelile stresses the need for an open-minded approach. Reviewers should avoid basing their assessments solely on personal experiences or institutional practices. Instead, they should be well-informed about the variations in clinical practices across different nations, which can be achieved by staying updated on international literature related to the research topic. Moreover, he reminds reviewers that conducting research is a demanding task. Thus, they should offer positive and constructive criticism to avoid disheartening researchers, fostering a more collaborative and productive research environment.

“I think every contribution to research is important and plays a major role on a global scheme. Without your contribution the advancement of medicine would be delayed, and your role is very important in keeping to the high standard and integrity of the work being done. The review process also helps in terms of the reviewer improving the quality of their own work by constantly getting exposed to the work of other researchers. Each time I review a paper, I learn something new and am motivated to produce more research. Therefore, I think everybody wins even if work is being done behind the scenes,” says Dr. Shelile.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Myoung Soo Kim

Myoung Soo Kim, MD, PhD, is a neurosurgeon at the Trauma Center of the National Medical Center in Seoul, Republic of . His research interests lie in neurovascular surgery, head trauma, and neuroanatomy, and he is currently focused on a review article for neurotrauma.

Dr. Kim emphasizes the crucial role of peer review in science. Firstly, it significantly improves the quality of articles, ensuring that only well-crafted and accurate research reaches the public. Secondly, it serves as a guide for writing scientific articles, helping authors adhere to proper standards and formats.

Dr. Kim believes that reviewers should strive to enhance the paper's quality by identifying aspects overlooked by the author. Additionally, it is essential to be cautious of conflicts of interest to maintain the integrity of the review process.

Despite peer review being anonymous and uncompensated, Dr. Kim finds motivation in the opportunity to access new papers before others, which allows him to stay at the forefront of research. Moreover, it provides him with fresh ideas for his future research, making the process not only a contribution to the scientific community but also a personal learning experience.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Takenori Kato

Dr. Takenori Kato serves as the Director of Neurosurgery at Komaki City Hospital in Aichi Prefecture, . His department features cutting-edge infrastructure including a hybrid operating room, surgical microscopes, neuroendoscopy tools, and a Gamma Knife radiosurgery unit operated directly by neurosurgeons. This comprehensive facility enables Dr. Kato to integrate advanced microsurgical techniques with radiosurgical expertise, offering minimally invasive treatment options tailored to maximize patient quality of life. His research interests focus on combining surgical and radiation approaches to reduce complications and provide personalized treatment strategies for each patient. Dr. Kato believes that neurosurgeons with radiation knowledge can deliver more comprehensive care, and despite his busy schedule managing complex elective surgeries and emergency patients, he remains committed to publishing research and participating in global knowledge exchange. Learn more about him here.

ACR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Kato: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity, ensuring published research meets rigorous standards before influencing clinical practice. As neurosurgeons, we rely on evidence-based approaches for patient treatment, making this verification process crucial. Peer review creates a collaborative environment where experts validate methodologies and conclusions while identifying potential improvements. This process not only strengthens individual manuscripts but also advances our collective knowledge and ultimately improves patient care. In medical fields where treatment decisions impact lives directly, the quality assurance that peer review provides is indispensable.

ACR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Kato: An effective reviewer combines subject expertise with objectivity and constructive feedback skills. Rather than seeking reasons to reject manuscripts, reviewers should approach each submission with genuine curiosity and an open mind. Critical analysis must be balanced with respect for authors' efforts, providing specific, actionable suggestions rather than vague criticisms. Attention to detail, clarity in communication, and ethical conduct are equally important. The most valuable reviewers maintain timeliness despite busy clinical schedules and view their role not as gatekeepers but as contributors to scientific advancement.

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. Kato: I believe we all share the collective responsibility of advancing medical science through thoughtful peer review. Each manuscript we evaluate potentially influences treatment decisions for countless patients worldwide. As colleagues navigating the demands of clinical practice while contributing to academic progress, we understand the value of time. When reviewing manuscripts, I'm reminded of the significant effort invested by fellow researchers, and how our feedback helps transform their insights into better patient care. Though our contributions often remain unseen, this behind-the-scenes work forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine. I'm grateful to be part of this scientific community where we collectively strengthen our profession through the rigorous evaluation of new ideas.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shangcheng Wang

Dr. Shangcheng Wang is a research engineer at Carolina Medical Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a leading expert in knee biomechanics and reconstruction. He utilizes advanced biomechanics techniques, including computer modeling and experimental research, to study risk factors, treatment options, and prevention strategies for knee injuries. His collaborative work with shoulder, hip, and foot/ankle surgeons has broadened his research scope. Based on his findings, Dr. Wang provides clinicians with evidence-based recommendations to improve the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Wang emphasizes that a major limitation of the existing peer-review system lies in the difficulties in finding qualified, willing reviewers. For instance, despite holding a PhD and having research experience, he was not invited to review until publishing as a corresponding author. Improvements could include educating graduate students on peer review and publishing, and publishing companies offering clear guidance on volunteering as a reviewer.

Dr. Wang thinks that a constructive review offers specific, helpful feedback to guide authors in improving their work and increasing its dissemination potential. A destructive review, however, is overly critical and dismissive, providing little value and possibly discouraging authors from continuing their research.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Tomoki Nishimura

Tomoki Nishimura is a graduate student in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine Hospital, where he conducts clinical research on lung cancer pathology.

Tomoki reckons that peer review is crucial in upholding research quality and reliability. He notes that expert’s third-party evaluations are essential for identifying errors and biases, ultimately driving scientific progress.

Addressing fellow reviewers who contribute behind the scenes, Tomoki acknowledges the demanding nature of their work while highlighting its significance in advancing science. He encourages continued collaboration and dedication to this vital task.

From a reviewer’s standpoint, Tomoki stresses the importance of authors adhering to reporting guidelines such as PRISMA and CARE. These frameworks enhance clarity, simplify the review process, and strengthen research reliability and reproducibility.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Marta Ramirez Ortega

Dr. Marta Ramírez Ortega is Head of the Departments of Angiology, Vascular, and Endovascular Surgery at CICVE Madrid and at two Viamed hospitals. She also serves as an Associate Professor of Medicine at Universidad CEU. Her main area of interest lies in deep venous pathology, particularly pelvic and ilio-caval syndromes, and she is actively engaged in research and development of new endovascular devices. Over the years, she has participated as principal investigator in several international clinical trials and collaborated with major medical device companies such as Cook Medical, BD, Balt, and Medtronic. She has authored multiple peer-reviewed publications and frequently speaks at international congresses including LINC, ESVS, SITE, and Charing Cross. Passionate about innovation in venous stenting and pelvic vein embolization, she is committed to improving patient access to advanced therapies for chronic venous disorders. Follow her on Facebook.

Dr. Ortega believes that peer review plays a vital part in the scientific process. It acts as a safeguard for quality, accuracy, and ethical standards. Beyond that, she sees it as a collaborative exercise, a moment when other experts in the field take the time to read, question, and help improve one's work. That feedback often turns a good paper into an excellent one. In vascular medicine, where publications can directly influence clinical practice, having that layer of constructive scrutiny is especially important. Peer review not only protects the scientific community from flawed data but also drives innovation forward, helping everyone stay sharp, learn from one another, and ensure that advances are truly meaningful and beneficial to patients.

Dr. Ortega admits that bias is part of being human, as we all carry experiences and perspectives that shape our interpretations. What matters is recognizing this and actively working to neutralize it. When reviewing a manuscript, she makes a conscious effort to focus on the science: whether the methodology is sound, if the conclusions are supported by the data, and if the topic is relevant and clearly presented. She avoids looking at names or affiliations until forming an opinion based on the content alone. Her experience collaborating with teams worldwide has helped her appreciate different ways of thinking, and she tries to approach every paper with the same openness and respect. If she ever feels too close to the topic or the authors, she prefers to step aside, as it is better for the integrity of the process.

“It’s true that peer reviewing isn’t something we do for recognition or financial reward—but for me, it feels like a natural part of being part of a scientific community. I’ve benefited from so many thoughtful reviewers over the years—people who took the time to improve my work, challenge my ideas, or simply offer a fresh perspective. Reviewing is my way of giving that back. It’s also personally enriching: I get to see emerging research, sometimes before it's even presented at congresses, and that helps me stay current and reflective in my own practice. Especially in areas I’m passionate about—like deep venous disease and pelvic venous pathology—it's exciting to see how our field is evolving, and to be a small part of shaping that progress,” says Dr. Ortega.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Stefano Moretto

Dr. Stefano Moretto earned his degree with highest honors (110/110 cum laude) from the University of Padua, , where he launched his academic and surgical training. Currently, he is completing a urology residency at Humanitas University in Milan and pursuing a PhD with the EndoLase Group at Arts et Métiers ParisTech (PIMM Laboratory) and the Department of Urology at Hôpital Tenon – Sorbonne Université, Paris. He also completed a one-year Endourological Society Fellowship at Tenon Hospital, specializing in advanced endoscopic stone and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) surgery, plus laser technology. His research focuses on laser applications in endourology, thermal safety during lithotripsy, preventing iatrogenic ureteral strictures, UTUC, and robotic surgery. He has authored and peer-reviewed numerous studies, with a commitment to turning technological innovation into safer, more effective, patient-centered surgical practices. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Moretto reckons that a healthy peer-review system guarantees scientific rigor while encouraging constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers. It should be transparent, timely, fair, and double-blinded when feasible. Beyond safeguarding research integrity and fostering innovation, it should offer mentorship via detailed, evidence-based feedback—not punitive criticism—with the core goal of enhancing the work’s quality and clarity.

In Dr. Moretto’s opinion, reviewers must recognize that each manuscript reflects months or years of research. Reviews should be thorough yet respectful, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses to guide authors toward clarity, reproducibility, and scientific/clinical relevance. Personal bias must be avoided; feedback should align with data and methods, be constructive, actionable, and literature-supported. Confidentiality and objectivity remain essential throughout.

“To all fellow reviewers, your work is essential, though often invisible. By dedicating your time and expertise, you uphold the standards of science and shape the future of your field. Each review is a quiet act of mentorship and stewardship. Even when the effort goes unrecognized, it is not wasted—your insights help authors grow, improve publications, and ultimately contribute to better patient care. Thank you for being part of this collective effort,” says Dr. Moretto.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Payam Katebi Kashi

Dr. Payam Katebi Kashi is a distinguished women’s health physician at Anna Health (Northern Virginia), holding roles as Chief Research and Innovation Officer, Clinical Operations Director, and International Surgical Mission Co-Founder. He oversees a 7-location practice with 20 providers and 100+ staff, specializing in advanced pelvic surgery, gynecologic cancer, and fertility medicine—serving patients locally and globally. A passionate advocate for equity and surgical education, he leads quarterly El Salvador missions to perform pioneering gynecologic surgeries and train local surgeons. He also leads an international study on endometriosis serum testing to boost diagnostics. With a Washington University MD, Oxford PhD, Johns Hopkins Gynecologic Oncology fellowship, and ongoing Harvard clinical operations graduate studies, Dr. Kashi drives global women’s health improvement via research (e.g., Johns Hopkins ovarian cancer early detection) and unwavering dedication to cancer prevention. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

ACR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Kashi: A good reviewer should possess objectivity, attention to detail, and expertise in the field they are reviewing. They should be able to provide constructive criticism while maintaining respect for the author’s work. Good communication skills are also crucial for articulating feedback effectively.

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

Dr. Kashi: Limitations include biases, lack of transparency, and sometimes lengthy review times. Suggestions for improvement may include introducing double-blind reviews to reduce bias, increasing reviewer accountability, and utilizing technology to streamline the review process.

ACR: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?

Dr. Kashi: Yes, following reporting guidelines is crucial as they enhance the clarity and reproducibility of research. They ensure that authors provide all necessary information, making it easier for reviewers to assess the validity and reliability of the findings, ultimately contributing to higher-quality research.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Koji Yokoyama

Koji Yokoyama, MD, PhD, is a pediatrician at the Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center. He graduated from Kobe University School of Medicine in 2003 and completed doctoral studies in developmental pediatrics at Kyoto University. His clinical and research focus spans pediatric infectious diseases, immunology, and rare genetic syndromes. With over 20 peer-reviewed publications to his name, he has recently contributed case reports on Kawasaki disease, immunogenetics, and rare pediatric neurological conditions. One ongoing work—Variation in tuberculosis screening and infliximab use in Kawasaki disease in  (DOI: 10.1111/ped.70202, Pediatrics International, in production)—reflects his commitment to advancing pediatric clinical practice via collaborative research. Beyond patient care, he serves as a reviewer for international journals and currently leads projects on infection-related complications in Kawasaki disease, pediatric immunodeficiency, and clinical interpretation of indeterminate QuantiFERON results in children. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Yokoyama thinks that peer review guarantees the reliability, integrity, and scientific value of published research. Reviewers act as “gatekeepers”: through constructive criticism, they help authors refine work, identify methodological flaws, and boost clarity. This process shields readers from inaccurate conclusions and strengthens science’s overall credibility—especially critical in medicine, where findings directly impact patient care.

Dr. Yokoyama emphasizes that data sharing is essential. It fosters transparency, reproducibility, and trust in findings; open data let researchers validate results, conduct meta-analyses, and generate new hypotheses—speeding up discovery. For pediatrics and rare diseases, it is even more valuable: individual studies often have small sample sizes, so pooling data creates stronger evidence to guide clinical practice.

 “Reviewing manuscripts is often unseen work, but it is a cornerstone of academic medicine. By investing time to evaluate others’ research, we not only safeguard scientific standards but also broaden our own perspectives. I encourage fellow reviewers to take pride in their contribution, knowing that their critical insights directly shape the progress of science and ultimately improve patient outcomes,” says Dr. Yokoyama.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Payal Sahni

Dr. Payal Sahni serves as a Senior Physical Therapist at Burke Rehabilitation Hospital in White Plains, NY. She specializes in orthopedics, with the majority of her clinical and research experience focused on bone health, balance, and fall prevention. A strong advocate for disease prevention and wellness, her evidence-based clinical practice involves viewing all patients holistically. This comprehensive approach to treatment often incorporates nutrition education and Tai Chi. Throughout her career, she has been actively engaged in research and is also an avid conference speaker. Notably, she published the first-ever long-term case report on the rehabilitation of Pregnancy & Lactation-Associated Osteoporosis. As a movement therapist, she continues to grow professionally—while supporting others in the field to learn through her ongoing research contributions. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

ACR: Why is peer review necessary?

Dr. Sahni: Peer review is essential for the overall growth of a profession. It brings diverse clinical perspectives to the forefront and pushes researchers to gather substantial evidence to establish factual conclusions. By subjecting work to the scrutiny of fellow experts, peer review ensures that only rigorous, reliable information contributes to the field’s body of knowledge—ultimately elevating standards of practice and patient care.

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

Dr. Sahni: Reviewers hold significant responsibility. They must verify that a study adheres to current scientific methods, including having an adequate sample size, robust data collection processes, and accurate data analysis. Additionally, reviewers should stay true to their expertise in the subject area and provide evidence-based comments that support the refinement and improvement of the research paper. Their feedback should be grounded in objectivity, with the goal of strengthening the work rather than simply criticizing it.

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. Sahni: I would like to commend prospective reviewers on making the choice to help other researchers grow. This is a great service to your profession. Always be mindful of the time and effort each researcher puts in to complete a project. Our job is to facilitate their work and provide a universal learning opportunity!

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Koji Miura

Koji Miura, MD, is a board-certified surgeon and emergency physician working at Sakaide City Hospital in Kagawa, . His clinical practice focuses on trauma, acute care surgery, and emergency medicine, with extensive experience in managing complex cases such as vascular injuries, high-energy trauma, and polytrauma. In addition to his clinical work, he actively participates in academic activities, including peer review for journals such as AME Case Reports. His recent projects include case reports on rare vascular injuries, wound healing, and the management of acute abdominal emergencies. He is particularly interested in using clinical observations as educational resources and in improving the quality of case-based literature for practical application in everyday clinical practice.

ACR: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Miura: Peer review is essential to maintain the integrity and reliability of scientific publications. It helps ensure that new findings are accurate, meaningful, and relevant to clinical practice. Through critical evaluation by independent experts, peer review filters out errors, improves clarity, and strengthens the scientific value of manuscripts. For clinicians, especially in surgery and emergency medicine, it is crucial to confirm that reported cases or techniques are both safe and applicable in real-world settings. Moreover, peer review promotes academic dialogue and mutual learning among researchers, ultimately advancing medical science as a whole.

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

Dr. Miura: Reviewers should always remain objective, fair, and constructive. It is important to evaluate a manuscript not only for its limitations but also for its potential contributions to the field. A reviewer’s goal is to help authors improve their work rather than simply to criticize it. Respecting confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest are also essential principles to uphold during the review process.

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

Dr. Miura: Balancing clinical work with academic activities is challenging, especially in emergency and trauma care where schedules are unpredictable. I usually review manuscripts during quiet hours—early mornings or after hospital duties. I consider peer review not as an additional task but as an opportunity for professional growth. Reviewing helps me stay current with evolving techniques and reminds me of the importance of precise clinical observation. In many ways, it strengthens both mu writing and my practice as a surgeon.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Marie-Laure Matthey Giè

Dr. Marie-Laure Matthey Giè is a board-certified general and endocrine surgeon, as well as a Fellow of the European Board of Endocrine Surgery. She completed her surgical training at the University Hospitals of Lausanne (CHUV) and Geneva (HUG) in , with an integral part of her specialist training involving a dedicated endocrine surgery fellowship in Dublin, . Currently, she works as an endocrine surgeon at the Moncucco Hospital Group in Lugano, , while also running her independent practice—Swiss Surgical Practice—where she manages autonomous outpatient and operative services. Her clinical focus centers on thyroid, parathyroid, and adrenal surgery, with a strong emphasis on innovation, surgical precision, and multidisciplinary care. She leads endocrine tumor boards and actively contributes to the training and mentorship of junior surgeons. Her recent academic work includes studies on adrenalectomy outcomes in primary hyperaldosteronism, intravagal parathyroid adenomas, and composite adrenal tumors with coexisting cortisol-secreting adenoma and melanoma metastasis. She remains committed to advancing excellence in endocrine surgery across both clinical and academic spheres. Learn more about her here.

Dr. Matthey Giè believes that participating in peer review is deeply motivating because it allows her to share her clinical and surgical expertise to support the advancement of scientific knowledge. Peer review ensures that research is accurate, clinically relevant, and aligned with real-world practice, which is essential in a highly specialized field such as endocrine surgery. By contributing her experience, she can help authors refine their work and guarantee that the information published is not only scientifically valid but also beneficial to patient care and surgical outcomes. In this way, peer review is not just a quality-control process—it is a meaningful opportunity to actively shape the evolution of evidence-based endocrine surgery worldwide.

However, Dr. Matthey Giè thinks that there is a limitation in the current peer-review system. The manuscripts are not always evaluated by experts with direct clinical or scientific experience in the specific topic being discussed. This can lead to incomplete assessments or missed opportunities to improve the clinical relevance of the study. In her opinion, assigning reviewers who are true specialists in the subject matter is essential to ensure high-quality. To improve the system, she indicates that journals should implement a selective matching process between reviewers and manuscripts, ensuring that reviewers have proven expertise in that area. This would enhance the scientific accuracy of reviews and increase the value of the published research for clinical practice.

“I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all reviewers who dedicate their time and expertise to this essential work. Even though peer review often happens quietly and without public recognition, it plays a crucial role in advancing medical science and improving patient care. By sharing our knowledge and clinical experience, we contribute to raising the quality of research and ensuring that published studies are both scientifically sound and relevant to real-world practice. To all fellow reviewers, I encourage you to continue this important mission,” says Dr. Matthey Giè.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mudathir Ibrahim

Dr. Mudathir Ibrahim hails from Nigeria and earned his medical degree with distinction from Southeast University Medical College in China. Following his graduation, he developed a strong interest in clinical research and completed a two-year fellowship in Cardiac Surgery Research at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, , where he gained extensive experience in research methodology and execution. He subsequently pursued another two-year research fellowship in Evidence-Based Surgery at the University of Oxford, , focusing on the integration of evidence into surgical practice to enhance patient safety and outcomes. He is currently a Chief Resident in General Surgery at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, . He is well-published and frequently cited in peer-reviewed journals. In addition to his research and clinical work, he serves as a peer reviewer for multiple academic journals and holds an editorial board position with INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing. Learn more about him here.

ACR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Ibrahim: The peer-review process ensures the quality and credibility of scientific research prior to publication. It acts as a critical gatekeeping mechanism that upholds rigor in scientific dissemination.

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

Dr. Ibrahim: A peer reviewer must diligently assess a research study for clarity, validity, and originality. It is important to succinctly summarize one’s assessment, provide constructive and objective recommendations, and maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process.

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

Dr. Ibrahim: I schedule peer review during lighter clinical periods or free time, viewing it as an integral part of my professional contribution to advancing scientific progress.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Joudia Touri

Dr. Joudia Touri is a Moroccan–Belgian neurosurgeon currently practicing in the private sector in Morocco. She completed her medical degree and neurosurgical residency at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Brussels, Belgium. Her professional interests span the full breadth of neurosciences, encompassing neurosurgery, neurology, neuropsychology, and innovative medical technologies. She has a particular focus on translational research, aiming to bridge clinical practice with emerging scientific knowledge. Beyond traditional clinical fields, she maintains a longstanding fascination with space medicine and the neurological challenges associated with human adaptation to extreme environments. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Dr. Touri recognizes the peer-review system's essential role in maintaining scientific quality but highlights its limitations: slowness, variable quality, reliance on a small pool of volunteer reviewers, potential conscious/unconscious biases (especially in emerging fields or from underrepresented institutions), and lack of transparency that reduces accountability. To improve it, she advocates: greater recognition and support for reviewers, structured/standardized guidelines, increased transparency in processes, expanded training programs, and diversified reviewer pools to enhance fairness and rigor.

Dr. Touri defines an objective review as one judging a manuscript solely on scientific content (methodology, clarity, contribution), free from influence by authors' identities, affiliations, or personal viewpoints. It should be evidence-based, balanced, and aimed at strengthening the work while supporting authors' growth in research and communication. To maintain objectivity, she uses consistent criteria, avoids personal preferences/assumptions, highlights strengths and limitations, admits when topics exceed her expertise, and rereads comments for respectfulness, specificity, and constructiveness. Her goal is fair, transparent feedback that advances science and author development.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Touri emphasizes that authors must disclose potential Conflicts of Interest (COI) to ensure transparency, maintain trust in scientific communication, and provide context for interpreting findings. She notes that a COI does not invalidate research, but nondisclosure can severely damage the study's and journal's credibility. COIs—financial or professional—may influence study design, data interpretation, outcome selection, result emphasis, or presentation/discussion. Clear disclosure allows editors and reviewers to better assess objectivity, mitigate bias, and protect authors while upholding the scientific record's integrity.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Khaled Alghueiri

Dr. Khaled Alghueiri is a urologist at Gießen University Hospital in Germany, with a dedicated focus on the clinical management and research of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). His work centers on minimally invasive and interventional treatment strategies for BPH, as well as the long-term outcomes of these approaches. His recent research projects have explored predictors of treatment failure, patient-reported outcomes following prostatic artery embolization, and the efficacy of endoscopic surgical techniques. Through his clinical and research endeavors, Dr. Alghueiri aims to advance evidence-based decision-making and refine individualized treatment plans to optimize care for patients with BPH.

Dr. Alghueiri reckons that peer review serves as a critical safeguard for scientific quality in urology and beyond. Before research is published, this process subjects manuscripts to rigorous evaluation of their methodology, validity, and clinical relevance—directly enhancing the rigor and credibility of the reported findings. Beyond quality assurance, peer review plays a vital gatekeeping role: it helps detect errors, biases, and unsupported conclusions early, preventing flawed work from being disseminated to the broader scientific and clinical community.

In Dr. Alghueiri’s view, an objective review evaluates a manuscript strictly on its scientific merit, methodological soundness, and clarity of communication—entirely independent of the authors’ identities or personal alignment with the study’s results. To ensure his own reviews meet this standard, he adheres closely to the specific guidelines outlined by the journal, uses standardized evaluation criteria to maintain consistency, and grounds every critique or observation in empirical evidence and established literature in the field of BPH and urological research. This approach ensures his feedback is fair, transparent, and rooted in scientific rigor rather than personal preference.

“I allocate time for peer review by integrating it into scheduled academic activities and accepting reviews selectively based on relevance and feasibility. This approach maintains quality without compromising clinical or research responsibilities,” says Dr. Alghueiri.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shin-Nosuke Watanabe

Shin-nosuke Watanabe is a thoracic surgeon in the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery at Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. His clinical and research interests are centered on the diagnosis and management of lung cancer and mediastinal tumors. He holds board certifications from the Japan Surgical Society and the Japanese Association for Chest Surgery, and is also certified as a Lung Cancer CT Screening Physician. Additionally, he has completed rigorous formal robotic surgery training, including Console Surgeon certification for the da Vinci Surgical System and Cockpit Surgeon certification for the hinotori Surgical Robot System. His research focuses on surgical outcomes, perioperative management, and prognostic factors in thoracic oncology, with a track record of publishing clinical studies related to lung cancer surgery and mediastinal tumor treatment. He is committed to advancing evidence-based patient care and contributing to the growing body of knowledge in the field of thoracic surgery.

Dr. Watanabe views the current peer-review system as essential for research quality but notes key challenges in specialized fields like thoracic surgery and oncology: poor reviewer-topic matching, frequent delays slowing clinical impact, and inconsistent review quality due to varying reviewer expertise, motivation, and time.

He proposes three improvements:

• Expand specialized reviewer databases and improve matching algorithms for expert evaluation
• Introduce standardized guidelines and training to ensure consistent, high-quality feedback
• Use AI for initial tasks (e.g., plagiarism checks, basic stats) to reduce reviewer workload and focus on scientific and clinical assessment

In Dr. Watanabe’s opinion, bias cannot be fully eliminated but can be minimized through structured practices. He evaluates manuscripts solely on study design, methodological strength, data quality, and clinical relevance—ignoring authors’ affiliations, nationality, or career stage. He considers contextual differences (e.g., institutional resources, patient demographics) without letting them bias judgment, performs a reflective check after drafting to catch unconscious influences, and consults relevant literature when encountering unfamiliar methods or topics. His goal is to provide fair, objective, and constructive feedback that advances thoracic surgery research.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Christian Brickmann

Dr. Christian Brickmann studied medicine at Philipps University of Marburg and has built his career at university hospitals in Marburg and Freiburg, Germany. A triple specialist in pediatrics, neonatology, and pediatric intensive care medicine, he currently balances clinical work as an attending physician at München Klinik with research responsibilities at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). His research focuses on the epidemiological and practical dimensions of neonatology, with a growing emphasis on integrating digital tools into pediatric and neonatal clinical practice. He regularly disseminates his findings at national and international conferences and holds an appointed position on the Ethics Committee of the Technical University of Munich—a role that underscores his commitment to upholding rigorous ethical standards in clinical care and research.

Dr. Brickmann views peer review as an essential safeguard that separates evidence-based science from “eminence-based” theories, which rely on researcher reputation rather than data. He sees it as a critical, impartial second evaluation that strengthens methodological rigor and improves the clarity of scientific presentation. In the high-stakes fields of neonatology and pediatric intensive care, this process is especially important to ensure research leads to safe, effective care for vulnerable patients.

Dr. Brickmann believes an objective review requires setting aside personal opinions and focusing on the research project’s core objectives. To stay impartial, he adopts a structured approach: evaluating only the factual data in the manuscript, placing it in the context of established knowledge in neonatology and pediatric care, and assessing the clarity and coherence of the project’s presentation. This ensures his feedback remains grounded in scientific merit—free from bias—and addresses both technical rigor and effective communication.

Dr. Brickmann stresses that full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (COI) is essential for transparency in scientific research. While he recognizes that high-quality clinical and translational studies often rely on necessary industry funding to drive medical innovation, he insists these financial ties must be openly declared. Complete COI disclosure allows reviewers and readers to properly contextualize the findings, safeguards research integrity, and ensures conclusions remain free from undue external influence.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)