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
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, USA. 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 Canada, 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, South Africa, 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 South Africa, 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 Korea. 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, Japan. 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)
