In 2026, 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.
Toshio Shiotani, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Japan
Wilhelm Hansen, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Daisuke Yamazaki, Hanaoka Seishu Memorial Hospital, Japan
Sharmilee Vetrivel, Ludwig Maximilians University, Germany
Toru Yoshiura, National Cancer Center Hospital, Japan
Toshio Shiotani
Dr. Toshio Shiotani is a thoracic surgeon at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Japan. His clinical and research interests include general thoracic surgery, with particular expertise in minimally invasive thoracic procedures. His recent research focuses on the surgical management of pneumothorax and empyema, aiming to optimize treatment strategies and improve postoperative outcomes. He has been involved in clinical studies evaluating surgical techniques and perioperative management for these conditions. Dr. Shiotani is dedicated to advancing thoracic surgery through both clinical practice and academic research. He is also committed to contributing to the scientific community through peer review and collaboration in order to promote high-quality research and improve patient care.
ACR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Shiotani: One of the limitations of the current peer-review system is that it relies heavily on the voluntary efforts of researchers and clinicians who already have demanding professional responsibilities. This can sometimes lead to delays in the review process. In addition, variability in reviewers’ experience and perspectives may affect the consistency of evaluations. To improve the system, it is important to provide better recognition for reviewers’ contributions and encourage constructive and educational feedback rather than simply accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Training opportunities for early-career reviewers may also help improve the quality and consistency of reviews. Ultimately, peer review should be viewed as a collaborative process that supports both scientific rigor and the development of researchers.
ACR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Shiotani: Balancing clinical duties, research, and peer review can indeed be challenging. I usually allocate time for peer review during relatively quiet periods in my schedule, such as evenings after clinical work. I consider peer review an important academic responsibility because it contributes to maintaining the quality and reliability of scientific publications. Reviewing manuscripts also allows me to stay updated on the latest developments in thoracic surgery and related fields. Therefore, although it requires additional time and effort, I view peer review as a meaningful activity that benefits both the scientific community and my own professional development.
ACR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?
Dr. Shiotani: Yes, disclosure of COI is essential for maintaining transparency and trust in scientific research. Even when researchers strive to conduct studies objectively, financial or professional relationships may potentially influence study design, data interpretation, or reporting of results. Disclosure does not necessarily mean that the research is biased; rather, it allows readers, reviewers, and editors to appropriately interpret the findings. Clear and honest COI statements help ensure the credibility of scientific publications and support fair evaluation of the research. Therefore, transparent disclosure should be regarded as a fundamental principle of responsible scientific communication.
(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)
Wilhelm Hansen
Wilhelm Hansen is an MSc candidate, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. He is a South African trained medical doctor and researcher currently working in orthopaedic surgery, with academic interests in trauma, spinal cord injury, surgical outcomes, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence in medicine. His clinical background includes experience in orthopaedics, trauma, emergency medicine and general surgery. His academic work has involved systematic reviews, case reports and observational studies. His recent research has focused on spinal cord injury, infection control in orthopaedic surgery, orthopaedic imaging and broader questions related to surgical care in resource-constrained settings. He is particularly interested in clinically relevant research, clear scientific writing, and rigorous peer review that strengthens the quality, credibility, and practical value of published work. Learn more about him here.
ACR: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Hansen: I regard a healthy peer-review system as one that is fair, constructive, timely and focused on improving the quality of the work rather than simply criticising it. Good peer review should assess whether a manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly presented, ethically conducted and relevant to the field. It should also be respectful, balanced, and free from personal bias. As a reviewer, I believe it is important to identify weaknesses honestly, but also to recognize strengths and provide practical suggestions that help authors improve their work. In my view, the strongest peer-review systems are those that value rigor, transparency and professionalism, while also remembering that behind every submission is a researcher who has invested significant time and effort into the study.
ACR: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Hansen: I think reviewers need to remember that their role is not only to judge a manuscript, but also to help refine it. They should be objective, evidence-based and mindful of the scope of the paper and the journal. It is important to distinguish between major scientific flaws and minor presentational issues and to avoid imposing personal preferences where they are not essential. Reviewers should also consider the context in which the research was conducted, especially when assessing studies from resource-limited settings, where important clinical questions may still be addressed despite practical constraints. Above all, I believe reviewers should be courteous, specific and constructive, with the aim of strengthening the manuscript and upholding scientific integrity.
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. Hansen: Peer review is one of the most important forms of academic service, even though it often takes place quietly and without much recognition. Every thoughtful review contributes to the credibility of the scientific literature and helps ensure that published work is clearer, stronger and more reliable. To reviewers who continue to give their time and expertise, I would say that your work matters greatly. You help shape the direction of research, support authors and protect the quality of evidence that clinicians, researchers, and patients ultimately rely on. Careful and constructive reviewing is not only a professional responsibility, but also a meaningful contribution to scientific progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Daisuke Yamazaki
Dr. Yamazaki works at Hanaoka Seishu Memorial Hospital in Sapporo, Hokkaido. He is currently undergoing training to master a variety of procedures, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endovascular therapy, pacemaker implantation and catheter ablation. Recently, he has been writing case reports and original articles, primarily focusing on pacemaker implantation and endovascular therapy. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Yamazaki believes that as authors and co-authors tend to focus solely on their own perspectives when writing case reports and original research papers, there may be insufficient explanation of why they reached their conclusions from a third-party perspective. He notes that since peer reviewers are reading the paper for the first time, it is important that they provide objective and constructive feedback to help ensure the authors' message is conveyed effectively.
According to Dr. Yamazaki, reviewers cannot be experts in every field. For this reason, when asked to conduct a peer review, he avoids offering comments that directly address whether the manuscript should be accepted or rejected. Instead, he focuses on providing constructive feedback on how the manuscript could be revised to become a valuable resource for readers.
In Dr. Yamazaki’s opinion, the greater the potential of a publication to generate evidence that influences domestic and international guidelines, the more important it is to disclose any conflicts of interest (COI). Furthermore, he adds that readers should be able to infer the context in which the paper was produced from the COI information, even if this is not explicitly stated in the manuscript.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sharmilee Vetrivel has been a basic researcher since 2019 at the Endocrinology Department in Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. Her research focuses on the molecular and epigenetic mechanisms underlying adrenal pathologies, specifically hypercortisolism and adrenocortical tumors. Her current work utilizes multi-omics approaches to investigate the interplay between steroidogenesis, cell proliferation, and mitochondrial function in disease progression and hormonal dysfunction. Through this research, she aims to identify personalized treatment approaches and broaden the molecular understanding in adrenocortical pathologies. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Ms. Vetrivel thinks that peer review is an essential component of the research community. She explains that it is needed for ensuring that research is carefully observed, rigorously focused, and capable of making a meaningful, positive impact within the scientific field.
In Ms. Vetrivel’s opinion, reviewing should be viewed as a continuous learning process. She advises that reviewers should focus on broadening their own scientific perception while evaluating whether a manuscript fits the scope, standing, and recent research priorities of the specific journal.
“Engaging in peer review provides me with much-needed clarity and focus, especially when working in the midst of challenging experiments or negative results. I try dedicating time to it during transition periods—specifically when I need a mental break from my primary research,” says Ms. Vetrivel.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
Toru Yoshiura
Dr. Toru Yoshiura is a Japanese board-certified neurosurgeon with expertise in cerebrovascular surgery, neurotrauma, neuro-oncology, and awake surgery. After graduating from the National Defense Medical College, he served in the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, including counter-piracy deployments, and worked at the National Defense Medical College Hospital, JSDF hospitals, Kyoto Saiseikai Hospital, and currently the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo. He is affiliated with Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and serves as a core member of the Under 40 Committee of the Japan Society for Neuro-Oncology and a member of the PNLS Committee of the Japan Society of Neurosurgical Emergency. His recent research has focused on cortical spreading depolarization after subarachnoid hemorrhage and the therapeutic potential of hydrogen inhalation and intrathecal magnesium sulfate. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
ACR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Yoshiura: A reviewer should possess fairness, scientific integrity, sufficient subject knowledge, humility, and a constructive attitude. Peer review is not only a gatekeeping process but also an opportunity to help authors improve their work. Therefore, a good reviewer should read a manuscript carefully, identify both its strengths and limitations, and provide comments that are specific, respectful, and useful. I also believe that punctuality is an important quality. Authors invest substantial time and effort in their research, so reviewers should respond responsibly and in a timely manner.
ACR: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Yoshiura: An objective review means evaluating a manuscript according to the importance of the research question, the appropriateness of the methods, the validity of the results, the logic of the discussion, and the ethical standards of the study, rather than according to personal preference or whether the conclusions align with my expectations. To keep my review objective, I first try to understand exactly what question the authors aimed to answer. I then assess whether the design and analysis are appropriate for that purpose. I also try to separate major issues from minor ones and explain the reason for each comment as clearly as possible. When I notice that my first impression may be overly positive or negative, I deliberately reread the manuscript and reconsider it from a neutral standpoint.
ACR: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Yoshiura: One memorable aspect of peer review for me is seeing how very different types of manuscripts require different kinds of support. For example, I once reviewed one paper with an interesting experimental hypothesis and another focusing on a clinically important safety event. For the former, the main task was helping the authors align their conclusions more carefully with the data and clarify the methods. For the latter, the key focus was not only the clinical course itself but also explaining the practical implications, such as mechanism, novelty, and prevention. Experiences like these remind me that good peer review is not simply about finding faults. It is about helping authors present their work more rigorously, more clearly, and in a way that is genuinely useful to readers.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
