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
Hideo Kidogawa, Kitakyushu City Yahata Hospital, Japan
Sung Tae Kim, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, USA
Kimiya Kato, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Archit Garg, Saint Peter's University Hospital, USA
Tomoya Katayama, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 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)
Hideo Kidogawa
Dr. Hideo Kidogawa is affiliated with the Department of Surgery at Kitakyushu City Yahata Hospital, Japan. His clinical practice and academic research mainly focus on gastroenterological surgery and emergency surgery, with a recent research emphasis on the surgical management of acute abdominal emergencies. Committed to optimizing patient care and driving medical progress, he engages in rigorous clinical research and actively participates in academic peer review to uphold and advance evidence-based surgical practice. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Kidogawa thinks that beyond core quality-control functions, peer review acts as a valuable window into global clinical practice. Manuscript review offers a unique chance to observe how physicians from diverse regions and healthcare systems conduct diagnosis and deliver treatment. It facilitates the exchange of diversified clinical insights, enables mutual learning from multidisciplinary and cross-border perspectives, and collectively promotes the standardized improvement and innovation of clinical medical practice.
In Dr. Kidogawa’s opinion, complete elimination of subjective bias is impractical, yet consistent mitigation is achievable. He anchors all evaluations strictly in authoritative evidence-based medicine and mature clinical reasoning frameworks. Regardless of authors’ institutional backgrounds, regional affiliations or academic seniority, he solely judges the rationality of study methodologies, clinical decisions and research conclusions, ensuring every manuscript receives fair, impartial and evidence-supported assessment.
“Reviewing manuscripts often exposes me to unfamiliar treatments or novel clinical approaches. Whenever I encounter something new, it drives me to thoroughly research and study the topic, directly contributing to my continuous growth as a physician. On the other hand, it is a way to give back to the scientific community that has continuously reviewed and refined my own work. Contributing to the reliability of published literature is both a professional responsibility and a privilege,” says Dr. Kidogawa.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sung Tae Kim
Dr. Sung Tae Kim serves as an Associate Professor in the Department of Reproductive Biology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Lab Director at the University Hospitals Fertility Center. Boasting over 25 years of expertise in reproductive biology and assisted reproductive technology (ART), he spearheads innovative research and clinical optimization focusing on IVF outcome improvement, sperm biology, embryonic development and reproductive laboratory technological innovation. He earned his PhD in South Korea and completed rigorous postdoctoral training at Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis, committing his academic career to translating fundamental scientific findings into actionable clinical applications. His current research priorities cover non-invasive embryo screening, human ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and in vitro oocyte maturation from ovarian tissues. With more than 100 peer-reviewed publications, he holds active leadership roles in authoritative academic organizations including ASRM, SART, SRBT and CRB, and works as a Guest Editor for ART-themed special issues in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Kim thinks that peer review constitutes the fundamental cornerstone of sustainable scientific progress, functioning as a rigorous quality assurance mechanism for academic publishing. It systematically verifies the scientific rationality, accuracy and rigor of unpublished research before it is incorporated into formal academic literature. Reviewers conduct impartial evaluations of study design, methodological standardization, data interpretation and conclusion validity, assisting authors in identifying latent deficiencies and polishing their manuscripts. Beyond quality supervision, peer review enhances the transparency, credibility and public trust of scientific research. As a collaborative academic practice, it enables researchers to iterate and optimize research ideas, consolidate empirical evidence, and ultimately drive disciplinary progress to benefit clinical practice and societal development.
According to Dr. Kim, reviewers should approach each manuscript with fairness, objectivity, and respect. The goal is not to criticize authors but to help improve the quality of the research. Reviewers should focus on the scientific benefit of the work, assess whether the conclusions are supported by the data, and provide constructive, specific, and balanced feedback. It is also important to recognize the effort behind every submission and maintain professionalism, even when significant revisions are needed. A good review identifies limitations while also acknowledging the strengths and potential contributions of the study.
“Reviewing is often invisible work, but it is one of the most meaningful contributions we can make to the scientific community. Every thoughtful review helps improve research quality, supports fellow scientists, and ultimately advances knowledge that can benefit patients and society. Although reviewers rarely receive public recognition, their impact extends far beyond a single manuscript. I would encourage fellow reviewers to continue sharing their expertise and experience. By serving as reviewers, we are not only evaluating science but also mentoring researchers and helping shape the future of our field. It is a responsibility, a privilege, and an essential part of scientific advancement,” says Dr. Kim.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kimiya Kato
Kimiya Kato is a pediatrician affiliated with the Department of Pediatrics, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. His main research interests are pediatric immunology and allergy. In particular, he is interested in the mechanisms and clinical characteristics of allergic and immune mediated diseases in children. His recent research has focused on the clinical significance of eosinophilic inflammation in pediatric populations. Through his clinical practice and research, he hopes to contribute to a better understanding of pediatric allergic and immunological diseases and to improving the care of children with these conditions.
Dr. Kato regards a healthy peer-review system as one that is fair, constructive, transparent, and timely. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and help authors improve their quality and clarity.
According to Dr. Kato, reviewers should focus on scientific validity, originality, relevance, and ethical conduct. Comments should be specific, respectful, and evidence based, while avoiding personal bias and disclosing any conflicts of interest.
In Dr. Kato’s opinion, institutional review board (IRB) approval is essential to protect participants’ rights, safety, and privacy and to ensure that research meets ethical standards. Omitting this process may expose participants to potential harm, undermine the study’s credibility, and result in manuscript rejection or subsequent retraction.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Archit Garg
Archit Garg, MD, CPHQ, is currently a first-year Gastroenterology Fellow at Saint Peter's University Hospital / Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine in New Jersey. He completed his Internal Medicine residency at the same program, where he developed a strong inclination toward research. His clinical and research interests span general gastroenterology, with a particular focus on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including the use of newer biologic and immunomodulator therapies for severe, refractory disease. He is also interested in the expanding role of artificial intelligence in gastroenterology, advances in third-space endoscopy, and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). As an early-career fellow, he focuses on building a research portfolio that bridges emerging therapeutics and technology with practical, patient-centered care, and views peer review participation as a key way to stay closely engaged with the evolving evidence base that shapes clinical practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
ACR: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Garg: Peer review serves as the quality-control backbone of the scientific enterprise. Before a study becomes part of the accepted body of evidence, it must be scrutinized by expert reviewers who can identify flaws in methodology, statistics, interpretation, and reporting that authors may overlook due to familiarity with their own work. This process carries immense importance in medicine, as published research directly informs clinical decision-making and ultimately impacts patient outcomes. Rigorous peer review filters out studies with fundamental design flaws, unsupported conclusions, or overstated claims, while encouraging authors to refine their methods and align their conclusions strictly with their data. Beyond quality gatekeeping, peer review strengthens methodologically sound manuscripts by offering suggestions for additional analyses, alternative interpretations, and clearer scientific framing. As a trainee, I consider peer review a core professional responsibility: the rigorous oversight that improved my own work motivates me to support other researchers, while allowing me to actively engage with emerging data and methodologies ahead of widespread publication.
ACR: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Garg: An objective review evaluates a manuscript purely on its scientific merits, judging methodological rigor, analytical validity, and the alignment of conclusions with empirical findings, without bias from personal research preferences or author background. This principle also applies to case reports, which enable the recognition of novel disease presentations and rare complications; objective evaluation of these works verifies definitive diagnosis confirmation and authentic novel scientific value. To maintain objectivity, I evaluate study methods before forming opinions on conclusions, distinguish personal research preferences from genuine methodological flaws, proactively disclose all conflicts of interest, and ground all feedback strictly in what the presented data can or cannot substantiate, rather than subjective general impressions.
ACR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Garg: It is a real challenge, especially as a first-year fellow balancing clinical duties, procedures, continuity clinic, and a new subspecialty all at once. I treat peer review as a scheduled task, not something squeezed in reactively, accepting invitations aligned with my interests so reviewing feels like an extension of my own reading, and blocking dedicated time since a careful review needs sustained focus. I also stay selective about how many reviews I take on so each gets proper attention. I genuinely learn from the process too: case reports and their discussions keep me current on new procedures and techniques in GI, often exposing me to things beyond what textbooks cover. Ultimately, I see peer review as an investment, not a burden — it keeps me current with the literature and sharpens my critical appraisal skills, so I protect time for it just as I do for other core responsibilities.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tomoya Katayama
Tomoya Katayama, MD, is a physician and researcher in the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Japan. His clinical and research interests cover diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders. A board-certified gastrointestinal endoscopist, he focuses on the early detection of gastrointestinal diseases and their correlations with endocrine and metabolic disorders. His recent research centers on cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with type 2 diabetes, exploring the clinical value of home blood pressure monitoring and albuminuria, as well as cardiac rehabilitation’s effects on exercise capacity in patients with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. He also conducts basic research on how dietary fiber and intestinal epithelium regulate metabolic health. Learn more about him here.
ACR: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Katayama: Peer review safeguards the quality, reliability and integrity of scientific literature. In medical research, published outcomes guide academic innovation, pharmaceutical development, clinical decisions and patient care, making multi-dimensional evaluation of the manuscript’s methodology, result interpretation, scientific significance and social impact indispensable prior to publication. Beyond identifying flaws and screening manuscripts, peer review delivers constructive feedback to help authors address neglected problems, improving the accuracy and practical value of their work. It also cultivates early-career researchers, forming a virtuous academic cycle. Ultimately, peer review is a collaborative mechanism that elevates individual studies and sustains high-quality scientific communication.
ACR: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Katayama: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively and respectfully, verifying the rationality of research questions, methodology, result-conclusion consistency and discussion of limitations. They need to distinguish critical validity-related flaws from trivial personal preference issues and offer specific, actionable revision suggestions. Additionally, reviewers should avoid conflicts of interest, keep research confidential, and refrain from demanding extra analyses beyond the study’s original scope.
ACR: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Katayama: Responsible data sharing is vital for boosting research transparency and reproducibility. It enables result verification, in-depth secondary analysis and innovative exploration, and grants access to diverse clinical data that is hard to acquire otherwise, enriching credible, clinically valuable medical evidence. Nevertheless, unrestricted public data disclosure is inappropriate. Clinical data sharing must strictly comply with ethical norms, legal regulations, patient privacy protection and informed consent rules. The core principle is balanced and responsible data sharing: maximizing data accessibility for scientific progress while fully protecting individual participants.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
