In 2025, QIMS 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.
Arif Albulushi, The Royal Hospital, Oman
Bogdan Kostyrko, University Hospital Brandenburg, Germany
Debkumar Chowdhury, Royal College of Emergency Medicine, UK
Duk-Ju Kim, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Kazuhiro Komura, Kanazawa Red Cross Hospital, Japan
Lorena Saelices Gomez, UT Southwestern Medical Center, USA
Ludovico Graziani, Tor Vergata University Hospital, Italy
Ro Woon Lee, Inha University Hospital, Korea
Sathyathas Puvanasunthararajah, Imaging Associates, Australia
Sunny Chi Lik Au, Hong Kong East Cluster Ophthalmic Service of Hospital Authority, Hong Kong, China
Takahiko Nagamine, Sunlight Brain Research Center, Japan
Won Kim, Seoul National University, Korea
Xiao Li, Roche Diagnostics, USA
Alisa Kunapinun, Florida Atlantic University, USA
André Timóteo Sapal, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Arka Bhowmik, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, USA
Essam A Rashed, University of Hyogo, Japan
Ido Azuri, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
Keita Nagawa, Saitama Medical University, Japan
Mathilde Vermersch, Valenciennes Hospital, France
Nicole Kim Luan Lee, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore
Lucía Caselles-Pina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
Mariola Szulik, WSB Academy, Poland
Satoshi Takaishi, St. Marianna University School of Medicine Hospital, Japan
Takashi Mori, Southern Tohoku General Hospital, Japan
Won C. Bae, University of California, USA
Chen Wang, University of Oklahoma, USA
Markus Czesla, Klinikum Passau, Germany
Seung-Won Lee, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea
Arman Sharbatdaran, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, USA
Busra Cangut, Mount Sinai Hospital, USA
Clara Cohen, University Hospital of Orléans, France
Ethan Johnson, Northwestern University, USA
Hugo Morandini, Child and Adolescent Health Service, Australia
Rommel L.R. Novais, Federal University of São João del Rei, Brazil
Danilo Tadao Wada, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Jakub Nalepa, Silesian University of Technology, Poland
Arif Albulushi
Dr. Arif Albulushi is a Consultant Cardiologist specializing in Advanced Heart Failure, Transplant Cardiology, and Multimodality Cardiac Imaging at the National Heart Center, The Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman. His research interests focus on heart failure therapies, cardiac MRI applications, and inflammation’s role in cardiovascular diseases. He has contributed to multiple peer-reviewed publications, with a strong emphasis on translational research and real-world clinical applications. Currently, he is involved in research exploring biomarkers for myocardial recovery in LVAD patients and the role of AI in cardiac imaging interpretation. In addition to clinical practice, Dr. Albulushi is an active peer reviewer for several cardiology and imaging journals, striving to maintain high standards of academic integrity and evidence-based practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Albulushi’s opinion, the peer-review system, while essential for maintaining research integrity, has several limitations, including reviewer bias, delays in processing, and variability in quality. Additionally, the increasing volume of submissions often overburdens reviewers, leading to superficial reviews or prolonged turnaround times. To improve the system, journals could diversify reviewer pools, ensuring a mix of senior and early-career experts to balance experience and fresh perspectives. Structured review checklists could enhance consistency, while transparent review models, such as open or double-blind peer review, may reduce bias. Encouraging timely yet thorough reviews through incentives, such as CME credits or public recognition, could also motivate better engagement.
Bias in peer review can stem from institutional affiliations, geographic regions, gender, or personal research preferences. To minimize this, Dr. Albulushi adopts a data-first approach, focusing on the strength of methodology, clarity of results, and scientific rigor rather than the authors’ credentials or affiliations. Additionally, he makes a conscious effort to self-reflect on potential biases before beginning a review. Keeping an objective, constructive mindset and following a structured evaluation framework help ensure fairness. When he senses uncertainty, he consults existing literature and guidelines rather than relying on personal opinions. In cases where he feels a conflict of interest (COI), he recuses himself from the review process to maintain integrity.
Dr. Albulushi indicates that COI disclosure is fundamental to maintaining transparency and trust in research. Even if a conflict does not directly affect study results, undisclosed financial or institutional ties can lead to questionable credibility and misinterpretation of findings. A COI can subtly influence study design, data interpretation, or the way results are presented, even unconsciously. This is particularly critical in clinical research, where industry-sponsored studies may have a vested interest in specific outcomes. While COIs do not necessarily invalidate research, full disclosure allows readers and reviewers to critically assess potential influences and interpret findings with the appropriate context. Journals should continue to enforce strict COI policies while fostering a culture where transparency is expected, not penalized.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Bogdan Kostyrko
Dr. Bogdan Kostyrko earned his medical degree from Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. During his studies, he developed a strong interest in radiology and began conducting research early on in the Department of Radiology, focusing on thermal ablation and tumor therapy for renal cell carcinoma. As part of these projects at Charité, he contributed to software development aimed at enhancing the safety of tumor ablation procedures and reducing recurrence rates. Recently, he joined Immanuel Clinic Ruedersdorf, University Hospital Brandenburg, where he is continuing his research. He is eager to collaborate with colleagues on new projects and hopes to further advance his work in interventional radiology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Kostyrko: Peer review is an indispensable part of independent research. It allows us, as colleagues, to enhance the quality of scientific work, ensuring that it meets high standards and continuously improves. By providing constructive feedback, peer review helps refine methodologies, validate findings, and maintain the integrity of scientific literature.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Kostyrko: I strive to approach each review with impartiality, ensuring that my evaluation is based on scientific rigor rather than personal preferences. It is important to avoid tunnel vision by not focusing solely on my own area of expertise but instead considering the study as a whole. Since researchers from diverse fields contribute to studies, adopting a broad perspective is beneficial. Additionally, I take the time to review the cited literature to better understand the background, enabling me to provide well-informed and constructive feedback to the authors.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Dr. Kostyrko: The manuscript aligned with my research focus, making the review process both engaging and insightful. I also appreciate that QIMS is open access, as I strongly support free and unrestricted access to scientific knowledge. Moreover, I was already familiar with the journal, having read several of its publications. Receiving an invitation to review for QIMS was an honor, and I was happy to contribute to the academic community in this way.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Debkumar Chowdhury
Dr. Debkumar Chowdhury graduated from the University of Bristol and undertook foundation training in the West of Scotland, UK. Following which he undertook training in General Surgery and Emergency Medicine, Lectureship at the University of Glasgow and Post Graduate qualification in Medical Education. He has then been awarded Membership of the Academy of Medical Educator (MAcadMEd). He works as a Specialist in Emergency Medicine and is a Fellow at the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. His area of research is in Trauma Sciences and on gaining understanding into factors that are critical to improving outcomes from major trauma and holds a Masters in Trauma Sciences from Queen Mary University of London. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Public Health. He has authored several PubMed-indexed (and other major databases) articles on topics relating to Emergency Medicine, Critical Care and Surgery. He holds the position of Associate Editor in the International Journal of Surgery and Annals of Medicine and Surgery and has also reviewed several articles published in PubMed. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Chowdhury thinks that one of the most important qualities that a reviewer should possess is transparency with honesty. Even if they are invited to review an article, if that topic falls outside of their scope of clinical practice, they should politely refuse to review the article to ensure that the best suited reviewer, an expert in that topic is reviewing the article. At the end of the day, it is imperative that all measures are taken to ensure that a high level of standard of scientific value is always maintained.
Lastly, Dr. Chowdhury has a few words for his peers, “Take time in reviewing an article. The editors are not expecting a prompt review. Rather, come back to the review at a later date and view the article from another (fresh) perspective. It’s the quality of the review that is always more important than the number of reviews that you will carry out within a given time-frame. Always remember that the Editors and the Editor-in-chief will come back to request you to review more articles if you are able to maintain a high quality for your reviews. We lead busy lives, however dedicating time to review articles will not only help your peers in progressing their careers but also, more importantly, move the scientific community forwards.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Duk-Ju Kim
Duk-Ju Kim, MD, is a board-certified radiologist from South Korea. He obtained his medical degree from Jeju National University Hospital and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in medical artificial intelligence (AI) at the Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology. His research interests lie in radiology and artificial intelligence. Recently, he is focusing on evaluating the position of chest PCD using AI in chest radiographs. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Kim always considers, during review, whether his own review is reasonable. He considers whether his comments are logically well-founded, whether he has overlooked any critical defect in the research, and whether he points out overly minute issues. Ultimately, he always tries to provide comment that contributes to a better research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kazuhiro Komura
Kazuhiro Komura received his M.D. and Ph.D. degrees at Kanazawa University, followed by a residency in dermatology at Kanazawa University Hospital. In 2005, he moved to the Department of Immunology at Duke University Medical Center for a post-doctoral fellowship. Next, he joined the Northwestern Scleroderma program in 2009. He is currently a Director at the Department of Dermatology, Kanazawa Red Cross Hospital. He has published 100 peer-reviewed manuscripts or perspectives/reviews/book chapters. His research has been funded by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, foundations, and industry. His primary research interests are in the basic and clinical aspects of patients with systemic sclerosis, as well as the biology of B lymphocytes. Connect with him on Facebook.
Dr. Komura reckons that a healthy peer-review system requires transparency, constructive feedback, timeliness, expertise, anonymity, ethical standards, and diverse perspectives. Transparency ensures clear guidelines and impartial evaluations, while constructive feedback helps authors refine their work. Timeliness prevents publication delays, and expertise guarantees accurate assessments. Anonymity helps reduce bias, and ethical standards protect confidentiality. Diverse perspectives foster well-rounded evaluations. This balanced approach of rigor and fairness elevates research quality and supports the improvement of manuscripts. Throughout the process, reviewers must maintain an open-minded and unbiased stance.
During review, Dr. Komura focuses on the scientific findings alone, free from personal biases or external pressures. As a reviewer, he assesses the manuscript systematically and review evidence and data. At the same time, he can follow standardized criteria/guidelines. This focuses on key aspects (methodologies and presentations) rather than personal preferences.
As a reviewer, Dr. Komura believes that data sharing is of paramount importance in scientific research, significantly enhancing transparency. By making raw and processed data readily available, authors allow other researchers to verify their findings, explore alternative interpretations, and potentially build on the work more efficiently. This openness strengthens the credibility of the original study and fosters a collaborative environment that drives scientific progress. Moreover, data sharing discourages selective reporting of results. When datasets are openly accessible, any inconsistencies or errors are more likely to be noticed and addressed, which helps maintain integrity throughout the research process. Ultimately, thorough data sharing benefits the scientific community and the public by promoting trust and ensuring that published findings are as robust and transparent as possible.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lorena Saelices Gomez
Dr. Lorena Saelices Gomez is an Assistant Professor in the Center for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases and the Department of Biophysics at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Her research focuses on understanding the atomic-level mechanisms of systemic amyloid diseases using advanced cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM). Her laboratory has solved more than 40 high-resolution cryo-EM structures in the past five years, greatly advancing our understanding of protein aggregation and misfolding. By uncovering how proteins aggregate, her laboratory develops structure-based strategies for diagnosing and treating these disorders. Recent projects include designing peptide inhibitors to target key aggregation-driving segments and exploring novel probes for detecting amyloid fibrils in patient samples. Through these efforts, Dr. Gomez aims to translate fundamental discoveries into effective clinical interventions for diseases of ageing. Connect with her on X @SaelicesL.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Gomez: Peer review acts like a safety net for scientific research by having independent experts take a close look at new findings before they’re published. It helps catch errors, oversights, or biases that might otherwise go unnoticed, ensuring that methods and conclusions are solid. This process also pushes scientists to present their work in a clear, thorough way so others can understand it and build upon it. Beyond that, peer review fosters collaboration, transparency, and shared accountability among researchers. It encourages a collective sense of responsibility, with feedback loops that not only refine individual studies but also raise the bar for the entire field. By promoting open discussion and continual improvement, peer review ultimately helps the scientific community build a body of knowledge that people can trust.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Gomez: I’m motivated by a genuine desire to keep our field vibrant and uphold high standards of research. While there’s no direct financial benefit or public recognition, the opportunity to help other scientists refine their work is really satisfying. I also get an early look at emerging ideas, which can spark fresh insights for my own projects. On top of that, peer reviewing feels like a way to give back to the community—especially to early-career researchers—just as others once helped me by reviewing my manuscripts. Knowing I can spot issues or provide advice that strengthens someone’s paper is rewarding in itself. Ultimately, it’s about doing my part to maintain the integrity of science and keep the spirit of discovery alive.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Gomez: An objective review zeroes in on the science itself—evaluating whether the methods are sound, the data are reliable, and the conclusions are properly supported by the results. Personal biases or conflicts should have no influence on this process. To stay fair, I compare the paper against established benchmarks, consult relevant studies, and check if the claims match what the data actually show. If I sense any conflict of interest, I step aside to avoid skewing the review. I also make a point of considering different viewpoints and approaches, rather than dismissing them outright. By focusing on constructive feedback that strengthens the manuscript, I help ensure the final published work is both credible and clearly communicated.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ludovico Graziani
Dr. Ludovico Graziani, MD, is a Clinical Geneticist at Tor Vergata University Hospital in Rome. His expertise spans prenatal and postnatal genetic diagnostics, including both invasive and non-invasive fetal testing, cytogenetics, molecular diagnosis of rare diseases, and reproductive medicine. Beyond clinical practice, his research interests focused on discovering new disease-associated genes, advancing diagnostic methodologies in prenatal diagnosis, and studying neurodevelopmental disorders. He strongly believes in a multidisciplinary approach to collaborate with neurologists, gynecologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians to provide personalized, patient-centered care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Graziani: Peer review is science’s quality filter in the age of artificial intelligence as it does. Without it, we would be overwhelmed with a flood of data, some of it correct, some of it questionable. It is an effective way to check whether the research presented is solid, reproducible, and based on reliable data. Furthermore, it is a multi-purpose exercise: authors gain valuable feedback to improve their work, and reviewers sharpen their critical thinking skills and stay current with the latest discoveries. It’s almost like continuous professional development in the field.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Dr. Graziani: QIMS maintains a great balance of scientific quality and innovation. I appreciate the quality of the published articles, the focus on imaging diagnostics, and particularly the interdisciplinarity of the journal. Moreover, the review process is thorough but efficient, a welcome challenge rather than an annoying process. Above all, it is rewarding to contribute to the improvement of research quality and the service to the scientific community.
QIMS: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Graziani: Indeed. Data sharing isn’t just about transparency, and it’s about validating results, accelerating discoveries, and avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts. Imagine trying to solve a massive puzzle: if everyone keeps their pieces hidden, we’ll never complete it. But by pooling data together, science moves forward faster and more reliably. Indeed, there must be clear policy to ensure privacy and ethical data handling, yet the trend is established in the hope that the scientific community will build on this momentum: open science globally is the way to go.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ro Woon Lee
Dr. Ro Woon Lee is the Professor of Radiology at Inha University Hospital and the chair of GIGA Study, a medical artificial intelligence (AI) research group. His research focuses on applying deep learning and AI in medical imaging, particularly in chest and musculoskeletal radiology. He is deeply involved in cutting-edge projects that leverage AI to improve medical diagnostics and patient care. He is also very interested in health care policy. Recently, he contributed to a study published in the Journal of Korean Medical Science, analyzing the impact of the current healthcare crisis on medical research in Korea. As part of the Inha University and GIGA study, he is committed to enhancing the quality of life through AI research that benefits patients, medical staff, and hospitals. Connect with him on Facebook.
As a researcher and radiologist, Dr. Lee believes a healthy peer-review system is crucial for promoting scientific integrity and advancing knowledge in his field. Such a system should be timely, constructive, and unbiased, encouraging rigorous methodology, innovative thinking, and ethical research practices. Transparency is key, allowing for open dialogue between authors, reviewers, and editors to improve the quality of scientific publications. It is also important to recognize the efforts of reviewers and provide opportunities for early-career researchers to participate in the process.
In Dr. Lee’s opinion, an effective reviewer should possess a combination of expertise in the subject matter, critical thinking skills, objectivity, and attention to detail. The ability to provide constructive feedback, manage time effectively, and maintain ethical integrity are also crucial. Reviewers should be open to new ideas and approaches while having clear communication skills and a commitment to improving the quality of research in the field. On the other hand, he points out that it is unfortunate but true that some inappropriate reviews are being conducted through AI these days. While AI can be used to summarize papers or extract key points to reduce review time, he believes that entrusting the review itself to AI is not a desirable attitude as a researcher.
“Although peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, I find motivation in contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge and staying current with the latest research and methodologies. It's an opportunity to improve my own critical thinking and writing skills while giving back to the scientific community that has supported my research. By participating in peer review, I help maintain the quality and integrity of published research and mentor early-career researchers through constructive feedback. Similarly, my involvement with GIGA Study is driven by these same motivations for the healthy development of AI, rather than for profit. Our goal is to contribute to the responsible and ethical advancement of AI in healthcare, which aligns closely with the principles of good peer review,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sathyathas Puvanasunthararajah
Dr. Sathyathas Puvanasunthararajah, MSc, PhD, is an accomplished researcher in medical imaging and medical physics, as well as an academic and clinical professional. He is currently working at Imaging Associates, Australia. His research interests include medical image processing, utilizing both traditional and deep learning-based algorithms. He has contributed to advancements in medical imaging through his work in developing automated diagnostic tools and improving imaging techniques. He has published research in peer-reviewed journals and actively collaborates with interdisciplinary teams to enhance healthcare applications of AI-driven imaging solutions.
Dr. Puvanasunthararajah points out that a healthy peer-review process should be blinded and provide constructive feedback to the corresponding authors within the given timeframe. It must ensure fairness, transparency, and high scientific integrity.
In Dr. Puvanasunthararajah’s opinion, sharing research data is essential as it promotes transparency, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. It enables other researchers to verify results, expand on existing studies, and drive scientific advancements. Open data encourages collaboration and innovation while minimizing duplication of research efforts. Ultimately, it builds trust in scientific findings and enhances the overall quality of academic research.
“To all dedicated reviewers, your efforts are vital in preserving scientific integrity and fostering progress. Your expertise and insights help ensure that only rigorous, high-quality research reaches the community. Though often behind the scenes, your contributions are crucial to upholding the credibility of academic publishing,” says Dr. Puvanasunthararajah.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sunny Chi Lik Au
Dr. Sunny Chi Lik Au is an ophthalmology specialist affiliated to the Hong Kong East Cluster Ophthalmic Service of Hospital Authority (HA). He is a core area trainer in Vitreo-Retinal Diseases (accredited by the College of Ophthalmologists of Hong Kong), and a vitreoretinal surgeon in Tung Wah Eastern Hospital and Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital. Dr. Au is the Distinguished Young Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, and the Young Achiever awardee of HA Head Office. He has >100 scientific publications over local and international peer-reviewed journals. He has also conducted >250 peer reviews for >100 journals. His research project, named as HORA study, includes hyperbaric oxygen for central retinal artery occlusion, with 5th report published recently. Presentation of the HORA study brought him numerous awards in Annual Scientific Meeting Hong Kong Ophthalmological Symposium, Asia Pacific Tele-Ophthalmology Society Symposium, and Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society Congress. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Au indicates that peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and credibility of scientific research. It is a process in which independent experts in the field evaluate a research manuscript before it is published, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound, logically consistent, and supported by evidence. By scrutinizing the research design, data analysis, and conclusions, peer reviewers help identify errors, gaps, or biases that may have been overlooked by the authors. This critical evaluation not only improves the quality of the research but also enhances its clarity and impact. Additionally, peer review acts as a gatekeeping mechanism, filtering out flawed, misleading, or unethical research, thereby safeguarding the reliability of the scientific literature. This is particularly important in the era of artificial intelligence (AI), when generative AI was used to assist and write up manuscripts. This new landscape leads to his publication of “Maintaining Quality and Accuracy in Ophthalmology Academic Research: The Importance of Traditional Peer Review” back in 2023. The peer-review process also lends credibility to published work, as it signifies that the research has been vetted by knowledgeable peers, fostering trust among scientists, policymakers, and the public. Furthermore, peer review provides researchers with constructive feedback, enabling them to refine their work and contribute more effectively to the advancement of knowledge.
When reviewing scientific papers, Dr. Au believes that reviewers must bear in mind several key responsibilities to ensure a fair, thorough, and constructive evaluation. First and foremost, he thinks that reviewers should assess the originality and significance of the research, determining whether it contributes meaningfully to the field. They must critically evaluate the methodology, ensuring that the study design is appropriate, the data collection is rigorous, and the analysis is sound. They should also verify that the conclusions are well-supported by the results and that the authors have adequately addressed potential limitations or alternative interpretations. Additionally, reviewers must remain objective and impartial, avoiding personal biases or conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. Ethical considerations, such as the proper attribution of sources and the absence of plagiarism or data manipulation, should also be carefully examined. Finally, reviewers should provide constructive and respectful feedback, offering specific suggestions for improvement while acknowledging the strengths of the work. By keeping these principles in mind, reviewers play a vital role in upholding the quality and integrity of scientific research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takahiko Nagamine
Takahiko Nagamine, MD, PhD, works at Sunlight Brain Research Center. He graduated from the School of Medicine at Jichi Medical University in 1981 and worked in the fields of remote area medicine, psychiatric internal medicine, and emergency medicine. His main research areas are general medicine, psychopharmacology, and neuroscience. Current projects include the central nervous circuitry for pain, the brain-gut axis and its influence on mental function, the effects of probiotics, nutritional psychiatry, and ways to avoid the physical side effects of psychotropic drugs. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Nagamine indicates that peer review is a crucial process in science, serving as a cornerstone of quality control and ensuring the integrity of published research. Peer review helps to ensure that published research meets minimum standards of scientific quality. Experts in the same field scrutinize the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions of a study. In essence, peer review is a vital mechanism for ensuring that scientific knowledge is accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
Dr. Nagamine always carefully reads the journal's guidelines for peer reviewers to understand the specific criteria and expectations for evaluation. To avoid basing his judgments on the reputation or institutional affiliation of the authors, he tries to separate the quality of the science from the quality of the writing. Even though poor writing can sometimes obscure good science, he focuses on the science behind the writing.
“I would like to express my sincere respect to all reviewers for the tremendous contributions you make behind the scenes to the advancement of science. Your strict eyes and dedicated efforts improve the quality of research and support the credibility of science. At times, this work requires time and effort, and your contributions may not be easily visible. Your critical thinking and expertise prevent errors and pave the way for new discoveries. Your presence is essential to the development of science, and your efforts will never be in vain. I believe that your dedication will be the foundation for building a better future. Let us continue to work together for the advancement of science,” says Dr. Nagamine.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Won Kim
Dr. Won Kim is a tenured professor of internal medicine at Seoul National University College of Medicine. He is a leading clinical and translational researcher in the field of hepatology and has made significant contributions to the academic community, as evidenced by his publication history. He has authored/co-authored more than 250 SCIE peer-reviewed articles. His research primarily focuses on the integrated multi-omics approach for achieving precision medicine in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). He also leads a talented team of multidisciplinary researchers at the Innovative Target Exploration of NAFLD (ITEN) consortium, which mainly focuses on the development of novel noninvasive diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets against high-risk MASH and advanced fibrosis. He is also an editor-in-chief of Clinical and Molecular Hepatology (2023 JCR IF=14). Learn more about him here.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Kim: Peer review is essential for maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific research. As a hepatologist specializing in MASLD, I believe peer review serves several crucial functions: Firstly, it acts as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring that published research meets high scientific standards. This is particularly important in rapidly evolving fields like MASLD, where new findings can significantly impact clinical practice. Secondly, peer review provides valuable feedback to authors, helping to improve the quality and clarity of their work. In my experience, this process often leads to more robust and impactful publications in hepatology. Lastly, peer review helps to validate new discoveries and theories within the scientific community. This is crucial for advancing our understanding of complex liver diseases like MASLD and developing effective treatments.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Kim: To minimize potential biases during peer review, I always strive to maintain objectivity, focusing solely on the scientific merit of the work rather than the authors' identities or affiliations. If I recognize a potential conflict of interest, I promptly decline the review invitation. When possible, I participate in double-blind or even triple-blind review processes, which help reduce unconscious biases. This allows me to evaluate the research purely on its scientific merits. I also make a conscious effort to consider diverse perspectives and remain open to novel ideas, especially important in a rapidly evolving field like MASLD research.
QIMS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Kim: Balancing the demands of clinical practice, research, and peer review can be challenging. However, I consider peer review an integral part of my professional responsibilities. To allocate time effectively, I set aside dedicated time slots for peer review, typically early mornings or weekends when I can focus without interruptions.
I prioritize reviews based on their relevance to my expertise in MASLD and their potential impact on the field. I view peer review as an opportunity for continuous learning and staying updated with the latest advancements in hepatology, which ultimately benefits my own research and clinical practice. By integrating peer review into my regular workflow, I ensure that I contribute to the scientific community while maintaining my other professional commitments.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Xiao Li
Xiao Li is a Senior Principal Data Scientist at Roche Diagnostics. His research focuses on AI/ML applications in the medical field, particularly in digital pathology and spatial omics, with an emphasis on spatial analysis to uncover cell interactions and tissue structures using advanced AI algorithms. He developed SpatialQPFs, an R package that extracts interpretable spatial features from cell imaging data through spatial statistical methodologies, providing new insights into tissue biology and pathology. Additionally, he is exploring foundation models to generate robust and generalizable representations of histopathology images, enhancing tasks such as cell segmentation, classification, and diagnostic and prognostic modeling. By integrating AI-driven approaches with advanced statistics, his work aims to advance computational pathology and spatial omics research. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Xiao Li: A good reviewer should have in depth subject matter expertise, critical thinking skills, and the ability to provide constructive feedback. They should be objective, fair, and thorough in evaluating methodology framework proposed, experiment results, and conclusions while ensuring scientific rigor and clarity. Additionally, a responsible reviewer should also be mindful of time. Timely reviews help authors receive feedback sooner, accelerating scientific progress and maintaining an efficient peer-review system. This is important to build a productive and supportive academic environment for everyone.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Xiao Li: A healthy peer-review system ensures fairness, rigor, and objectivity by selecting qualified reviewers with relevant expertise who provide constructive and timely feedback. Clear evaluation criteria, diverse perspectives, and strong editorial oversight help minimize biases while enriching the review process. A healthy peer-review system should focus on offering actionable suggestions rather than personal criticism, fostering an environment that strengthens research quality and advances the field. In this regard, a double-blind review mechanism can further reduce bias and enhance integrity.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Xiao Li: Firstly, I believe that a double-blind review process, where both author and reviewer identities are concealed, can be highly beneficial in minimizing biases. Secondly, clear review criteria should be defined, and reviewers should actively reflect on their own potential biases to ensure fairness. Third, diversifying the reviewer pool and using standardized scoring systems contribute to a more objective evaluation. Finally, maintaining transparency by providing detailed justifications for review decisions further strengthens the integrity of the peer-review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Alisa Kunapinun
Dr. Alisa Kunapinun is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), specializing in machine learning applications in medical imaging and aquaculture analytics. She holds a Doctor of Engineering in Mechatronics from the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) and has extensive experience in deep learning, robotics, and computer vision. Her research focuses on medical image analysis, including thyroid nodule segmentation and classification, MRI-based dementia assessment, and MRA segmentation for stroke detection. She has also contributed to aquaculture analytics, applying deep learning to coral segmentation, biomass prediction, and water quality monitoring. Dr. Kunapinun has served as a reviewer for high-impact journals, including NPJ Digital Medicine, Scientific Reports, and BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. With a strong background in both medical AI and industrial automation, she continues to develop AI-driven solutions that bridge healthcare and environmental sustainability. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Kunapinun believes a good reviewer must have significant experience and expertise in its specific field. Since total proficiency in all aspects of interdisciplinary research is unrealistic, a relevant or closely-related background ensures precise and reliable academic content review, crucial in applied research where multidisciplinary insights are often needed. Besides expertise, constructive feedback is vital. A reviewer should not only spot a manuscript's strengths and weaknesses but also offer helpful suggestions for refinement. The aim is to improve research quality, not demoralize authors. Clear, actionable feedback aids both authors and the academic community. Maintaining accuracy, fairness, and constructive engagement boosts scientific journals' credibility and ensures high-quality research dissemination.
In Dr. Kunapinun’s opinion, the peer-review system has structural flaws, mainly bias and reviewer shortages. In single-blind and non-blind reviews, knowing an author's identity, institution, or nationality can cause bias, favoring well-known parties. Even in double-blind reviews, poor editor selection can let reviewers guess the author's identity. Standardizing double-blind reviews across journals can reduce such issues. The lack of reviewers is a big problem since it is a voluntary task with few rewards. She also points out that existing incentives like publication fee discounts often do not work. Journals should offer better incentives such as public recognition, certifications, reviewer credits for career growth, financial compensation, or a free publication policy for those who contribute a set number of reviews.
Everyone has unconscious biases, be it due to institutional reputation, nationality, prior knowledge of an author's work, or research methodology preferences. To mitigate this, Dr. Kunapinun centers on objective criteria like research quality, methodology, and clarity, rather than an author's background. During reviews, she stays alert to personal biases and deliberately assesses papers by scientific merit, not assumptions about the authors. When noticing patterns of problems, such as data inconsistencies or overstated claims, verification is done instead of immediately rejecting the work. Editorial oversight is crucial too; if a conflict of interest or strong bias is recognized, she withdraws from the review. Maintaining transparency, focusing on evidence, and being both critical and fair are key to keeping peer review credible and unbiased.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
André Timóteo Sapal
Dr. André Timóteo Sapal is a Cardiopneumologist with a Master in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance and specialization in Extracorporeal Circulation and Cardiothoracic Surgery Assistance. He holds a PhD in Cardiology from the Department of Clinical Medicine, FMRP-USP, and was associated with the Echocardiography Laboratory, Cardiology Center, Hospital das Clínicas, USP Medical School (HCRP-USP). He was also a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Emergency Medicine Division, Department of Clinical Medicine, Vascular Biology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto. He is the author of the books “Extracorporeal Circulation: Perfusion Beyond the Mere Observation of Blood Levels in the Venous Reservoir” and “Combined Ultrasound in Aortic Dissection Screening: The Fate of the Residual False Lumen After Surgery”. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Sapalo believes that peer review plays a pivotal and indispensable role in identifying errors and biases from diverse perspectives, with a central focus on augmenting the impact of new scientific discoveries. Peer review ensures that the research findings are relevant and serves as a reliable safeguard against potential inaccuracies, which could have detrimental effects on consumers and other researchers who aim to replicate scientific studies, especially in the context of new medical practices that are grounded in scientific evidence.
According to Dr. Sapalo, an objective peer review should concentrate on several essential key aspects. It should assess the topic under investigation, the objectives that have been set to tackle the research problem at hand, the methodology that has been carefully designed to achieve those objectives, and the appropriate type of statistical analysis that aligns with the intended outcomes and the research objectives. The results of the study must be analyzed in great detail, with particular attention paid to the author's reasoning regarding their findings in relation to the existing body of literature, which is typically elaborated upon in the discussion section of the paper. Moreover, it is of utmost importance to evaluate the authors' transparency regarding the limitations of their study. Ultimately, the peer review should critically assess the clarity and validity of the conclusions drawn. It is vital to recognize that the introduction of a research paper provides the fundamental rationale for the study, guiding the reader into the topic being explored. As such, it must be concise and crystal clear. Based on his personal experience, when the subject falls within his area of expertise, he often leaves the evaluation of the introduction until the end. However, when the subject is outside his domain of knowledge, he makes it a priority to review the introduction right at the beginning of the manuscript evaluation process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Arka Bhowmik
Arka Bhowmik, PhD, is a Research Associate in the Department of Radiology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, USA. His research focuses on integrating deep learning and machine learning into medical imaging to enhance diagnostic accuracy and predict treatment outcomes. Previously, he worked on developing affordable medical devices and mathematical modelling of biomedical processes. He has authored 22 scientific publications, one Indian patent, and four book chapters. He also serves on the editorial boards of PLOS One (2023–2025) and Biomedical Engineering Online (2024–2025). His contributions aim to bridge the gap between AI and clinical applications, fostering innovation in medical technology.
Dr. Bhowmik believes that peer review is essential for scientific publication. It acts as a crucial safeguard to ensure the accuracy and validation of research. During the peer-review process, the scientific methodology and results that are reported are meticulously evaluated to determine if they are free from errors and can be replicated. This not only guarantees the integrity of the research but also ensures that only legitimate advancements within the field make their way into publication. In essence, peer review is the gatekeeper that upholds the quality and reliability of scientific knowledge.
A constructive review, according to Dr. Bhowmik, is one that has a practical and beneficial impact. It should contribute to the improvement of the study at hand, identify and fill in any gaps in the existing literature, and offer actionable feedback to the authors.
“Despite the fact that peer reviewing is often anonymous, I am motivated to engage in this activity when the study in question is interesting, falls within my area of expertise, or is related to my field of specialization,” says Dr. Bhowmik.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Essam A Rashed
Essam Rashed received his PhD (Eng.) in Computer Science from the University of Tsukuba, Japan, where he also holds a position as a JSPS Post-Doctoral Research Fellow. He served as Assistant/Associate/Full Professor of Computer Science at the Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University. He was a research professor at Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan. Currently, he is a Professor at the Graduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, Japan. His research interests include medical image processing, data science, AI and pattern recognition. He is IEEE Senior Member and Associate Editor of the IEEE Access. In 2024, he was a recipient of the Commendation for Science and Technology by the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Development Category), Japan. He participated as a PI and CoI for several external funded projects. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Rashed emphasizes that peer review plays a crucial role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. By detecting and eliminating errors, biases, and flawed methodologies prior to publication, peer review enhances the trustworthiness of research. It does so by upholding high scientific standards, offering constructive feedback for improvement, and guaranteeing that research findings are accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Moreover, peer review functions as an ethical safeguard, identifying potential instances of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and ethical concerns. It serves as a means to standardize published materials within various research communities and ensures that peer-reviewed works meet the required quality criteria.
Considering the current emerging technology of Generative AI, Dr. Rashed indicates that minimizing biases in peer review requires a combination of human oversight and algorithmic transparency. AI can assist in standardizing evaluations by analyzing text for methodological rigor, statistical soundness, and ethical compliance without being influenced by author identity, affiliation, or reputation. Implementing a double-blind review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous, further reduces bias. AI-driven tools can help flag potential biases in language, citations, and reviewer decisions, ensuring a more neutral assessment. However, AI models themselves can inherit biases from training data, so continuous auditing, diverse reviewer selection, and editorial oversight remain essential. A hybrid approach, where AI provides an initial analysis and human reviewers focus on critical evaluation and nuanced judgment, can create a fairer and more reliable peer-review system.
“Being a scientist means balancing numerous responsibilities, often leaving limited time for volunteer duties like peer reviewing. However, peer review is a crucial community service that upholds the integrity and quality of scientific research. To ensure efficiency, I dedicate at least one hour per week to peer reviewing, reinforcing my commitment to the academic community. Encouraging peer review participation can be achieved through recognition programs. Additionally, journals and institutions can offer incentives, including reduced publication fees, networking opportunities, or reviewer training workshops to enhance skills. AI-assisted tools can also streamline the review process, making it less time-consuming while maintaining rigorous evaluation standards,” says Dr. Rashed.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ido Azuri
Dr. Ido Azuri completed his PhD in computational physics and chemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science. During the final year of his PhD, he developed a profound interest in AI and independently transitioned his career into this field. Currently, he serves as the AI Manager at the Bioinformatics Unit within the Life Sciences Core Facilities at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Over the past 7 years, Dr. Azuri has been actively engaged in AI research projects across diverse fields and applications, such as bio-imaging and medical-imaging, medicine, biochemistry, biology, chemistry, and archaeology. Additionally, he is dedicated to pursuing his own ideas, primarily in the area of Computer Vision within bio-imaging and medical-imaging. He also plays an active role in advising and guiding graduate students in their research endeavors, and is actively involved in teaching programming and data science. Throughout the years, he has received several prizes in recognition of his outstanding research and activities. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Azuri: An unbiased and objective advice and comments from an expert referee in the field can change drastically the scope of a research work. Sometimes, it can lead to disqualification of the research work or in contrast to its enhancement. In the first case, it prevents misleading and saves a lot of burden to the researchers and community and in the second case it can make significant positive difference that eventually leads to effective and positive discoveries.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Azuri: A reviewer should not review a research work if he/she has a conflict of interest. This is a key factor to make sure a reviewer is objective. Then, the reviewer should be an expert in the field of the work and critically evaluate the manuscript. That means a qualified reviewer, on the one hand, should know what are the important issues in the research work that should be addressed and, on the other hand, know what are justified limitations of the work that cannot be improved or addressed but still support adequately the narrative and conclusions in the manuscript in a non-biased manner.
QIMS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Azuri: Yes, this is true. On numerous occasions, I'm compelled to turn down review requests. However, during periods when I have more free time, I examine my schedule to determine when I can set aside time for a review. If I identify a time slot that aligns with the journal's deadline requirements and if the subject matter of the work intrigues me, I accept the review. I genuinely enjoy the process of reviewing as it allows me to engage with the latest research efforts.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Keita Nagawa
Keita Nagawa, MD, PhD, is a junior associate professor in the Department of Radiology at Saitama Medical University in Saitama, Japan. His primary research areas center around diagnostic radiology for musculoskeletal disorders, quantitative analysis of medical images, and machine learning/deep learning.
Dr. Nagawa indicates that peer review is an indispensable element in the scientific realm. It functions as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring the integrity, validity, and relevance of research findings. This process not only safeguards the credibility of the scientific enterprise but also spurs continuous improvement and innovation in research. Peer reviewers typically offer constructive criticism that can enhance research. They might propose additional experiments, draw attention to overlooked references, or identify potential weaknesses. This collaborative aspect enables authors to create more comprehensive and impactful work. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal indicates that a study has undergone rigorous examination. This peer validation is crucial for the scientific community, as it enables researchers to build upon one another's findings. The cumulative nature of science heavily depends on shared and validated knowledge.
On the other hand, Dr. Nagawa points out that biases in peer review can influence the assessment of research, potentially undermining the integrity of published science. However, he believes that journals can make efforts to invite a diverse group of reviewers in terms of geographic location, gender, career stage, and institutional affiliation. Such diversity ensures a wide range of perspectives and reduces the likelihood of groupthink or shared biases. Additionally, implementing double-blind peer review, where both authors and reviewers are anonymous, can help minimize biases related to the authors' identities, institutions, or prior work. This anonymity encourages reviewers to focus solely on the research quality. Providing training or guidelines for reviewers regarding potential biases, such as confirmation bias or disciplinary favoritism, can increase awareness and foster more objective evaluations.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mathilde Vermersch
Dr. Mathilde Vermersch, MD, MSc, is a diagnostic and interventional radiologist at Valenciennes Hospital in France. Her specialization lies in abdominal radiology, with a particular focus on the liver. She has conducted extensive research on HCC, especially in PET-MRI, and is currently engaged in research on dual energy imaging (dual detector and GSI).
Speaking of the qualities a reviewer should possess, Dr. Vermersch believes that pedagogy and kindness are of utmost importance. Reviewers are not meant to be judgmental but rather to support authors in their research. Their role is to offer guidance to help authors highlight the strengths of their work. Even if a paper is not initially accepted, the reviewer should encourage further research and resubmission by clearly pointing out both the weaknesses and strengths of the study. Rigor is another crucial quality. Since the aim of medical research is to enhance patient care, reviewers cannot afford to be lax. Scientific articles today shape future medical practices, and any lack of rigor in a study that could lead to an incorrect conclusion must be identified and addressed.
Dr. Vermersch highlights several things reviewers need to bear in mind during reviews. First, they should empathize with the authors. Medical research demands a great deal of effort, and reviewers' comments should not deter young authors but rather encourage and assist them. Second, reviewers should think like novice readers. The article should be accessible to a wide audience, regardless of their level of scientific training, and thus must be didactic. Finally, reviewers need to approach the paper as researchers. They must recognize that no study is flawless, given the challenges of dealing with patients, missing data, and random events. However, they should be able to distinguish between aspects that cannot be corrected and those that can be improved.
From a reviewer's perspective, Dr. Vermersch reckons it is important for authors, especially young ones, to follow reporting guidelines such as STROBE and PRISMA during manuscript preparation. These guidelines bring rigor to research and article writing. They provide a robust methodology for setting up a study and offer a framework for presenting results. With experience, authors may not need to adhere to the guidelines as strictly, as the principles underlying them become second nature in the conduct of research and writing of articles.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nicole Kim Luan Lee
Nicole Kim Luan Lee, having obtained her PhD from the University of Melbourne, is currently employed in the Division of Surgery at KK Women's and Children's Hospital in Singapore. Additionally, she is a member of the Surgery Academic Program at SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS). Her research primarily focuses on pediatric orthopedic issues, with a special interest in fractures and scoliosis. In her recent undertakings, she has been actively involved in promoting research and innovation collaborations aimed at tackling global health challenges. Through her professional work, she stresses the importance of linking clinical practice with innovative solutions. By leveraging technology and data analytics, she endeavors to enhance patient care and improve treatment outcomes within the regional context. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Lee: An effective reviewer should understand the subject matter to provide relevant feedback. Critical thinking and analytical skills are vital in assessing the work's validity and contribution. Objectivity, unbiasedness, and attention to detail ensure fair evaluations and accurate error identification. Additionally, clear communication and meeting deadlines are crucial for maintaining efficiency and upholding high academic standards, thereby positively impacting the field's progress. Above all, reviewers should embrace a spirit of contributing to the research community, viewing the review process as an opportunity to support the field's growth. Focused on learning and dedication, reviewers should approach each manuscript openly, striving to help authors enhance their work through thoughtful, constructive feedback to refine research and explore new possibilities. This fosters a culture of continuous learning and innovation, where reviewers play a humble yet vital role in facilitating growth and development within the community.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to other reviewers?
Dr. Lee: I hold great admiration for the dedication and expertise of those who have been steadfastly advancing scientific progress. Your meticulous work and insightful evaluations are vital to fostering innovation and maintaining research quality. Although your contributions may often remain behind the scenes, they provide the essential groundwork for future advancements.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lucía Caselles-Pina
Lucía Caselles-Pina is a doctoral candidate at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, focusing her research on the application of machine learning models to neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Her recent work includes a systematic review on the application of machine learning models in psychometric questionnaires for diagnosing ADHD, highlighting their potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy. Additionally, she has explored data science approaches to optimize ADHD assessments using the BRIEF-2 questionnaire, aiming to streamline diagnostic processes and improve precision. Lucía has also investigated the adherence, frequency, and long-term follow-up of video game-based treatments in patients with ADHD, underscoring their potential to improve symptoms and enhance treatment adherence. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
In Lucía’s opinion, a healthy peer review system must be transparent, fair and constructive. It is essential that reviewers evaluate papers objectively, based on the quality and rigor of the research, without personal bias. In addition, the review should be a process that provides value to the author, with clear and useful comments to improve the manuscript.
Lucía indicates that effective organization and prioritization are the cornerstones when it comes to setting aside time for peer review. She makes it a point to earmark specific time slots for the task of reviewing articles. By doing so, she can ensure that the review work does not clash with her other responsibilities. Furthermore, she emphasizes the importance of being realistic about one's capacity. It is crucial not to take on more review assignments than one can manage. This way, each review can be carried out with the meticulousness and quality that it demands. By following these principles, she believes that one can balance the demands of peer review with other aspects of their professional life, contributing meaningfully to the academic community while maintaining the integrity of the review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mariola Szulik
Mariola Szulik completed her medical studies in 2004 at the Medical University of Silesia in Zabrze, Poland, and specialized in internal medicine and cardiology. She holds certifications in echocardiography from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) for transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. She also earned a Mastership from the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium. At the Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, she started as the deputy of the Echocardiography Laboratory and is now the Head of the Emergency Unit. With substantial experience in emergency medicine, including ambulance services, Dr. Szulik is also an active educator. She teaches at the WSB Academy in Dabrowa Górnicza, Poland, offering courses and training programs for paramedics in ultrasonography and cardiology, using a practical, hands-on approach. Additionally, she has been involved in organizing numerous conferences and workshops related to echocardiography, cardiovascular medicine, and emergency medicine, such as the yearly Winter Cardiology School for Paramedics in Wisła, Poland.
Dr. Szulik reckons that peer review plays a vital role in scientific progress. The process of carefully selecting and evaluating research works, along with choosing reviewers who possess comparable competencies to the authors, contributes to making science more authentic and transparent. In essence, the act of publishing is an extension of the research journey. Through peer review, scientific claims are scrutinized, ensuring that only well-founded and reliable knowledge enters the scientific literature. This not only upholds the integrity of the scientific community but also promotes the continuous evolution and refinement of scientific ideas.
In Dr. Szulik’s opinion, when reviewers are assessing papers, they must keep several key principles in mind. Honesty is fundamental; they should provide an unbiased and truthful evaluation of the work without any hidden agendas. Being real means presenting an assessment based on objective facts and the actual content of the paper, rather than making unfounded assumptions. Politeness is crucial as well, as harsh or disrespectful language can demotivate authors. Reviewers need to be precise in their comments, clearly stating what aspects of the paper are strong and which need improvement. An open-minded approach allows them to consider new ideas and unconventional methods presented in the paper, even if they deviate from the norm. Finally, being reasonable ensures that the expectations set for the paper are fair and achievable within the context of the research field. By adhering to these principles, reviewers can significantly contribute to the quality of scientific publications and the growth of knowledge in their respective disciplines.
“Reviewing is a natural process of scientific career. It demands broadmindedness and maintains creativity,” says Dr. Szulik.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Satoshi Takaishi
Satoshi Takaishi is a Neurologist and Clinical Researcher at Department of Neurology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine Hospital. He specializes in neurointerventional radiology and medical imaging, with a focus on MRI analysis for patients undergoing endovascular treatment. His clinical practice involves the management of cerebrovascular diseases, particularly acute ischemic stroke, and he is actively involved in research aimed at optimizing imaging-based assessments for stroke patients. Recently, he has been investigating diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) changes in cerebral infarction following mechanical thrombectomy to better understand post-procedural brain tissue response. His work focuses on identifying imaging biomarkers that can improve prognosis prediction and guide therapeutic strategies. Through his combined clinical and research expertise, he contributes to bridging the gap between medical imaging advancements and real-world patient care.
Dr. Takaishi acknowledges that reviewers are not without flaws. They may at times misinterpret what an author intends to convey or fail to notice certain results. However, precisely due to their human nature, reviewers possess a unique ability. They can detect sections of a paper that are likely to be misconstrued or hard to understand from a reader's viewpoint. Since academic papers are read by humans, the significance of the review process, which relies on human judgment, cannot be overstated. To ensure that an author's message is communicated clearly and succinctly to a wider audience, this process plays an essential role. It helps refine the paper, making it more accessible and reducing the chances of misunderstandings, thus facilitating the dissemination of knowledge within the academic community.
Dr. Takaishi is aware of the limitations of peer-review system including issues such as reviewers misunderstanding the author's intent, overlooking errors, or making inappropriate evaluations due to preconceived notions. To tackle these problems, he emphasizes the importance of sincere engagement between reviewers and authors. When both parties interact constructively, it can lead to significant improvements in the quality of the research report. In addition, Dr. Takaishi thinks that in the future, it could be beneficial to consider the partial integration of AI technology as a means of reducing bias in the peer-review process. This could potentially offer a more objective assessment and help counteract some of the subjective pitfalls that currently exist. By combining human expertise with the capabilities of AI, the hope is to enhance the overall fairness and effectiveness of peer review.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Takaishi emphasizes the vital importance of guidelines. For authors, following these guidelines is a practical way to quickly understand the key elements of paper-writing. This allows them to structure their research findings in a proper manner. By adhering to guidelines, authors can efficiently grasp the key components required for writing a paper and appropriately structure their findings. Moreover, papers that follow established guidelines enable reviewers and readers to easily assess whether the research has been conducted and documented through an ethically and scientifically appropriate process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takashi Mori
Takashi Mori, a PhD and Speech-Language Pathologist, is affiliated with the Department of Oral and maxillofacial surgery at the Dysphagia Rehabilitation Center, Southern Tohoku General Hospital in Fukushima, Japan. His research areas cover dysphagia, sarcopenia, nutrition, and rehabilitation. He focuses on ultrasonography for swallowing, sarcopenic dysphagia, and nutritional therapy. He is actively involved in a working group on sarcopenic dysphagia. In this group, he developed and studied the reliability and validity of a diagnostic flowchart for sarcopenic dysphagia. He also used ultrasound equipment to evaluate swallowing muscles and established cutoff values for the cross-sectional area of the geniohyoid muscle. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Mori thinks that peer review serves a crucial purpose. It provides an impartial assessment to ensure the research content is both scientific and ethical. A “scientific” study is one that can be verified. Through peer review, there is an evaluation of what comments are required to enhance the scientific robustness of a manuscript. This helps in validating research methods, data analysis, and the overall conclusion, making the knowledge disseminated more reliable.
According to Dr. Mori, while peer review plays a vital role in enhancing research quality, it cannot always guarantee it. To address this shortcoming, post-publication follow-up examinations and additional opinions can be incorporated. These post-publication reviews can catch any overlooked issues or new aspects that emerge after the initial peer review, thus compensating for the system's weaknesses.
“We would do well to focus our efforts on returning useful comments to authors, whether revisions or rejections. Good reviewers contribute to the advancement of science,” says Dr. Mori.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Won C. Bae
Won C. Bae, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology at the University of California, San Diego. He was trained as a biomedical engineer, specializing in the biomechanics of biological tissues. His postdoctoral training, conducted jointly in Bioengineering and Radiology, focused on MRI-based evaluation of musculoskeletal tissues. Now an established researcher, he has received multiple prestigious awards, including F32, K01, and R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health, as well as funding from private sponsors such as the Arthritis Foundation, General Electric, and Canon Medical. His research interests center on quantitative and advanced imaging techniques for assessing musculoskeletal disorders, particularly low back pain related to intervertebral discs and the discovertebral junction, as well as knee osteoarthritis. His publications cover key areas such as ultrashort echo time (UTE) imaging, UTE T2* quantification, perfusion imaging, and the application of artificial intelligence to enhance image analysis and diagnosis. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Bae thinks that peer review is the backbone of scientific integrity, serving as a critical checkpoint to ensure that research is rigorous, credible, and meaningful. A strong peer review challenges assumptions, refines methodologies, and strengthens conclusions, ultimately enhancing the significance of the work. It filters out weak or flawed science, insignificant findings, and unsupported claims, protecting the field from misinformation and unreliable foundations.
Dr. Bae has been involved in the review process from both angles: reviewing grants and manuscripts, and having his own work evaluated. From the author’s side, he has faced the annoyance of reviewers with inflexible or limited outlooks. For instance, some reviewers might firmly demand that all research be technologically innovative. He disputes this stance, arguing that validating established work can be equally important. When assuming the role of a reviewer, he makes a conscious effort to keep an open mind. He understands the significance of considering the wider impact and implications of the research at hand. By doing so, he aims to provide a more comprehensive and fair assessment, unlike the rigid reviewers he has encountered as an author. This approach not only benefits the authors whose work he reviews but also contributes to a more inclusive and progressive academic environment where different types of research, whether innovative or validatory, are given due consideration.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Chen Wang
Chen Wang is a postdoctoral research assistant at the Stephenson School of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oklahoma. His research is centered around advancing medical imaging techniques for diverse surgical guidance. Specifically, he has developed various optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based imaging probes. These probes are designed to enhance the precision of needle placement in kidney surgery, facilitate abdominal surgery navigation, and improve epidural anesthesia navigation. Furthermore, Dr. Wang integrates computer-aided methods, including deep learning, into medical imaging systems. This integration enables automatic imaging navigation and accurate tissue recognition. At present, he is engaged in projects related to developing imaging probes for different cancer biopsies. These include liver, kidney, and sarcoma biopsy surgery navigation. Such projects aim to boost biopsy accuracy while reducing tissue damage and complication rates. Additionally, he is focused on translating his current research findings into clinically applicable products. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Wang: In my opinion, peer review is a necessary procedure for published papers, especially in academic fields. A published paper must be scientifically rigorous, so it should be reviewed by researchers in the relevant field to ensure that its background, methods, and results are accurate. Additionally, a paper should be accessible not only to the readers within a specific area but also to those from other fields. Therefore, reviewers in different areas are needed to evaluate a paper before it is published.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Wang: First, reviewers from different fields should be invited to evaluate the manuscript from different academic perspectives. Second, it is suggested to provide some specific criteria, such as a scoring form based on different aspects. Third, double-blind review can be implemented as an option to minimize the potential biases.
QIMS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Wang: I usually do peer review after extensive writing or experimental work. Reading a manuscript, in my view, can be a relaxing task because it always provides something new and interesting. While reviewing a manuscript, I often need to explore relevant background information from other papers or databases. It feels like reading an encyclopedia, constantly expanding my knowledge and providing insights into new areas.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Markus Czesla
Dr. Markus Czesla embarked on his medical journey at the University of Leipzig, graduating in 1996. His training at the Heart Center Leipzig laid the foundation for expertise. A two-year fellowship in minimally invasive mitral surgery paved the way for specialization in reconstructive mitral and tricuspid operations. With a wealth of experience at the Department of Cardiac Surgery in Stuttgart from 2009 to 2014, he initiated a groundbreaking minimally invasive program in mitral surgery since 2014. In 2024, he transitioned to work as an independent coach for minimally invasive surgery, with his main focus on Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery (MIMVS) and rhythm surgery. Learn more about him here.
To minimize potential biases during review, Dr. Czesla always makes an effort to compare his own experiences with established guidelines and community standards. By doing so, he can ensure that his evaluations are more objective and less influenced by personal biases.
Regarding the disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI), Dr. Czesla firmly states that it is never wrong for authors to disclose any conflicts. Even in the face of potential COIs, he always endeavors to maintain a neutral position. A COI can potentially influence a research in various ways, such as in the design, data collection, or interpretation of results. By being aware of these potential conflicts and remaining neutral, reviewers like Dr. Czesla can better assess the credibility and validity of the research, ensuring that the scientific community receives reliable and unbiased information.
For fellow reviewers who are quietly devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress, Dr. Czesla offers words of encouragement, “Doing reviews is an integral part of scientific work. Reading new papers and attempting to estimate your professional value not only benefits the authors but also sharpens your view on the day-to-day scientific routine. It enriches your knowledge and understanding of the field, contributing to your own growth as well as the overall progress of science.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Seung-Won Lee
Prof. Seung Won Lee received his Bachelor's degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Seoul National University in 2011. He then earned his MD from CHA University in 2015, followed by a Ph.D. from the same university in 2018. Previously, he served as the chief of the Goseo Public Health Center and then as the Chair of the Data Science Department at Sejong University. Since 2022, he has served as an Associate Professor in the Department of Precision Medicine at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine. His research areas include Medical AI, Medical Big Data, and Digital Health. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Lee emphasizes that reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific research. While reviewing papers, they must ensure that the study is methodologically sound, the conclusions are supported by robust data, and the work contributes meaningfully to the field. Objectivity is key—reviewers should provide constructive criticism without bias or personal preference. They should also consider ethical aspects, such as whether the research adheres to guidelines on human or animal subjects, data transparency, and reproducibility. Additionally, clarity and coherence are essential; a well-conducted study should be clearly communicated. Finally, reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and complete their assessments in a timely manner to support the advancement of science.
“Peer reviewers are the unsung heroes of scientific progress. Their dedication, expertise, and meticulous assessments help shape the reliability of published research, ensuring that knowledge is built on a solid foundation. While the process can be time-consuming and often goes unrecognized, it is a vital contribution to the academic community. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all reviewers who continue to uphold the highest standards of research quality. Your efforts not only refine individual studies but also strengthen the scientific ecosystem as a whole. As researchers, we must remember that our collective commitment to rigorous peer review fosters innovation and credibility in science,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Arman Sharbatdaran
Dr. Arman Sharbatdaran is a nuclear medicine resident physician at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital – Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA with research interests in the application of AI in medical imaging and molecular imaging in oncology. His work focuses on developing deep learning algorithms to enhance diagnostic accuracy, disease monitoring, and imaging reproducibility. He has contributed to AI-driven organ segmentation and automated volume assessment of the kidneys, liver, and spleen, particularly in conditions such as autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and myelofibrosis. In addition to his AI research, he has worked with novel PET radiotracers, including F-18 fluoroestradiol (FES) PET/MRI, to assess estrogen receptor expression in brain metastases from breast cancer. His research has also explored the impact of averaging measurements from multiple MRI sequences to improve reproducibility in volumetric assessments and the use of AI in tracking disease progression. His contributions to the field have been recognized with the RSNA Research Trainee Prize, highlighting his work in advancing imaging research. Through collaborations with experts in radiology, nuclear medicine, and biomedical engineering, Dr. Sharbatdaran aims to advance the integration of AI and molecular imaging into clinical workflows to improve precision medicine and patient outcomes. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What do you regard as a destructive review?
Dr. Sharbatdaran: A destructive review is one that lacks constructive feedback and instead discourages the author without providing clear directions for improvement. Such reviews often contain vague criticisms, personal biases, or unnecessarily harsh language, which can demoralize researchers rather than fostering scientific growth. A reviewer’s role is to critically evaluate the work while maintaining professionalism, fairness, and respect for the effort behind the research. Instead of merely pointing out flaws, a reviewer should suggest ways to improve the manuscript, ensuring that criticism is both justified and actionable.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Sharbatdaran: A good reviewer should be objective, thorough, and constructive. Objectivity ensures that the evaluation is based on the scientific merit of the work rather than personal opinions or biases. Thoroughness involves a deep understanding of the topic and attention to detail, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of the manuscript’s methodology, data integrity, and conclusions. Constructive feedback is essential to help authors refine their work, rather than just pointing out deficiencies. Additionally, ethical responsibility is crucial, including confidentiality, proper handling of conflicts of interest (COIs), and ensuring that reviews are timely and fair.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose COI?
Dr. Sharbatdaran: Yes, disclosing COIs is crucial for maintaining transparency and credibility in research. A COI can arise when financial, personal, or professional relationships could influence—or appear to influence—the research process, including study design, data interpretation, and conclusions. Failing to disclose a COI can undermine the trustworthiness of the work and lead to biases, whether intentional or not. Even if a COI does not directly alter the study’s findings, its undisclosed presence can raise doubts about the objectivity of the research, potentially impacting peer review, publication, and clinical translation. Full disclosure allows readers and reviewers to assess the potential influence of these relationships and ensures that scientific integrity remains uncompromised.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Busra Cangut
Dr. Busra Cangut, a medical doctor from Turkey, has an extensive background in cardiovascular surgery research and imaging. She completed her postdoctoral fellowship, master's degree, and general surgery intern year at the Mayo Clinic. During her postdoctoral fellowship, she focused on the durability of various aortic valve bioprostheses. After her general surgery training, she pursued specialized cardiovascular imaging training at Mount Sinai Hospital. Currently, her work centers on advanced cardiac imaging technologies, including PET/MRI and 4D flow MRI, for evaluating specific valve pathologies. She is board-certified in cardiovascular imaging and is also a fellow of the ERAS Cardiac Society, focusing on perioperative care in cardiac surgery patients. In July 2025, she will resume her surgical career in cardiac surgery, with the goal of becoming an academic cardiac surgeon. Connect with her on LinkedIn and learn more about her here.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Cangut: As research becomes increasingly specialized and sub-specialized, finding qualified peer reviewers with the necessary expertise is becoming more challenging. Journals must have access to individuals who possess both specialized knowledge and proficiency in statistical analysis. Maintaining a consistent standard for peer reviewers—considering their qualifications, publication record (both in terms of quantity and quality), and professional reputation—is crucial for ensuring the integrity and quality of the review process. However, several limitations exist, including reviewer bias, variability in review quality, and challenges related to reproducibility. Reviewer bias, whether stemming from personal beliefs or institutional affiliations, can result in inconsistent evaluations of similar studies.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Cangut: When reviewing manuscripts, reviewers must strike a delicate balance between recognizing the value of both the authors' work and the journal's readership. This requires a thorough yet respectful evaluation of the research, ensuring its methodological rigor, internal consistency, and clarity in conveying key insights. At the same time, reviewers must consider how the manuscript fits into the broader academic landscape, assessing whether it is logically sound and contributes meaningfully to existing knowledge. This process often involves an internal struggle, where the reviewer is tasked with making a responsible yet satisfying decision, particularly when the editorial team collectively agrees on the outcome.
QIMS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Cangut: I once reviewed a paper with great ideas but unclear writing. After feedback, the authors revised it beautifully, and it made a big impact. It was a powerful reminder that constructive feedback can turn potential into excellence and that every review is an opportunity to help shape meaningful scientific progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Clara Cohen
Dr. Clara Cohen is a specialist in diagnostic neuroradiology at the University Hospital of Orléans, France. She is affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Innovation and Research in Health of Orléans (LI2RSO) and is currently pursuing a university thesis within the Institut de Psychiatrie et Neurosciences de Paris. Her research focuses on imaging in ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, small vessel cerebrovascular disease, vascular malformations such as cerebral arteriovenous fistulas, and brain inflammation. One of her current areas of interest is radiomics applied to normal-appearing brain images (MRI, CT). In addition to her research, Dr. Cohen is deeply involved in teaching medical students and residents, recognizing the importance of transmitting knowledge to future generations of medical professionals. Learn more about her here.
According to Dr. Cohen, a reviewer should possess several key qualities. Firstly, expertise in the relevant field is crucial as it enables them to accurately assess the technical and scientific aspects of a manuscript. Objectivity is also vital, allowing the reviewer to evaluate the work without bias, whether it be personal, professional, or otherwise. A rigorous and critical mindset towards the authors' work is necessary to ensure that the research meets high standards. At the same time, maintaining scientific autonomy and self-discipline is essential, as it reflects the integrity required in any research endeavor. The ability to question oneself, while being intellectually curious and aware of personal limitations, is an important trait. Additionally, a reviewer must be able to determine the clinical relevance of the research, which helps in understanding its potential impact on patient care. Finally, a certain amount of time and dedication are needed to carry out a thorough review.
Dr. Cohen emphasizes that reviewers should keep in mind the significant effort and dedication that goes into each research project. While critically evaluating the work, they need to determine whether the scientific question addressed has a direct impact on patient care or, at the very least, makes an indirect contribution to improving medical practices. From a more technical perspective, it is essential to acknowledge that technological innovations and AI offer seemingly limitless possibilities for research. However, the ultimate objective should always be the practical utility for humans and the broader living world.
“I chose to review for QIMS because this scientific journal highlights research at the intersection of microscopic-scale imaging and technical advancements, applied to clinical populations. The growing trend of small-scale technological innovations in imaging offers a wide range of opportunities for both diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Medical imaging plays a central role in patient care, not only from a technical perspective but also as a fundamental component of clinical decision-making and treatment strategies,” says Dr. Cohen.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ethan Johnson
Ethan Johnson, PhD, affiliated with the Department of Radiology at Northwestern University, is dedicated to exploring innovative ways of processing and interpreting medical images and signals. His goal is to create and validate crucial clinical metrics that can seamlessly transition from the research stage to practical clinical applications. As an engineer by training, Dr. Johnson's scientific interests predominantly revolve around leveraging technologies like Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) imaging modalities, as well as chest acceleration seismocardiogram (SCG) measurements. These are all non-invasive approaches aimed at studying cardiovascular physiology and diseases. In particular, his efforts in these domains have included development of techniques for analyzing 4D flow MRI to reliably characterize hemodynamics in the aorta, and of novel algorithms for processing SCG signals to assess valve status and flow function in patients with congenital BAV disease.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Johnson: The peer-review system as it exists today relies on volunteer effort, and qualified reviewers do not always have time or capacity to review new works. Additionally, the final publication of a study often obscures the influence of the review process and how the manuscript evolved as it proceeded through the process, which may lead to misconceptions and unrealistic expectations in the research community about how science is performed and presented. Some journals include review comments as a supplement to a published manuscript, which can be a valuable step for transparency and building public understanding of the process. Beyond this, the paradigms of blinding in the review process — i.e., authors blinded to reviewers and/or reviewers blinded to authors, and whether reviewers of published work remain anonymous — should be considered carefully, as these can influence many aspects of the process, including how reviewers approach a submission and how they formulate their criticisms.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Johnson: As I’m sure my fellow reviewers do, I strive to approach each submission with openness and willingness to accept the authors’ perspectives. Naturally, this must be balanced with the need for critical assessment of what a manuscript presents, but I find these countervailing influences can be reconciled by building and retaining awareness of how my own habits of thinking may differ from other’s. With this approach, I am better able to appreciate the potential novelty of a work while offering evaluation of both its strengths and weaknesses. Anchoring this is my belief that the purpose of a review or criticism is to offer constructive feedback to authors for how they may improve a study going forward. As such, there is a natural alignment between the goals of a reviewer and the goals of an author, i.e., to advance the general state of scientific knowledge.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Johnson: I view participation in the peer-review process as both a service to the research community and as a form of personal enrichment. Reviewing manuscripts exposes me to new ideas and concepts, and it stimulates my own creativity. In addition, I am grateful for the many instances of valuable input reviewers have offered me when submitting my own research for peer review, and I am glad for the opportunity to share my own interpretations of new work with the authors, hoping that my feedback will assist others in kind.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hugo Morandini
Dr. Hugo Morandini received his PhD in Clinical Neuroscience at the University of Western Australia, specialising in neuroimaging and brain networks analysis. He is a Research Coordinator at the Child and Adolescent Health Service, Western Australia. He also holds an Adjunct Research Fellow position at the Division of Psychiatry, UWA Medical School, Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Australia. His primary interest lies in the use of neuroimaging techniques, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), to identify potential biomarkers and refine the pathophysiology of neurodevelopmental disorders such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Dr. Morandini thinks that the peer-review process is a critical step in the scientific endeavour. It acts as a quality-control tool, ensuring that the research is scientifically sound, of good quality and free from mistakes. The peer-review process adds credibility to the findings as they are critically appraised, verified and endorsed by other experts in the field. Thanks to the feedback provided by reviewers, the peer-review process provides the opportunity for researchers to improve their manuscript and to think about their findings through a new angle or perspective. It can, in turn, stimulate new original ideas and topic of discussion in the field. Lastly, the peer-review process, when properly implemented, acts as a safeguard against fraudulent and misleading research, ensuring that valuable contributions are added to scientific knowledge.
According to Dr. Morandini, there are some critical points that reviewers should keep in mind while reviewing a paper. Objectivity and impartiality of the reviewers are paramount in the peer-review process. Reviewers should assess a paper based on its scientific merit without being influence by personal or professional biases and/or conflict of interest. In addition, reviewers should thoroughly evaluate the research and provide polite, helpful and constructive feedback in order to improve the paper but also help the authors to improve their work and research skills.
“Peer reviewing could be seen as a tool for professional development. By reviewing papers, researchers contribute to the knowledge and advancement of their respective fields. It also offers the unique opportunity for researchers to stay up-to-date with the latest findings and development of their field. Peer reviewing provides a way to stimulate new ideas and concepts and engage with other experts in the field. Given that our work benefit from the evaluation of our fellow researchers, peer reviewing is a way to give back to the scientific community and our peers,” says Dr. Morandini.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rommel L.R. Novais
Rommel L.R. Novais graduated in Medicine from Centro Universitário de Volta Redonda in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1999, and completed a medical residency in Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at HSJD in 2003. He holds a Master's degree in health sciences and a doctorate in public health from the Federal University of São João del Rei. Currently, he serves as a Professor of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging in the medical course at the Federal University of São João del Rei (UFSJ). He has specialized in Medical Residency Preceptorship at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil, and holds a specialist title in radiology and diagnostic imaging from the Brazilian College of Radiology/Brazilian Medical Association. As a full member of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging and a radiologist at Clínica Center Cordis, he has significant experience in Medicine, with an emphasis on Medical Radiology and body composition. Connect with him on Instagram.
Dr. Novais emphasizes that peer review is of utmost importance in the scientific community. It goes beyond just checking the methodology. Reviewers provide suggestions and constructive criticism that enhance the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of research work. They are on the lookout for methodological errors, flaws in analysis, and improper interpretations that could undermine the integrity of the research. Often, reviewers, distant from the research process, can identify flaws, inconsistencies, or improvement opportunities that the authors have not noticed. Researchers should view peer review as a positive step and consider reviewers as allies in improving the quality of their research rather than as adversaries.
According to Dr. Novais, an objective review of scientific articles focuses on the quality and validity of the research presented, regardless of personal opinions or reviewer biases. To maintain objectivity, several key aspects are considered.
The suitability of the methodology and study design for achieving the research objectives is crucial. Inconsistencies between these can render the study invalid, and in such cases, article acceptance may depend on substantial modifications to restore coherence, though this is not always feasible. Relevance and originality are also important, as the research should contribute to the field, present new ideas or approaches, and avoid plagiarism or duplication. After assessing these fundamental elements, a detailed analysis follows, looking at aspects such as the scientific foundation, and clarity and organization. It is important to note that reviewers with expertise in the relevant area are better able to identify critical points while remaining objective and concise, and this ability may be compromised when evaluating research outside their area of expertise. A useful tip for researchers is to have a trusted, non-involved researcher give a preliminary critical reading of their manuscript before finalizing it, as their input can be highly valuable.
To manage the time for peer review despite the heavy workload of being a doctor, it's essential to be objective and organized for Dr. Novais. This involves scheduling dedicated time blocks for reviews, treating them as important commitments. Developing efficient critical reading skills helps in quickly identifying the key points of an article. Breaking the review process into smaller steps and performing them during convenient moments, like breaks between consultations or experiments, is also effective. Motivation plays a significant role, as it drives one to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. For this professional, motivation is the key that allows an individual to surpass their limits and make the most of their time, effort, and wisdom.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Danilo Tadao Wada
Dr. Danilo Tadao Wada is a radiologist currently serving as medical supervisor and researcher at the Radiology Department of the Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (HCFMRP-USP). He coordinates the Thoracic Imaging Study Group of the São Paulo Radiology Society (SPR) and was named a 2023 Young Talent Scholar by Bracco and SPR for the Progetto Diventerò. He also works with PET-CT at HCFMRP-USP and DIMEN Nuclear Medicine in Ribeirão Preto. He earned his MD from USP in 2011, completed his radiology residency in 2015, and holds a master’s (2017) and PhD (2021) in Radiology. His research focuses on the quantitative and functional assessment of lung diseases using advanced MRI and CT techniques, including Look-Locker relaxometry and AI-based CT analysis. His work aims to improve diagnostic accuracy and foster clinical impact in thoracic imaging. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Tadao: A healthy peer-review system is characterized by its constructiveness. It goes beyond simple evaluation and aims to transform a manuscript into a significant scientific contribution. This involves enhancing the clarity of the research presentation, ensuring methodological rigor, and increasing the overall impact of the work. At the same time, it respects the intellectual efforts of the authors, creating a positive and collaborative environment. Negative results are not inherently negative in the context of scientific research. The knowledge that a particular approach or hypothesis does not work is valuable as it helps prevent redundant research efforts. It also refines the scientific understanding by narrowing down the possibilities and guiding future research in more productive directions. No study is entirely free of bias. What matters is that potential biases are transparently acknowledged and thoughtfully discussed. These are not flaws, but rather limitations that can spark future inquiry. A scientific article ultimately proposes an idea or observation—and while supported by statistics, its validity across different contexts must be tested through ongoing research.
The peer-review process incurs significant costs, both in terms of money and time, for both authors and reviewers. To be fair and sustainable, the system should provide some form of meaningful return. This may not be in the form of money but can be in terms of recognition, such as being invited to participate in interviews, and professional value. Constructive and well-founded reviews require a great deal of dedication, and when this effort is acknowledged, it reinforces the importance of the reviewer's role and encourages continued participation from those who are committed to the progress of science.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Tadao: An objective review should answer three essential questions: first, whether the manuscript makes sense, meaning it must be coherent and in line with the journal’s scope, and reviewers need to not only consider statistical significance but also question the clinical and methodological soundness of the findings, particularly in an era where distorted statistics can conceal weak scientific work; second, if the research is scientifically relevant, as even repetitive studies can hold value when carried out in different populations or targeted at new audiences as they aid in validating findings and expanding applicability, with relevance being contingent on the context; and third, whether there is sufficient rigor, which encompasses methodological transparency, appropriate statistical analysis, and a mature interpretation of results, as overstatements, outdated references, or a lack of consistency with existing literature usually indicate weaknesses, and a robust manuscript acknowledges its limitations and refrains from asserting universal truths based on limited data. Despite our utmost efforts to conduct a comprehensive review, some biases or flaws might elude our detection, yet a structured, critical, and humble approach remains the key to conducting an objective and meaningful peer review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jakub Nalepa
Jakub Nalepa received his PhD (2016), and DSc (2021) in Computer Science from Silesian University of Technology, Poland, where he is an Associate Professor. He is Head of AI at KP Labs where he shapes the scientific and industrial AI objectives of the company related to, among others, EO, on-board and on-the-ground satellite data analysis, machine learning and image analysis. He has been pivotal in designing the on-board deep learning capabilities of the Intuition-1 mission (KP Labs), and has contributed to other missions, including CHIME, Φ-Sat-2 and OPS-SAT (European Space Agency). His interests focus on (deep) machine learning, satellite data analysis, signal processing, remote sensing, and tackling practical challenges which arise in EO to deploy scalable EO solutions. Dr. Nalepa was the General Chair of the HYPERVIEW Challenge at IEEE ICIP 2022 focusing on the estimation of soil parameters from HSIs on board Intuition-1. He is a Senior Member of IEEE. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Nalepa reckons that unbiased and thorough peer review plays a key role in science for multiple reasons. First, it helps authors recognize potential weak points, vague statements, and technical or conceptual errors in their research. Everyone is prone to making mistakes, and peer review offers an opportunity to learn from them. Second, communicating science is not easy, so before publishing a paper, it is pivotal to let others read through the paper and see whether it is self-contained and easy to follow. Third, peer review enables the scientific community to ensure that the results are based on well-designed and executed experiments that are reproducible, and the conclusions are meaningful and reliable. This is crucial for both academic and industrial research, as it builds trust in the findings for further studies.
In Dr. Nalepa’s opinon, an objective review should be based on evidence. Reviewers should back up their claims with evidence, just as authors back up their scientific insights with appropriate experiments, analyses, statistical tests, and interpretations. For example, if a reviewer claims that an approach is not novel, they should provide concrete examples of relevant papers, patents, or other contributions to support their statement. A review should be free from bias and overly harsh criticism. The goal is to help authors learn, improve their skills, and enhance their research, acting as a friend rather than an enemy. By being evidence-based and providing examples, reviewers can achieve objectivity and contribute positively to the peer-review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
