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
Michele Orsi, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy
Andre Luiz Ferreira Costa, Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul, Brazil
Kyungho Yoon, Yonsei University, Korea
Masahisa Arahata, Toyama University Hospital, Japan
Austin Cooper, McGill University, Canada
Daris Theerakulpisut, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Fuyu Ito, Teikyo University, Japan
Kenji Hirata, Hokkaido University, Japan
Meysam Dadgar, Stanford University, USA
Aabha Divya, Tulane University School of Medicine, USA
Attila Nemes, University of Szeged, Hungary
Cory R. Wyatt, Oregon Health and Science University, USA
Fumio Morimura, National Defense Medical College Hospital, Japan
Javier Jiménez Gómez, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
João Vitor Gerdulli Tamanini, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Brazil
Mercy I. Akerele, Washington University, USA
Morteza Rasouligandomani, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Oxana M. Zarudskaya, University of Texas, USA
Pan Liu, Amiens University Hospital, France
Raphael Lopes Olegário, University of Brasília, Brazil
Recep Erçin Sönmez, Istanbul University, Turkey
Tomohisa Okada, Kyoto University, Japan
Vasileios Magoulianitis, University of Southern California, USA
Yuto Uchida, Johns Hopkins University, USA
James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan, National University Hospital, Singapore
Majid Saberi, University of Michigan, USA
Patrick J. Bolan, University of Minnesota Medical School, USA
Satoshi Nakamura, Mie University Hospital, Japan
Susie Medeiros Oliveira, Brazilian National Commission, Brazil
Yuqi Wang, Duke University, USA
Marta Rogalska, Medical University of Silesia, Poland
Yvonne Biswokarma, Loma Linda University, USA
Leslie Bahn Kawa, East Sussex National Health Service Trust, UK
Mustafa Alkhawam, University of Alabama, USA
Ziyang Wang, The Alan Turing Institute, UK
Yoshihisa Morimoto, Kita-Harima Medical Center, Japan
Si Zhao Tang, National University Hospital, Singapore
Kjell Høyland, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Pak-Wing Fok, University of Delaware, USA
Francesco Prata, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Italy
Davide Cester, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
Francisco Javier Mendoza Ferradas, Hospital Universitario de Navarra, Spain
Jakub Mlodawski, Provincial Combined Hospital, Poland
John Nyberg, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Shaowei Bo, The Affiliated Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital of Jinan University, China
Kwang-Sig Lee, Korea University Medical College, Korea
Nick Merna, Hofstra University, USA
Sapir Golan Shekhtman, Joseph Sagol Neuroscience Center, Israel
Eleonora Ostillio, Università del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”, Italy
Xiaoxiao Sun, Columbia University, USA
Rogério N. Shinsato, UNISALESIANO, Brazil
Yigit Can Senol, University of California, USA
Douglas F. Lightstone, Institute for Spinal Health & Performance, USA
Chiba Taishi, Kakunodate City Hospital, Japan
Vincenzo Vingiani, Südtiroler Sanitätsbetrieb, Italy
Karl Goodkin, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA
Pedro Henrique Rodrigues da Silva, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
Jingwen Yao, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez, Auckland Hospital, New Zealand
George F. Steinhardt, Helen DeVos Children's Hospital, USA
Ali K. Z. Tehrani, Concordia University, USA
Bright Awadh Sangiwa, University of Stellenbosch’s Tygerberg Hospital, South Africa
Caitlin Schneider, Sonic Incytes Medical Corp, Canada
Eduardo Domínguez-Adame, University of Seville, Spain
Ícaro Agenor Ferreira Oliveira, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Jing Yuan, Singapore Health Services (SingHealth) Regional Health System, Singapore
Maurício Fregonesi Barbosa, Advanced Center for Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging (CADRI), Brazil
Andreas Giannakou, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
Arjun Krishna, Stony Brook University, USA
Artur Chudzik, Polish-Japanese Academy of Information Technology, Poland
Glen Mervyn Blake, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, UK
Ziyu Shu, Stony Brook University, USA
Sen Wang, Stanford Medicine, USA
Kourosh Kalayeh, University of Michigan, USA
Adam Farag, University of Toronto, Canada
Yutaka Natsuaki, Keck School of Medicine of USC, USA
Amna Juma Al Jabri, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
Fathima Fijula Palot Manzil, Rush University Medical Center, USA
Yuta Imai, Saiseikai Shiga Hospital, Japan
Mariama Touray, University of Bochum, Germany
Carlos Hernández-Pascual, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Spain
Antonio Corvino, University of Naples “Parthenope”, Italy
Hugo Le Boité, Lariboisière Hospital, France
Mira M. Liu, Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, USA
Salar Tayebi, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Chan-Sol Park, Gachon University, Korea
Anya König, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Ranit Karmakar, Michigan Technological University, USA
Atsushi Urikura, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Japan
Jack Virostko, The University of Texas, USA
Jin-Ho Joo, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Korea
Marco Fogante, University Hospital of Marche, Italy
Masahiro Sugihara, Shinsuma Hospital, Japan
Qifan Yang, Ohio State University, USA
Shogo Sawamura, Heisei College of Health Sciences, Japan
Vincenzo Fiorentino, University of Messina, Italy
Emeline J. Ribot, University of Bordeaux, France
Joanna Bidzińska, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland
Lia Talozzi, University of Parma, Italy
Lucas Alexandre Zick, Federal University of Technology, Nigeria
Patiwet Wuttisarnwattana, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Patricia Ulloa, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Sayar Kumar Munshi, Stanford University, USA
Yixuan Jia, University of Michigan, USA
Yohei Kamikawa, Oita University Hospital, Japan
Cynthia Lopes Pereira de Borborema, University Hospitals in Cleveland, USA
José Ignacio Tudela Martínez, Virgen de la Arrixaca University Hospital, Spain
Katrina L Falk, University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA
Sungin Lee, Chungbuk National University, Korea
Harry Marshall, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA
Rojine T. Ariani, University of California, USA
Siavash Swieczkowski-Feiz, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
Amirhossein Arezoumand, University of Oklahoma, USA
Frederico Celestino Miranda, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and Aliança Saúde, Brazil
Junhan Zhao, University of Chicago, USA
Marco Parillo, Provincial Health Services Agency of Trento, Italy
Matheus Dantas de Araújo Barretto, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Naofumi F. Sumitomo, Keio University School of Medicine, Japan
Şenay Mihçin, İzmir Institute of Technology, Turkey
Vladimir Laletin, Aix-Marseille University, France
Michael Romann, Federal Office of Sport (BASPO), Switzerland
James A. Rioux, Nova Scotia Health (NSH), Canada
Ahmed Ali Aziz, Oklahoma State University, USA
Almudena Pérez-Lara, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Spain
Eva Aalbregt, Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands
Keisho Ryu, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Japan
Kentaro Ohara, Ehime University Hospital, Japan
Koki Takegawa, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Japan
Koloud N. Alkhamaiseh, Michigan Technological University, USA
Luk Ping Lam, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China
Natsumi Kuwabara, Kyoto University of Medical Science, Japan
Rohit K. Singla, Vancouver Coastal Health, Canada
Saurabh Jindal, Washington University School of Medicine, USA
Shota Kaburaki, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Japan
Taejoon Park, Catholic University of Daegu, Korea
Takuro Ishii, Tohoku University, Japan
Yasuyuki Mizumori, National Hospital Organization Himeji Medical Center, Japan
Yosuke Nozawa, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Japan
Yusuke Oshita, Showa Medical University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Japan
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)
Michele Orsi
Michele Orsi, MD, serves as obstetrician-gynecologist at the Division of Obstetrics of the Mother and Child Department, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. He trained at the University of Milan and participated, as an intern and then as a specialist, in several development and research projects in resource-limited countries, spending over 15 months mainly in Sierra Leone and Ethiopia. His areas of interest include obstetric emergencies, ultrasound imaging, point-of-care testing, obstetric surgery, and with a broader perspective women's health as a crucial determinant of public health. He believes that an emerging and crucial research area is the study of sustainable and cost-effective innovations that have the potential to positively impact on global health. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Orsi views peer review as one of the fundamental building blocks of modern scientific progress. In the scientific realm, while new discoveries are exciting, the process of verifying these studies is equally essential. Peer review ensures that research adheres to shared standards before publication. This verification step allows other scientists to attempt to reproduce the results, which is a cornerstone of scientific validity. Through the peer-review process, the initial research work undergoes a process of refinement. Flaws are identified, and improvements are suggested, making the study more robust. As a result, the research findings can be better integrated into the existing scientific literature, contributing to the growth and evolution of scientific knowledge. He also highlights the value of involving young researchers in peer review. He believes that it is reasonable for them to participate in a way that matches their experience. This not only benefits the scientific community as a whole but also provides young researchers with an opportunity to explore new scientific advancements. By studying the work of international colleagues, they can expand their knowledge and cultural understanding.
“It is fair for young researchers to contribute as peer reviewers in a manner commensurate with their experience. This opportunity generates a benefit for the scientific community, but above all an opportunity for them to discover new scientific advances and enrich their cultural background by studying the work of other groups of colleagues from all over the world,” says Dr. Orsi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Andre Luiz Ferreira Costa
Dr. André Luiz Ferreira Costa, DDS, MSc, PhD, holds a prominent position as a Full Professor at Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul. He serves as the Coordinator of the Department of Oral Radiology at FAOA and is a faculty member of the Postgraduate Program in Oncology at the School of Medical Sciences, UNICAMP, Brazil. An expert in diagnostic imaging, he specializes in magnetic resonance imaging, cone beam computed tomography, and radiomics applied to head and neck diseases. With over 100 academic papers published, he has supervised more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research projects, delivered over 200 academic presentations, and completed more than 500 peer reviews, earning both national and international recognition for his contributions. His current research focuses on developing texture-based imaging biomarkers for the early diagnosis and prognosis of tumors and temporomandibular disorders. He is also dedicated to strengthening collaborative research networks and enhancing diagnostic accuracy through artificial intelligence and advanced image processing techniques. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Costa, a reviewer should possess several key qualities. Objectivity is crucial to ensure an unbiased evaluation of the research. Knowledge in the relevant subject area is necessary to provide informed feedback. Ethical behavior, including maintaining confidentiality, is essential. The ability to offer constructive feedback helps authors improve their work, and attention to detail allows for a thorough assessment. Additionally, timely responses contribute to the efficiency of the peer-review process.
The existing peer-review system has its limitations. Dr. Costa reckons that reviewer bias can influence the evaluation of manuscripts. Delays in the review process can slow down the dissemination of research. Lack of transparency may raise concerns about the fairness of the process, and inconsistent review quality can lead to varying standards in publication. To address these issues, journals can implement double-blind or open review models to reduce bias and increase transparency. Providing training for reviewers can enhance their skills and ensure more consistent reviews. Recognizing and incentivizing quality reviews can motivate reviewers to perform at their best. Utilizing AI tools for initial screening and plagiarism checks can streamline the process and improve the quality of published research.
From a reviewer's perspective, Dr. Costa believes that it is of great importance for authors to follow reporting guidelines such as PRISMA and CARE. These guidelines ensure that research is presented clearly, completely, and transparently. By adhering to them, authors facilitate the critical appraisal of their study design, methodology, and results. This, in turn, improves the overall quality and reproducibility of scientific publications, which is essential for the advancement of knowledge in the field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kyungho Yoon
Kyungho Yoon has an impressive academic background, having earned his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in 2009, 2011, and 2015, respectively. During his studies, he developed a solid foundation in numerical simulation through the exploration of finite element methods. From 2017 to 2019, he worked as a Research Fellow in the Department of Radiology at Harvard Medical School, where he initiated interdisciplinary research in medical engineering. Later, he joined the Korea Institute of Science and Technology as a Senior Researcher at the AI Robot Institute, expanding his work to AI-integrated medical technologies. Since 2022, he has been an Assistant Professor in the School of Mathematics and Computing (Computational Science and Engineering) at Yonsei University, leading convergence research at the intersection of numerical simulation, physics-based AI, and biomedical engineering, with the goal of developing digital twin technologies for healthcare and enabling digital/smart medicine. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Yoon thinks that peer review is of utmost importance in the scientific community. It acts as a safeguard for the quality, accuracy, and credibility of research. By having experts critically assess a study's methods, results, and conclusions, it helps identify errors and enhance the clarity of the research. Scientific papers are part of a continuous process of knowledge building, and false or insufficient information can mislead future research efforts. As Newton's metaphor of standing on the shoulders of giants implies, peer review is essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge, ensuring that only well-supported information contributes to the progress of science.
“I believe that for every paper submitted, receiving 3-5 peer reviews is a fair process. Therefore, I feel it is important to contribute 3-5 peer reviews in return for each paper I submit. This helps maintain the balance and fairness of the peer-review system, ensuring that every researcher contributes to the advancement of science and the quality of research,” says Dr. Yoon.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Masahisa Arahata
Masahisa Arahata is affiliated with the Visiting Community Medical Support Unit at Toyama University Hospital. His research areas span geriatrics, hematology, and general medicine. Previously, he specialized in hematology and geriatrics while treating patients at Nanto Municipal Hospital until March 2024. Since April 2024, he has been involved in research and education in general medicine at his current department while still working at NMH. His research focuses on identifying issues in the care of older patients and developing innovative intervention methods in geriatrics and general medicine. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Arahata emphasizes that peer review serves a dual purpose. It not only assesses manuscripts for publication but also enhances the quality of research reports. When a manuscript appears initially unfit for publication, he explores possibilities to make it publishable and offers suggestions for revision to the authors. Even in cases where a paper is rejected by a journal, he emphasizes the importance of pointing out its problems with the aim of helping the authors improve the paper for submission to other journals.
Dr. Arahata thinks that a reviewer should possess several key qualities. Objectivity and critical analysis are essential to avoid subjective evaluations. Having a positive attitude, reviewers should seek ways to enhance the quality of the paper and provide constructive suggestions for improvement. Additionally, reviewers need the ability to guide a research paper towards coherence and sound reasoning, ensuring that the final work is of high quality.
Dr. Arahata encourages other reviewers by highlighting the significance of their contributions, “The achievements resulting from your efforts in peer review are passed down to future generations and play a crucial role in advancing scientific research. While reviewers' names may not be listed in research achievements, the impact of your work as peer reviewers is undeniable and will always be remembered.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Austin Cooper
Austin Cooper is a mechanical engineering student gone rogue—currently completing his PhD in McGill University’s Integrated Program in Neuroscience, where he focuses on neuroimaging. His research is largely centered on understanding the structural and functional neural correlates of the visual processing stream, especially under naturalistic viewing conditions. Alongside this, he is deeply drawn to the study of meditation and the neurophenomenological states associated with advancing meditative proficiency, particularly self-transcendent experiences. His goal is to bring the technical expertise he had developed through his work in vision neuroscience into the realm of meditation and psychedelic research. Ultimately, he is driven by a desire to understand what it means to be human—and to explore the aspects of consciousness that may transcend individuality and point toward something more universal.
Dr. Cooper identifies two key limitations of the current peer-review system. First, uncertain reviewer expertise creates risks: manuscripts in specialized areas like neuroimaging may be evaluated by those lacking domain-specific knowledge, leading to oversight of methodological flaws. Second, incentive deficits discourage participation, as peer review remains undervalued in academic metrics despite its role in maintaining rigor. To address these, he proposes expertise-based reviewer matching, where a scoring system assigns manuscripts to reviewers based on their proven experience in relevant topics, ensuring cumulative expertise meets threshold standards. Additionally, structural recognition—such as academic credit or public reviewer profiles—could motivate engagement. Fostering collaborative review models (e.g., panel discussions) would also leverage diverse perspectives, critical in interdisciplinary fields.
Dr. Cooper argues that fully “objective” review is unattainable, as academic biases and training inherently shape evaluations. However, methodological standardization can mitigate subjectivity. In neuroimaging, for example, inconsistent data protocols lead to irreproducibility and vague review criteria. Establishing gold-standard practices for data analysis and reporting would reduce reliance on subjective judgments, allowing reviewers to focus on interpretive rigor rather than technical debates. Transparency—such as requiring reviewers to declare biases upfront—further enhances accountability. In essence, he advocates for a peer-review system that evolves with the complexity of modern science, prioritizing expertise, collaboration, and shared standards to elevate rigor in fields exploring the frontiers of human consciousness.
Lastly, Dr. Cooper would like to say a few words to other reviewers, “You’re doing important work—thank you. I’ve only recently joined the ranks of peer reviewers, and I have respect for those who have long contributed to shaping the field in this quiet yet critical way. Your reviews are the pillars on which the integrity of science stands. Looking ahead, I hope we can collectively strive toward standardizing methodologies across the field. Doing so will ultimately support reviewers by reducing subjectivity and reinforcing consistency across scientific work.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Daris Theerakulpisut
Dr. Daris Theerakulpisut is an Associate Professor of Nuclear Medicine with a PhD in Biostatistics, renowned for his expertise in diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging, particularly its applications in nephrology and urology. From 2017 to 2020, he served as Head of the Division of Nuclear Medicine at Khon Kaen University’s Department of Radiology in Thailand. A key figure in research ethics, he has acted as Secretary for the Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee for Human Research since 2018 and directed the Center for Human Research Ethics at the university from 2020 to 2023.
Dr. Theerakulpisut emphasizes that reviewers play a vital role in nurturing the scientific community, a debt he acknowledges from his own publication journey. He identifies three core qualities for reviewers:
- Compassion: Recognizing the time and effort authors invest in their research, reviewers should approach manuscripts with empathy, especially when evaluating work from early-career researchers.
- Fairness: Reviews must be objective, balancing rigorous scrutiny with constructive feedback to avoid discouraging novices.
- Thoroughness: Ensuring scientific validity and ethical compliance, reviewers should meticulously assess methodology, data integrity, and adherence to standards, while avoiding overly harsh criticism that stifles innovation.
A robust peer-review system, according to Dr. Theerakulpisut, hinges on four pillars:
- Fairness: Impartial evaluations free from bias, ensuring all submissions are judged on merit.
- Transparency: Clear guidelines and processes that build trust in the system.
- Timeliness: Efficient workflows to reduce publication delays, respecting authors’ and reviewers’ time.
- Constructiveness: Feedback that not only critiques but also guides authors to strengthen their work.
He highlights the often-unrecognized sacrifice of reviewers, who contribute voluntarily without financial compensation. To sustain this ecosystem, he advocates for tangible recognition, such as financial rewards, formal accolades, or integrating review contributions into academic performance evaluations.
Dr. Theerakulpisut prioritizes self-awareness as the foundation for minimizing bias:
- Objective criteria: Anchoring reviews in the manuscript’s scientific quality, data, and journal guidelines rather than personal opinions.
- Evidence-based feedback: Justifying every comment with references to the text or methodology to avoid subjectivity.
- Recusal when necessary: Declining reviews if personal biases or conflicts of interest could compromise objectivity.
- Open-mindedness: Embracing innovative ideas or approaches that diverge from conventional methods, fostering a culture of inclusivity and progress.
By combining rigorous self-reflection with structured, evidence-driven evaluation, reviewers can uphold the integrity of the process and ensure that science advances through merit, not prejudice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Fuyu Ito
Fuyu Ito is a researcher at Teikyo University, specializing in infectious diseases, with a focus on developing therapeutic and diagnostic agents for vasculitis (e.g., Kawasaki disease, ANCA-associated vasculitis) and stem cell therapy for cerebral palsy. Her work has been presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Committed to scientific growth, she actively engages in peer review to contribute to the field. Learn more about her here.
According to Dr. Ito, peer review stands as the cornerstone of scientific quality control. She believes that expert reviewers act as gatekeepers, meticulously scrutinizing manuscripts to eliminate errors, clarify misinterpretations, and ensure only robust, evidence-based findings reach publication. This process is particularly critical in medical research, where flawed conclusions could have direct implications for patient care. Beyond quality assurance, she highlights the reciprocal benefit of peer review for reviewers themselves. Engaging with diverse research challenges preconceived notions and exposes scientists to cutting-edge methodologies, fostering continuous professional growth. By embracing new perspectives, reviewers contribute to a culture of intellectual curiosity that drives scientific progress. Ultimately, peer review maintains public trust in research by ensuring that published work meets the highest standards of rigor.
In Dr. Ito’s opinion, reviewers are expected to be fair, objective, and constructive. Rather than focusing solely on criticism, reviewers should provide suggestions for improvement while respecting the authors’ perspectives. They should also evaluate the accuracy, originality, and reproducibility of the work. Maintaining confidentiality is a crucial responsibility.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kenji Hirata
Kenji Hirata, MD, PhD, is a distinguished figure in nuclear medicine and diagnostic imaging. Graduating from Hokkaido University School of Medicine in 2002, he completed clinical training in nuclear medicine at Hokkaido University under Prof. Nagara Tamaki and earned his PhD in 2011. Board-certified in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine, he further honed his expertise as a postdoctoral fellow at UCLA, developing Metavol, a pioneering software for PET/CT analysis. Currently, he serves as Associate Professor in the Department of Diagnostic Imaging at Hokkaido University and Chief of the Department of Nuclear Medicine at Hokkaido University Hospital. His research focuses on nuclear medicine imaging, radionuclide therapy, and artificial intelligence, and he was awarded the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine Award in 2021. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Hirata thinks that peer review is the backbone of scientific progress, offering perspectives that authors may overlook. By subjecting research to rigorous, constructive evaluation, it refines methodologies, strengthens conclusions, and ensures studies meet the highest standards of academic rigor. This process not only upholds the integrity of scientific literature but also fosters a culture of continuous improvement, where ideas are challenged and enhanced before reaching the broader community. In essence, peer review safeguards the quality of knowledge shared, ensuring that only robust, well-vetted research contributes to global scientific advancement.
According to Dr. Hirata, reviewers hold a pivotal responsibility to approach manuscripts with sincerity, humility, and respect. Every author, regardless of current experience, may one day lead breakthroughs in their field. Constructive feedback—framed to support growth rather than criticize—nurtures the scientific community’s collective development. Reviewers must prioritize fairness, objectivity, and a commitment to elevating the work, even when identifying gaps or areas for improvement. By fostering a collaborative mindset, reviewers not only enhance individual papers but also uphold the ethical and intellectual standards of scholarly publishing.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Hirata believes that in an era defined by data-driven discovery, sharing research data is essential for advancing scientific credibility and collaboration. Transparent data practices enable reproducibility, allowing peers to validate findings, build new studies, or propose alternative interpretations. This openness strengthens trust in the scientific process, accelerates collective progress, and prevents the propagation of irreproducible results. While challenges like privacy or technical constraints exist, initiatives to standardize data sharing (e.g., open repositories, anonymization protocols) can mitigate these issues. Ultimately, data sharing is not just a best practice but a cornerstone of responsible science, ensuring that research benefits society through collaboration and transparency.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Meysam Dadgar
Dr. Meysam Dadgar is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford University, School of Medicine. Originally from Urmia, Iran, he specializes in the development and simulation of novel PET imaging systems, with a particular focus on total-body PET design and image reconstruction. He previously held postdoctoral and PhD research positions at Ghent University and Jagiellonian University, where he contributed to pioneering work on J-PET technology and positronium imaging. His research sits at the intersection of physics, engineering, and medical imaging, aiming to advance diagnostic tools in nuclear medicine. He has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications and actively serves as a reviewer for several international journals. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Dadgar: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific progress. It serves as a quality control mechanism that validates research findings before dissemination. Beyond assessing scientific rigor and methodology, peer review ensures that research contributes meaningfully to the field and adheres to ethical standards. As someone engaged in translational imaging research, I see peer review as a vital process that filters out flawed studies and guides improvements, ultimately enhancing the reliability of medical innovations. It also promotes dialogue between researchers, enriching the scientific narrative through constructive critique.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Dadgar: An objective review is grounded in scientific merit, clarity, and methodological soundness—regardless of the author’s reputation or institution. To maintain objectivity, I evaluate manuscripts based on established criteria and reporting guidelines, and consciously separate personal biases or assumptions. I reread my reviews with a critical eye, ensuring my tone remains constructive and focused on how the study can be improved. I also consider the paper from the perspective of a young author and a potential reader, which helps balance rigor with empathy.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Dadgar: Absolutely. Disclosing COI is crucial to maintaining transparency and trust in scientific communication. A COI doesn’t inherently invalidate a study, but failing to disclose it undermines credibility and may raise concerns about bias in study design or interpretation. In imaging research, for example, collaborations with industry are common; being transparent about funding sources or affiliations allows reviewers and readers to interpret findings with full context. Disclosure helps uphold integrity and ensures research findings are evaluated fairly but critically.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Aabha Divya
Dr. Aabha Divya, an Assistant Professor in the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Tulane University School of Medicine, is a leading voice in advanced heart failure and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). With clinical roles at University Medical Center and East Jefferson General Hospital in New Orleans, her expertise spans temporary and durable MCS devices, adult cardiac surgery, and outcomes research. Having completed advanced fellowships at the UK’s Royal Papworth Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in the U.S., she brings a global perspective to her work. Her academic focus centers on optimizing care for critically ill patients through extracorporeal support and MCS, complemented by a robust publication record and editorial roles in top cardiothoracic journals. As a dedicated peer reviewer, she champions integrity in academic publishing while advocating for systemic improvements to the review process.
While acknowledging peer review as the foundation of scientific rigor, Dr. Divya highlights its structural flaws. Chief among these is variability in reviewer expertise, where mismatches between manuscript topics and reviewers’ backgrounds can lead to inconsistent or flawed evaluations. Biases—whether institutional, gender-based, or geographic— further compromise objectivity, potentially sidelining innovative research from underrepresented groups. Additionally, delays in publication often arise from overburdened reviewers juggling academic or clinical responsibilities, slowing the dissemination of time-sensitive findings. Finally, the lack of formal recognition for reviewers—whose contributions are rarely acknowledged beyond a nominal “thank you”—undermines incentives for meticulous, time-intensive reviews.
Dr. Divya believes that reviewers should aim to be constructive, fair, and evidence-based. A good review balances critique with actionable suggestions and acknowledges the authors’ effort. It is important to evaluate not only the scientific validity and methodology but also the novelty, clinical relevance, and ethical conduct. Ultimately, every manuscript deserves thoughtful, unbiased feedback.
Dr. Divya shares a formative experience while reviewing a meta-analysis on heart failure interventions. Critiquing the study’s inclusion criteria, heterogeneity assessments, and bias risk analysis revealed subtle methodological gaps she had not fully considered in her own research. This exercise not only strengthened her review but also influenced the design of her ongoing meta-analysis, illustrating how peer review can foster reciprocal learning. In combining her clinical acumen with a commitment to refining academic standards, she embodies the dual role of researcher and guardian of scientific integrity. Her advocacy for a more transparent, inclusive, and reviewer-centric system underscores the vital need to evolve peer review alongside the rapidly advancing field of cardiothoracic medicine.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Attila Nemes
Prof. Attila Nemes is a leading figure in cardiovascular medicine, holding dual PhDs from the University of Szeged, Hungary (2003) and Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam (2007). With a habilitation (2010) and D.Sc. (2014), he serves as a full professor and vice-director at the University of Szeged’s Department of Medicine. His research focuses on three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography, exploring its clinical, diagnostic, and prognostic applications in healthy individuals, patients, and athletes through the MAGYAR Study. Learn more about him here.
In Prof. Nemes’s opinion, the most critical quality of a reviewer is deep expertise in the topic. He emphasizes that a reviewer must understand the subject thoroughly to make informed decisions. Undertaking a review without adequate knowledge is unethical, as it risks flawed critiques or overlooking critical nuances. In his field of cardiac imaging, for example, evaluating novel echocardiographic techniques requires familiarity with both technical methodologies and clinical implications. Reviewers should act as stewards of scientific rigor, ensuring only well-vetted research contributes to the field.
Prof. Nemes highlights an opportunity for refinement: distinguishing between manuscripts in progress and completed studies. Categorizing submissions by development stage could streamline workflows, allowing journals to prioritize polished research for rapid review while providing constructive feedback to authors still refining their work. This distinction might reduce delays and ensure reviewers are matched with appropriate stages of inquiry, enhancing both efficiency and review quality.
Lastly, Prof. Nemes shares a notable anecdote: submitting a case report on a Friday afternoon and receiving acceptance within 26 minutes, “I think we were lucky because the editor was sitting in front of the computer and was able to make the decision quickly, which made our weekend happy. For him, Tthis story serves as a reminder of the human element in peer review—where timing, editor availability, and serendipity can occasionally align to accelerate scientific dissemination, much to the delight of researchers.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Cory R. Wyatt
Dr. Cory Wyatt is a distinguished figure in the field of medical imaging, currently serving as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Diagnostic Imaging at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). Specializing in MR physics and pulse sequence design, his work bridges cutting-edge technology with clinical applications. He earned his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Duke University and completed postdoctoral training at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), honing his expertise in magnetic resonance (MR) methodologies. As a certified Magnetic Resonance Safety Expert (MRSE), he supports the testing and clinical operation of MRI units while leading innovative research. His primary focus lies in quantitative imaging of the pancreas using magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) techniques, with a specific emphasis on pancreatitis—a condition where precise imaging is critical for diagnosis and treatment monitoring.
Dr. Wyatt believes that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity. Its primary role is to validate that research employs rigorous experimental methods and robust analysis. He emphasizes that peer review ensures that studies adhere to high standards, preventing the dissemination of flawed or poorly designed work. Equally vital is its mandate for transparency: reviewers must insist that papers detail methodologies comprehensively, enabling other scientists to replicate experiments. This reproducibility is essential for building a cumulative, trustworthy body of knowledge. Without it, scientific progress would be hindered by unverifiable claims, undermining the field’s credibility.
Dr. Wyatt applies two core principles when evaluating manuscripts. First, he stresses the need for methodological clarity. Second, he emphasizes accurate result interpretation. Reviewers must assess whether figures and data presentations honestly reflect findings and whether discussions avoid overreach. In his field, misinterpreting MRI signals or extrapolating results beyond the data’s scope could lead to erroneous clinical conclusions. In essence, his work in MR physics—driven by a commitment to precision and reproducibility—aligns deeply with his view of peer review as a guardian of scientific rigor. By prioritizing transparent methods and grounded interpretations, reviewers like him uphold the standards that enable fields like medical imaging to advance reliably, ultimately benefiting patient care.
“I try to allocate a certain amount of time during work hours a month to perform reviews, but sometimes it does end up extending into after hours. However, I find it important to put in the time, since reviews do end up benefiting my work as well. Peer review allows me to keep up to date with the current research in my field and even get exposed to aspects of my field I wouldn’t necessarily seek out,” says Dr. Wyatt.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Fumio Morimura
Fumio Morimura, a radiologist since 2016, graduated from the National Defense Medical College and currently works at its hospital. Specializing in gynecological imaging (ovarian tumors) and gastrointestinal imaging (bowel obstruction and internal hernias), he pursues a PhD while balancing clinical duties and academic research. He emphasizes collaborative learning through interdisciplinary case discussions with radiologists and physicians from other departments.
Fumio defines a constructive review as one that provides respectful, specific, and actionable feedback to improve research quality. Such reviews offer clear suggestions for strengthening methodology, data interpretation, or presentation, fostering iterative refinement. In contrast, destructive reviews are overly negative, lack actionable insights, and fail to support authors in addressing shortcomings, potentially hindering scientific growth.
According to Fumio, transparency in Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is critical to maintaining scientific integrity. COIs—financial, professional, or institutional—can influence study design, data analysis, or result reporting, even unintentionally. By openly declaring COIs, authors allow readers and reviewers to assess potential biases objectively, ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of research. Failure to disclose COIs undermines the field’s ethical standards and the public’s confidence in scientific outcomes.
“I choose to review for QIMS because it covers a broad range of topics in quantitative imaging while maintaining a clear focus on clinical relevance. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the peer-review process in a journal that fosters interdisciplinary discussion and shares research findings with both clinical and academic audiences,” says Fumio.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Javier Jiménez Gómez
Dr. Javier Jiménez Gómez, a pediatric surgeon specializing in fetal physiology, neonatal malformations, and colorectal surgery, brings a clinical and educational lens to scientific rigor. After earning his medical degree from Universidad de Salamanca in 2013 and completing pediatric surgery training at Hospital La Paz in Madrid, he now practices at Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí in Sabadell, Barcelona, while serving as an associate professor at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. His work spans patient safety, trauma, and critical care, reflecting a commitment to improving outcomes for young patients through evidence-based practice.
Dr. Gómez believes that peer review stands as the most effective means of evaluating study quality, comparing ideas, and helping authors finalize their papers. Anonymity empowers reviewers to offer candid feedback, drawing on their practical experiences and writing expertise. In today’s scientific landscape, external interests and career-driven motives can sometimes derail ethical research. Peer review acts as a crucial filter, preventing unethical or irrelevant studies from entering the scientific record.
To Dr. Gómez, a constructive review is one that helps build up a manuscript. It points out nuances, limitations, and alternative perspectives, while also improving language precision and argument logic. Such reviews delve into the true meaning of study data, guiding authors to enhance their work. In contrast, destructive reviews merely criticize without offering solutions. A good review makes the reviewer an integral part of the research team, like a mentor guiding from afar, ensuring that only the most rigorous and valuable research advances the field.
“The reason I take part in peer review is the same aspiration that motivates me to treat my patients and tutor trainees, as well as to be up to date or do research: the desire to improve and do things properly. Moreover, peer reviewing helps me to do all the aforementioned and is very stimulating because it exposes me to new ideas, technology and approaches. Besides, it is quite an insightful and humbling experience. And, in my case, I must confess it is an enjoyable intellectual exercise,” says Dr. Gómez.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
João Vitor Gerdulli Tamanini
João Vitor Gerdulli Tamanini is a Brazilian third-year neurology resident at the Escola Paulista de Medicina (UNIFESP) with a strong focus on neurointerventional radiology, neurovascular care, and neurocritical management. He has authored and peer-reviewed articles in leading journals. Actively involved in academic mentorship, he coordinates resident journal clubs, supervises study designs, and presents at international conferences to promote evidence-based practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Tamanini: Peer review serves as the cornerstone of scientific rigor and integrity. It provides an independent assessment of methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions, helping to identify errors, biases, or oversights before publication. By fostering constructive critique, peer review elevates the overall quality of research, ensures reproducibility, and maintains trust in the published literature.
QIMS: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Tamanini: Yes—adherence to reporting guidelines is essential for clarity, completeness, and transparency. Frameworks like STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and CARE ensure that authors disclose critical methodological details and results, reducing the risk of bias and facilitating reproducibility. Consistent reporting enhances comparability across studies, accelerates evidence synthesis, and ultimately supports sound clinical decision-making.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers?
Dr. Tamanini: I want to extend my deepest gratitude and respect to every reviewer who is working diligently behind the scenes. Your meticulous evaluations and commitment to excellence are vital to advancing medicine and improving patient care. Though often unrecognized, your efforts safeguard the credibility of our field and inspire authors to reach higher standards.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mercy I. Akerele
Dr. Mercy I. Akerele is an Assistant Professor of Radiology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, specializing in developing and optimizing clinical radiology protocols, ensuring proper dose-response correlation and treatment planning for nuclear medicine and therapeutic procedures, and creating reference levels for diagnostic and nuclear medicine examinations based on patient age, size, clinical indications, and specific needs. With 15 years of teaching and mentoring experience across various academic levels, she has held leadership roles in multiple national and international organizations, contributing to the development of technical standards and practice parameters for nuclear medicine examinations, and serves on advocacy committees engaging with government agencies, NGOs, and foundations to advance scientific and medical progress. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Akerele: One important virtue that a reviewer should possess is transparency. Before undergoing any review, I try to identify any potential conflicts of interest. If I identify one, no matter how subtle, I will turn down the review invitation. Also, I try to carefully read and understand the journal’s expectations and evaluation criteria. This guides a fair review process and maintains consistency among reviewers. I am also an advocate for double-blind peer review where the identity and affiliations of the authors are hidden to the reviewers. I believe this can help towards minimizing potential biases.
QIMS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Akerele: I once reviewed a manuscript whose idea was similar to what I had already published a few years back. What was surprising to me was that the scientific depth of the manuscript was somehow shallow (at least in comparison to mine, I thought), and the grammatical construction was not so great either. My immediate instinct was to outrightly reject the paper, but three principles held me back: One was the principle of constructive criticism – I instead suggested ideas towards making the manuscript better, and when the authors addressed these points, the manuscript was significantly better. Secondly, it is important that reviewers learn to separate science from grammar. Even though effective communication in science is essential, a sound scientific idea must not be outrightly rejected due to poor grammatical construction. So, instead, I suggested the authors employ the service of academic writers, and it turned out perfectly great. Thirdly, I employed the principle of diversity and no stereotype. The fact that I have published on a similar subject does not mean that others cannot have alternative ideas or approach.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Morteza Rasouligandomani
Dr. Morteza Rasouligandomani is a senior postdoctoral researcher at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF) in Barcelona, affiliated with the SIMBIOsys and BMMB groups within the Department of Engineering (DTIC). Specializing in adult spine deformities and spine biomechanics, he earned his PhD in Biomedical Engineering from UPF in October 2023, focusing on in silico simulations using patient-personalised finite element models to predict mechanical complications following spinal surgeries. He is working on AI metamodeling to predict femur fracture risk factors. He is also technology developer of a technology transfer project to the market, aimed at enhancing spine surgery planning and prognosis through digital health solutions. His multidisciplinary background includes a master's degree in Aerospace Engineering from Sharif University of Technology, Iran. He has collaborated extensively with clinicians, advised software developers, and contributed to academic teaching in biomedical engineering. He recently received a big scientific recognition through his publications and reviewing manuscripts. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
As a researcher working at the nexus of biomedical engineering and clinical translation, Dr. Rasouligandomani emphasizes peer review as the bedrock of scientific integrity. To him, the process serves as a rigorous quality-control mechanism, ensuring that published research is credible, reproducible, and contributes meaningfully to global knowledge. In his field, where innovations like patient-specific medical models directly impact clinical decisions, peer review acts as a vital bridge between technological innovation and public trust. "Before a tool influences medical practice," he notes, "it must withstand scrutiny to validate its reliability and ethical implications." This process not only refines individual studies but also fosters a culture of collaboration, accountability, and transparency across disciplines.
According to Dr. Rasouligandomani, a standout reviewer balances expertise with ethical rigor and constructive intent: technical proficiency, objectivity and impartiality, constructive communication and professionalism and ethics. In essence, he sees peer review as a collective responsibility that hinges on reviewers who are not only experts in their fields but also committed to nurturing innovation through fairness and rigor. By upholding these standards, the scientific community ensures that advancements in biomedical engineering and beyond are both cutting-edge and trustworthy, ultimately benefiting patients and driving global medical progress.
“I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all reviewers who dedicate their time, energy, and expertise—often without recognition—to uphold the quality and integrity of scientific research. Your careful evaluations, constructive feedback, and commitment to fairness are what make scientific progress possible. Behind every strong publication is a reviewer who challenged the work to be better, clearer, and more robust. While the role may be invisible to the public eye, its impact is profound and lasting. I encourage fellow reviewers to take pride in this vital contribution to the global research community. Your efforts not only help individual authors improve their work but also shape the future of science itself. Thank you for being a critical part of that journey,” says Dr. Rasouligandomani.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Oxana M. Zarudskaya
Oxana M. Zarudskaya, MD, PhD, RDMS, is a Maternal Fetal Medicine Fellow and Obstetrician and Gynecologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas, USA. Her research interests focus on high-risk pregnancies, placenta accreta spectrum (PAS), prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies, diabetes in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, fetal cardiac anomalies, artificial intelligence in prenatal diagnosis, first-trimester ultrasound, and others. Her most recent research projects/publications are related to the placenta accreta index, first-trimester ultrasound, and fetal cardiac imaging.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Zarudskaya: A healthy peer-review system, characterized by expert reviewers, constructive feedback, and transparent communication, is crucial for maintaining the high-quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific publications. Multiple reviewers offer diverse perspectives, strengthening the review process. This process ensures that research articles are critically evaluated and refined before publication, contributing to a more reliable body of knowledge. The process provides a learning opportunity for both authors and reviewers, contributing to the development of expertise and a better understanding of research practices.
QIMS: What do reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Zarudskaya: Reviewers should focus on providing constructive feedback, using their expertise to highlight strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript, ultimately helping researchers improve the quality and impact of their work. This process is about collaborative improvement, not just criticism.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Zarudskaya: Reviewing research papers is always an exciting opportunity to learn from other researchers contributing to the field's knowledge and collaborating with authors to improve the manuscript. It is a great opportunity to share my expertise and help promote the manuscript to the global community of researchers. I do feel a sense of satisfaction and reward when seeing the final published work, considering it akin to being an anonymous co-author.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Pan Liu
Dr. Pan Liu, a research engineer at Amiens University Hospital in France, specializes in MRI-based quantification of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and cerebral blood flow dynamics, with a focus on real-time phase-contrast imaging and software development to analyze blood-CSF flow coupling. Since earning his PhD in 2021, his work has aimed to advance understanding of CSF physiology and support neurodegenerative disease diagnostics by quantifying cerebral autoregulation and brain compliance. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Liu emphasizes that peer review is essential to scientific integrity, serving as a rigorous filter that ensures research meets standards of rigor, reproducibility, and academic value. In fields like medical imaging, where technical accuracy directly impacts clinical applications, peer review acts as a safeguard, verifying that methods are robust and conclusions are data-driven. Beyond quality control, it fosters a culture of collaboration, allowing researchers to refine their work through constructive feedback and diverse perspectives—an exchange that has personally influenced his approach to developing AI-driven tools for CSF analysis.
In Dr. Liu opinion, the peer-review system faces challenges, including lengthy turnaround times, inconsistent reviewer expertise, and occasional resistance to innovative ideas. He notes that in emerging areas like real-time neuroimaging, traditional reviewers may overlook novel techniques due to unfamiliarity, highlighting the need for greater openness to cutting-edge methods. To address these issues, he advocates for increased transparency through open peer review, where critiques are published alongside manuscripts, and structured incentives such as academic recognition to motivate high-quality reviews.
Dr. Liu’s motivation to participate in peer review stems from a sense of professional responsibility and a commitment to scientific growth. Viewing it as a reciprocal duty, he sees each review as an opportunity to contribute to the community while sharpening his own critical thinking skills—a practice that directly informs his research on cerebral compliance quantification. “I view peer review as a professional responsibility and a way to contribute to the scientific community. It also provides a valuable opportunity to improve my own critical thinking,” says he.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Raphael Lopes Olegário
Raphael Lopes Olegário is a doctoral candidate in Medical Sciences at the University of Brasília, Brazil, with research interests in Neuroscience and Ageing Research. His work combines insights from biomedical sciences, exercise sciences, computational methods, and applied mathematics to better understand how age-related changes in brain structure and function contribute to cognitive decline in older adults. He is particularly interested in the biological mechanisms of brain ageing (e.g., glymphatic dysfunction, neuroinflammation), the effects of physical exercise on cognitive health, and the application of neurotechnologies and computational approaches (e.g., machine learning) to assess and characterise neural ageing. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Raphael: A healthy peer-review system is one that ensures scientific rigour while also being impartial, transparent, and intellectually supportive. It should provide authors with meaningful feedback that not only identifies limitations but also offers suggestions for improvement. I believe it's essential that reviewers approach manuscripts with a focus on methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and ethical standards. Diversity among reviewers, in terms of expertise, perspective, and career stage, also plays a vital role in ensuring a balanced evaluation. To me, peer review should be more than a filter; it should serve as a collaborative mechanism that helps advance the quality and credibility of published research.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Raphael: A good reviewer should bring a combination of subject-specific expertise and critical thinking, along with a genuine commitment to supporting the scientific community. Objectivity is essential, as is integrity, being able to recognise potential biases and avoid conflicts of interest. I also value clarity and constructiveness in feedback; it's important that authors can understand and act on reviewers’ comments. I personally strive to offer comments that are both rigorous and respectful, aiming to improve the manuscript without discouraging the author. Ultimately, I see reviewing not just as a responsibility, but as an opportunity to contribute to the collective progress of science.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Raphael: I choose to review for QIMSbecause the journal reflects many of my own research interests, particularly in neuroimaging, ageing, and translational neuroscience. I appreciate QIMS’s commitment to methodological quality and its interdisciplinary scope, which aligns well with my academic background. Reviewing for the journal gives me the opportunity to stay engaged with current developments in the field, while also contributing to the maintenance of high scientific standards. I see peer review as a key part of academic life, and I’m pleased to support a journal that values rigour, innovation, and thoughtful scholarship.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Recep Erçin Sönmez
Recep Erçin Sönmez, a distinguished figure in the field of surgery, graduated from the Faculty of Medicine and became a General Surgery Specialist at Istanbul University. Awarded overseas support scholarships from the Turkish Surgical Association and the Turkish HPB Surgery Association, he honed his skills at the Centre Hépato-Biliaire Paul Brousse in Paris from 2020-2021. Subsequently, he worked at Istanbul Medical Faculty's Liver, Biliary Tract, Pancreatic Surgery Unit. In 2022, he passed the European HPB Board Examination, becoming one of only five surgeons in Turkey with the FEBS-HPB Division certificate. After training in laparoscopic/robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023, he was named Associate Professor in 2024 and currently treats liver, biliary, and pancreatic surgical diseases at Istanbul Medeniyet University. Connect with him on Instagram.
Dr. Sönmez believes that peer review plays a pivotal role in science. It drives scientific progress and helps researchers grow, provided that reviewers possess relevant knowledge and experience. To give objective reviews, he stresses the necessity of expertise in the field, impartiality by referencing current literature, and offering constructive suggestions.
Regarding institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Sönmez considers it non-negotiable. Ethics committee approval validates a study's reliability and scientific integrity. Omitting this process risks ethical violations, endangering participants and damaging a researcher's credibility, which can impede future collaborations and career growth.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tomohisa Okada
Dr. Tomohisa Okada, MD, PhD, was a neuroradiologist at Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan, where he earned his degrees and held various academic positions there, including Associate Professor at the Human Brain Research Center. He currently leads the Support Unit for fMRI at the RIKEN Center for Brain Science, where he focuses on developing and applying high-field MRI technologies (3T and 7T) for non-invasive studies of brain structure and function in both humans and animals. His research encompasses advanced MRI techniques, neurochemical measurements using MRS, and the study of neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple system atrophy, and moyamoya disease. He has contributed to over 240 peer-reviewed publications and holds an h-index of 60 (Google Scholar), promoting the latest MR imaging into clinical practice and neuroscience. Dr. Okada is also active in academic service, serving on editorial boards for journals like the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and participating in various professional societies. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
To Dr. Okada, peer review is a cornerstone of scientific progress that elevates research quality through constructive feedback, helping authors refine their work while exposing reviewers to new ideas that can inspire their own investigations. He views the process as a vital source of critical thinking and diverse perspectives, urging researchers to participate as reviewers to support the academic community and foster personal growth.
When addressing inevitable biases in peer review, Dr. Okada emphasizes a systematic approach: first familiarizing himself with unfamiliar fields or methods by reviewing relevant literature to accurately assess novelty, then rigorously evaluating methodology for reliability and reproducibility. Even if a study’s topic or methods are not to his personal preference, he prioritizes scientific solidity and novelty, acknowledging that authors must clearly articulate their work’s impact to mitigate subjective judgments. By focusing on evidence, methodology, and transparent argumentation, he ensures his reviews remain objective, reflecting his commitment to advancing neuroimaging with integrity and rigor.
“It is an honor to be on the editorial board of QIMS. It is one of the leading journals in imaging science. I’m also curious on what others do to define problems and solve them using the methods of their own choice. When I am not much familiar with the contents, they can be an intellectual clue for me to seek for a new knowledge and insights. Of course, peer reviewing is a kind of duty in the community of science,” says Dr. Okada.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Vasileios Magoulianitis
Dr. Vasileios Magoulianitis is an Assistant Professor of Research in the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California (USC). He has earned a PhD from USC in Electrical Engineering with a focus on Biomedical Engineering. His research interests lie in the areas of medical image analysis using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning, using novel lightweight techniques and explainable models. He focuses on the development of tools that have transparency in their decision-making process and hence can assist physicians in their clinical practices. As part of his projects, he has worked on the development of US patented software for fully automated prostate cancer diagnosis using AI. Moreover, he has made contributions in histopathological image analysis, on the problem of nuclei segmentation. He also serves as a Guest Editor in healthcare special issues in the Journal of Imaging and Asia-Pacific Signal and Image Processing. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Magoulianitis: Having seen the importance of the peer-review process both as a reviewer and as an author whose papers undergo the review process, I believe it serves as the scientific filter that controls the publication process and ensures impartial decision making on which papers are worth publishing. Given the latest advancements in AI that can generate scientific manuscripts of controversial quality, peer review has become more essential than ever. The part in the process that I find most valuable is that the reviewers get to stay up to date with the latest research advances, by learning new techniques or ideas that can potentially be applied in their research areas. On the other hand, authors can receive critical feedback about their work from an external group of scholars and get to improve it, so it gets more appealing and valuable to other people. It is a live and engaging process of human knowledge that produces knowledge and ideas and pushes the scientific frontiers forward.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Magoulianitis: An objective review is possible only if the reviewers minimize their emotions towards a paper while they review it. That means they need to have a set of questions in mind that can determine the overall quality of the paper. Usually, this set of questions is provided by the journal to help the editors break down the factors and led a reviewer to make a certain decision, thus informing the editor’s final decision. I critique a new paper that comes in by answering certain pivotal questions, regarding the originality of the work, the correctness of the method and experimental rigor, as well as the importance of the application. Once more, I try to answer these questions having no emotions but provide justifications, so the editor can understand where my decision is coming from. Scientific and reasonable justification is the way to maximize the objectivity of the review. At the end of the day, review quality can be detected by the editors out of their justifications, hence the reviewers should make an effort to just answer these questions, knowing that someone can criticize their responses too.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Magoulianitis: I contend that COI is a fundamental element in the peer review process, since it ensures that the reviews are impartial and are not affected by any external factors other than the quality of the work. COI is also one factor that increases objectivity in the peer review process. If authors do not properly disclose their COI, then that could affect the decision of a paper and potentially resulting in publishing a paper of lower quality or holding a high quality paper from being published. In general, in the peer review process, COI disclose increases the trust of the peer review process and maximizes the chances of an objective judge on the manuscript. In this way, we foster the feeling in the scholar community that the manuscripts are being reviewed in fair terms.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yuto Uchida
Dr. Yuto Uchida is an instructor in the Department of Radiology and Radiological Science at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where his postdoctoral research in Dr. Kenichi Oishi’s laboratory focuses on developing non-invasive tools to predict cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. With over a decade of clinical neurology training in Japan, including leading a memory clinic and caring for hundreds of dementia patients, Dr. Uchida’s work is deeply rooted in patient-centered goals. His research has been recognized with awards such as the K99/R00 grant from the National Institute on Aging and the New Investigator Award from the Alzheimer’s Association, reflecting his commitment to advancing early diagnostic methods for neurodegenerative diseases.
To Dr. Uchida, peer review is the linchpin of scientific credibility. It functions as a stringent quality control system, ensuring research adheres to ethical standards, employs sound methodology, and presents findings clearly. By subjecting manuscripts to expert scrutiny, peer review refines individual studies and fosters trust in scientific literature, which is crucial for guiding clinical practice and future research directions.
An objective review, in Dr. Uchida’s view, evaluates a manuscript purely on scientific merit, examining methodology, data integrity, and analysis without bias towards authors or institutions. To maintain objectivity, he conducts self-audits for potential conflicts of interest and uses structured evaluation checklists.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Uchida underscores the necessity of research seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. As a safeguard for human subjects, IRBs ensure research respects participants' rights, safety, and privacy. Omitting this step risks ethical violations, legal repercussions, and loss of funding, while undermining the scientific community's credibility. In his research involving dementia patients, ethical review is paramount, aligning scientific progress with moral responsibility.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan
Dr. James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan is Senior Consultant Radiologist at NUH and Assistant Professor at NUS. A Bristol‑trained physician (MBChB Hons) and Fellow of the Royal College of Radiologists (UK), he completed subspecialty training in musculoskeletal MRI under Prof. Donald Resnick (UC San Diego). His research centres on AI‑driven spine imaging. As Principal Investigator, he secured the NMRC Clinician‑Scientist IRG‑NIG (2021) “Deep Learning Pathway for Spine Metastases” and the NMRC Clinician Innovator Award (2023) “Deep Learning Pipeline for Augmented MRI Spine Reporting”, totalling >S$640 k. He also leads a Practice Changing Innovation award deploying the “Spine AI” model clinically and holds a technology‑development agreement with Siemens Healthineers. Dr. Hallinan has authored >90 peer‑reviewed papers; recent first‑/senior‑author works in Radiology (IF 29.1) demonstrate deep‑learning tools that halve lumbar‑MRI reporting time. His group’s recent paper in the The Spine Journal (2025) paper also showed AI boosting cervical‑MRI accuracy and productivity. Regionally recognised, he received the 2024 NCIS Best Surgical Oncology Poster, 2023 ExxonMobil–NUS Research Fellowship, and was part of the team awarded the 2022 AO Spine Best Basic Science Award and 2021 APSS‑ASJ Best Clinical Research Award. He is a reviewer for Radiology, European Journal of Radiology, The Spine Journal, and Cancers. He is an advocate for clinically integrated AI, mentors radiology residents, and speaks internationally on musculoskeletal radiology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Hallinan: A very important one! Peer review is the last safety check before research enters the public record. By testing the study design, statistics and conclusions, reviewers aim to make sure the data support the claims. In imaging research that can influence patient care, this filter is essential for keeping the literature both reliable and clinically useful.
QIMS: How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Hallinan: An objective review should focus on the facts: the research question, the methods, the numbers and whether the conclusions follow logically. I will typically read through each paper twice, once for the big picture and the second analysing the abstract through to the conclusion line by line. I use the same template every time, noting strengths, limitations, citation accuracy, how the work fits within current literature and my overall recommendation. I also inform the editor immediately of any potential conflicts of interest. This structure keeps personal preferences out of the evaluation.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Hallinan: Reviewing is partly a matter of give-and-take. I appreciate that my own published manuscripts are better because others invest their time in them, so reviewing is how I return the favour. It is also a good learning process as seeing new ideas early often sparks improvements in my own projects and teaching. Most importantly, solid reviews help ensure that the clinical decisions my colleagues and I make everyday rest on solid evidence. Spending a few hours on a manuscript feels like a small, practical way to protect patient care and move the field forward.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Majid Saberi
Dr. Majid Saberi received his PhD in Cognitive Science in Iran, where he focused on modeling brain network complexity using fMRI data. He is currently a research fellow at the University of Michigan, specializing in neuroimaging analysis and the development of biomarkers for pain disorders, with an emphasis on evaluating clinical improvements following neurostimulation. His research investigates brain network dynamics and complexity in neurological and psychiatric conditions such as migraine and chronic pain. He utilizes advanced fMRI and EEG analyses, including dynamical modeling and network science approaches, to study neural complexity, connectivity, and dysfunction. Dr. Saberi has led multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals and actively serves as a reviewer for interdisciplinary journals in imaging and neuroscience. His work bridges computational modeling and clinical neuroscience, aiming to translate insights from brain dynamics into practical clinical applications. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Saberi: The peer-review system faces challenges such as reviewer fatigue, slow workflows, and occasional biases. Improvements can be made through increased transparency, crediting reviewers, and training opportunities for early-career researchers to enhance both the quality and fairness of the process.
QIMS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Saberi: I consider peer review a professional responsibility that contributes to scientific integrity. Prioritizing reviews that align with my expertise also allows me to contribute meaningfully while balancing research and other commitments.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Saberi: Absolutely. COI disclosures promote transparency and help readers evaluate the objectivity of findings. Honest disclosure allows editors and readers to make informed judgments and maintains trust in the scientific process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Patrick J. Bolan
Dr. Patrick J. Bolan is an Associate Professor in Radiology. After receiving his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois (UIUC) and post-graduate studies at UC Berkeley, he spent five years working in industry as a software engineer. He joined Dr. Michael Garwood's group at the University of Minnesota in 1999 and received his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering in 2003 while developing methods for performing quantitative MR spectroscopy of breast cancer. He has continued at the UMN Center for Magnetic Resonance Research as a postdoc, Assistant, and Associate Professor. His research focuses on developing quantitative MR imaging methods, computational image analysis methods, and integrating advanced imaging techniques into clinical trials of cancer and obesity. Connect with Dr. Bolan on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Bolan, a robust peer-review system serves multiple purposes. Its primary role is to evaluate and distinguish top-tier research from others, while also providing constructive and fair feedback to help authors refine their work. It must also be time-efficient for all parties—authors, reviewers, and editors—to ensure the process remains streamlined without compromising rigor.
Dr. Bolan thinks that effective reviewers balance knowledge, experience, commitment, and intellectual flexibility. Expertise and background are foundational, but dedicating sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate manuscripts—including multiple readings and literature reviews—is equally critical. The most challenging attribute is intellectual flexibility: reviewers must objectively assess a study’s merits while addressing its weaknesses constructively. This ability to separate strengths from flaws ensures feedback enhances both the research and its communication, benefiting authors and readers alike.
“I review for QIMS because the papers offered to me by the QIMS editors have been a good match for my expertise and have been generally good quality,” says Dr. Bolan.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Satoshi Nakamura
Dr. Satoshi Nakamura, MD, PhD, serves as Associate Professor in the Department of Radiology at Mie University Hospital, Japan, specializing in advanced cardiovascular and thoracic imaging. His research focuses on comprehensive cardiac CT, integrating coronary CTA, dynamic myocardial perfusion, cine CT, and delayed enhancement protocols to establish evidence for clinical translation. Recent projects explore dose-optimization strategies and quantitative biomarkers for risk stratification in cardiovascular disease. A committed educator and collaborator, he mentors trainees and regularly reviews for leading imaging journals. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Nakamura, a robust peer-review system hinges on transparency, constructiveness, and efficiency. Transparency demands clear editorial policies and timely communication with all stakeholders; constructiveness requires reviews that identify flaws while offering solutions to strengthen research; and efficiency relies on balanced reviewer workloads and realistic timelines to ensure prompt, rigorous decisions. This triad transforms peer review from a gatekeeping process into a collaborative quality-assurance mechanism.
In Dr. Nakamura’s opinion, reviewers must uphold several core principles:
- Objectivity: evaluate science, not authors or affiliations.
- Proportionality: critique methodologic gaps while acknowledging strengths and authors’ efforts.
- Confidentiality: respect the privileged nature of submitted work.
- Timeliness: adhere to agreed review deadlines.
- Humility: recognize that no study is perfect and remain open to learning from the research under evaluation.
“Personally, reviewing sharpens my critical thinking and keeps me abreast of the latest developments before they are published. Professionally, it is a way to give back to the community that evaluates my own work. Ethically, I see peer review as a collective responsibility to safeguard scientific integrity and patient welfare,” says Dr. Nakamura.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Susie Medeiros Oliveira
Dr. Susie Medeiros Oliveira is a researcher and professor with a diverse academic background, including a degree in Biomedicine, a Master’s in Radioprotection and Dosimetry (Medical Physics), a Ph.D. in Radiology, and a postdoctoral fellowship in Medicine (Radiology). She also holds an MBA in Higher Education Teaching and Management. With 14 years of experience in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Radioprotection, and Dosimetry, she has worked on radiosynovectomy for haemophilia at a tertiary hospital in Brazil. Her biomedical imaging research focuses on protocol optimization for radiology exams/therapies, image quality, anthropomorphic phantom development, internal/external dosimetry, tomography, and radiological anatomy. Currently, she serves as a Nuclear Medicine researcher at the Brazilian National Commission of Nuclear Energy, a guest professor in Medical Physics for graduate programs, and a peer reviewer for Medical Physics journals.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Oliveira: Peer review remains indispensable in modern science, especially with the rise of AI as both a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. While AI accelerates research by analysing vast datasets and generating hypotheses, I believe it also risks spreading misinformation, biased algorithms, or poorly validated findings. Peer review acts as a critical safeguard—experts examine AI-driven research for methodological flaws, ethical concerns, and reproducibility, ensuring only reliable science is published. Without this gatekeeping, AI-generated errors or manipulated data could undermine public trust in science. Thus, even as technology evolves, peer review maintains scientific integrity by balancing innovation with accountability.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Oliveira: As I see it, reviewers shoulder key responsibilities to ensure rigorous, fair evaluations. First, they must critically assess methodological validity—scrutinizing experimental design, data analysis, and reproducibility. Second, they evaluate research originality and significance to determine its contribution to the field. Ethical considerations are equally vital: proper attribution, no plagiarism, and conflict-of-interest disclosure. Reviewers should provide constructive, objective feedback to help authors improve, avoiding personal bias—a common challenge. They must also examine clarity, coherence, and logical flow to ensure effective communication of findings. In the era of AI-assisted research, reviewers face a new challenge: vigilance against potential data manipulation, overreliance on generative tools, or undisclosed AI use. Upholding these principles maintains scientific integrity and drives progress.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Oliveira: As a scientist, I view peer review as both an academic obligation and a crucial contribution to the research community. When reviewing manuscripts, I uphold disciplinary standards and ensure only reliable, validated work is published. This unpaid endeavor reflects my belief that science advances through collective effort—since I benefit from others reviewing my work, it is only equitable to reciprocate with my expertise. I continue a tradition established by prior generations of researchers, who built this system of shared oversight. Though often anonymous and unglamorous, my reviews help maintain science’s self-correcting nature. Without scientists’ shared commitment to analyze each other’s work, the quality and trustworthiness of published research would deteriorate. Thus, despite the lack of personal recognition, I consider peer review an essential responsibility—not just to current colleagues, but to future scholars who will build upon our collective work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yuqi Wang
Yuqi Wang is a Ph.D. candidate in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Duke University. Her research focuses on developing Explainable AI (XAI) methods for precision health, aiming to enhance clinical decision-making through model interpretability and reliability. She addresses challenges like data heterogeneity, limited labeled data, and prediction uncertainty to build trustworthy AI systems for clinical use. Leading interdisciplinary projects on multi-modal data fusion, uncertainty quantification, and patient-personalized interpretability, her work has improved outcomes in lung cancer screening, portal hypertension prediction, and stereotactic radiosurgery planning for brain metastases. Her upcoming research explores small-scale learning, trustworthy model deployment, and integrating foundation models into healthcare AI. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Yuqi believes that research explores the most advanced, often uncharted areas of knowledge. She explains, “There’s no textbook or authority like a teacher to tell us what’s right or wrong. That’s why peer review is essential. It’s how experts in the field critically assess each other’s work to ensure rigor, credibility, and value before findings are shared publicly.”
“Despite being unpaid and often anonymous, I see peer review as a vital part of scholarly responsibility. It’s an opportunity to support and shape the direction of my field by promoting rigorous and ethical research. Reviewing helps me stay up to date with the latest developments and also sharpens my critical thinking. More importantly, it’s a way to give back—my own work has greatly benefited from insightful peer reviews, and I feel a duty to contribute in kind. Being part of this reciprocal process ultimately strengthens the entire research community,” says Yuqi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marta Rogalska
Marta Rogalska, MD, PhD, is a distinguished specialist in Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, with a robust academic background: she earned her MD from the Medical University of Warsaw, a PhD from the Medical University of Silesia, and completed her residency at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Oncological Laryngology in Zabrze, Poland. Her research focuses on voice feminization procedures in transgender individuals, robotic surgery applications in head and neck regions, and modern diagnostic techniques—such as contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and in vivo confocal reflectance microscopy—for head and neck neoplasms. As an active peer reviewer for multiple otorhinolaryngology, oncology, and imaging journals, she is committed to upholding high standards in academic publishing and evidence-based practice.
Dr. Rogalska emphasizes that peer review is vital for maintaining the integrity and transparency of published research. It fosters collaboration through constructive criticism, encourages open discussion, and refines methodologies and findings, ensuring scientifically rigorous work.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Rogalska indicates that adhering to guidelines like STROBE and CARE is paramount. These frameworks enable transparent, structured reporting, facilitating critical appraisal of methodology, reproducibility of results, and overall improvement in publication quality.
“To all dedicated reviewers: despite the lack of public recognition or financial benefit, your efforts play a crucial role in advancing scientific research and preserving scientific integrity. The impact of your work is undeniable, and your contributions are essential to ensuring that only rigorous and meticulously conducted research reaches the scientific community, thereby maintaining the credibility of academic publishing,” says Dr. Rogalska.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yvonne Biswokarma
Yvonne Biswokarma, DScPT, is a doctoral-trained physical therapist affiliated with Loma Linda University’s Allied Health Department, bringing a rich background in global health to her work. Her dedication to rural healthcare and education in Nepal—where she served for seven years—earned her a service-based scholarship for doctoral study, shaping her focus on equitable care. Her research centers on interdisciplinary collaboration in rehabilitation sciences. Recent projects include international partnerships between Loma Linda University, Scheer Memorial Hospital, the University of Queensland, and the University of Utah, exploring how oestradiol affects pelvic floor mobility across the menstrual cycle in Nepali women who carry heavy loads. Beyond research, she is passionate about community-based outreach, integrative health education, and mentoring emerging healthcare workers, striving to make sustainable, person-centered care accessible in underserved areas. Connect with her on Facebook.
According to Dr. Biswokarma, peer review ensures that scientific information is well-presented and relevant to advancing its field. By vetting content for clarity and significance, it upholds the quality of research shared within the scientific community.
Dr. Biswokarma defines an objective review as a careful, unbiased assessment. To achieve this, she re-reads manuscripts multiple times over different days, allowing time to reflect on initial impressions. She also compares work to other reviewed papers and considers the topic from diverse perspectives, acknowledging that complete objectivity is challenging but prioritizing diligence to minimize bias.
Despite its anonymity and lack of financial reward, Dr. Biswokarma finds value in peer review as a tool to stay updated on the latest studies. Engaging with unpublished work keeps her connected to cutting-edge developments in rehabilitation sciences and global health.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Leslie Bahn Kawa
Leslie Bahn Kawa is a consultant physician specializing in general medicine and cardiology, with particular interests in diabetes, heart failure, stroke, and general internal medicine. He works as an independent researcher at the East Sussex National Health Service Trust. He is the author of Essentials of Diabetes Medicine, a learner-friendly and well-structured book that covers all aspects of diabetes, including prevention, diagnosis, management, living with the condition, and the necessary social models to address it. He has published in international peer-reviewed journals in the fields of diabetes, cardiology, and medicine. His recent research focus is on cerebral small vessel disease in the elderly, and he is currently undertaking two research projects in this area.
Dr. Kawa believes peer review is important for several reasons. Firstly, it facilitates the dissemination of knowledge, which helps improve practices and outcomes; this is particularly significant in medicine. Secondly, it allows reviewers to acquire new knowledge and gain an understanding of developments in specific areas. For authors, it helps them refine their research, writing, and journal submission skills. Ultimately, peer review benefits all those involved in research and review processes, contributing to making the world a better place.
In Dr. Kawa’s opinion, a manuscript should never be discounted based on factors such as language, length, or the author's geography. What matters is the content and context. Many submissions may lack robust content or have structural deficits required for scientific publications. A constructive review identifies these deficits and highlights them to the author to facilitate improvement, which can encourage progress and innovation, especially among novice researchers. Conversely, a destructive review unjustly dismisses a manuscript based on irrelevant factors rather than focusing on content-related issues.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mustafa Alkhawam
Mustafa Alkhawam, MD, is a research fellow in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His work centers on advanced cardiovascular imaging, particularly in supporting structural and interventional procedures through real-time guidance using fusion imaging platforms such as EchoNavigator and HeartNavigator. He plays a key role in planning and guiding transcatheter interventions including aortic and mitral paravalvular leak (PVL) closures, MitraClip procedures, and transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMViV) replacement, with a focus on pre-procedural CT modeling and intra-procedural image interpretation. He is also involved in pulmonary valve implantation and vascular fistula closures. His research includes 3D reconstructions, outcome-based imaging analysis, and clinical innovation. In addition to co-authoring peer-reviewed publications and presenting at national conferences, he actively participates in peer review and interdisciplinary collaboration. He aims to enhance the precision and safety of cardiovascular interventions through cutting-edge imaging integration. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Alkhawam: A healthy peer-review system is one that ensures fairness, objectivity, and transparency. It must prioritize constructive criticism, support scientific rigor, and maintain confidentiality throughout the process. Timeliness, the absence of bias, and the inclusion of reviewers with appropriate expertise are essential. A strong system also fosters mentorship, particularly for early-career researchers, by providing detailed, educational feedback. Ultimately, it serves as a quality-control mechanism that strengthens the credibility and reproducibility of published science.
QIMS: What do reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Alkhawam: Reviewers should prioritize clarity, scientific validity, and originality. It’s important to remain impartial, focus on the methodology and data interpretation, and avoid personal or ideological bias. Reviewers must also respect confidentiality and declare any conflicts of interest (COIs). Their comments should be constructive, specific, and framed in a way that helps authors improve their work, even if the paper is not suitable for publication.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose COI?
Dr. Alkhawam: Yes, disclosing COIs is vital to preserve transparency and public trust in research. COIs can introduce unconscious bias in study design, data interpretation, and reporting. Without disclosure, readers and reviewers cannot fully evaluate the objectivity of the findings. Even if a COI does not directly affect the results, its presence can undermine the perceived credibility of the work. Openly reporting financial or personal interests allows the scientific community to assess the potential influence and interpret findings accordingly.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ziyang Wang
Ziyang Wang is a Research Associate at the Data-Centric Engineering Programme at The Alan Turing Institute. His research focuses on medical image analysis, medical robotics, and applied artificial intelligence, bridging AI with real-world healthcare applications. He explores how intelligent systems can support clinical decision-making, image-guided surgery, and autonomous robotic intervention. Recently, he has been investigating agentic AI and multi-agent systems to enhance the autonomy, coordination, and adaptability of AI models in dynamic clinical environments. He holds a DPhil in Computer Science from the University of Oxford, with a research vision at the intersection of intelligent systems and impactful translational healthcare solutions. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Wang believes peer review is critical in ensuring the quality, validity, and credibility of research before publication. It is a valuable opportunity to gain knowledge and contribute to the academic community. Reviewing keeps him updated on the latest developments in his field, helps him learn from others’ methodologies, and refines his own critical thinking. Meanwhile, providing constructive feedback supports fellow researchers and upholds the standards of scientific integrity. He views it as a mutually beneficial process that strengthens both individual growth and collective progress in science.
In Dr. Wang’s opinion, reviewers have a responsibility to actively minimize biases. He approaches each review with an open mind, focusing on the scientific merit rather than the authors’ identities or affiliations. He reminds himself that no paper can please everyone, and reviewers should provide fair, constructive, and balanced feedback rather than personal judgment. He also strives to be aware of his own preferences or assumptions to ensure they do not cloud his evaluation. His goal is to support the improvement of the work while maintaining objectivity and respect for the authors’ efforts.
“To all the reviewers working diligently behind the scenes—thank you for your invaluable contributions to the advancement of science. Your thoughtful, rigorous, and often unseen efforts are what uphold the integrity and quality of academic research. Reviewing is not just a responsibility but also an act of service to the community—one that helps shape better science and inspire better work. Even though the role may sometimes feel thankless, please know that your dedication truly matters and makes a real difference. Keep going—you are an essential part of scientific progress,” says Dr. Wang.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yoshihisa Morimoto
Dr. Yoshihisa Morimoto serves as the Chief of Cardiovascular Surgery at Kita-Harima Medical Center in Hyogo, Japan, where he specializes in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), transcatheter valve therapy, and hybrid approaches to complex aortic disease. His recent work focuses on critical areas: refining perfusion strategies and simulation-based planning for high-risk aortic cases involving shaggy aorta, and spearheading educational initiatives to train the next generation of cardiovascular surgeons. Actively engaged in clinical research, he regularly contributes to scientific publications and international conferences, driving advancements in his field.
Dr. Morimoto points out key limitations in the current peer-review system: variability in reviewer quality (with some reviews lacking depth) and delays stemming from reviewers’ competing responsibilities. To address these, he advocates for enhanced transparency, structured review templates, and greater recognition of reviewers—efforts like those by QIMS. He also emphasizes the value of reviewer training programs and robust editorial oversight to ensure consistency, fairness, and timeliness, thereby strengthening the integrity of the process.
In Dr. Morimoto’s opinion, a strong reviewer must embody scientific rigor, fairness, and a constructive mindset. Deep expertise in the subject area is foundational, paired with the ability to critically assess methodology and data interpretation. Clear communication skills ensure feedback is actionable, while timeliness and a genuine commitment to supporting the scientific community further distinguish effective reviewers. These traits collectively elevate the quality of peer review and foster collaborative progress.
Dr. Morimoto stresses that institutional review board (IRB) approval is indispensable for research involving human subjects. It ensures adherence to ethical standards, protects participants’ rights and safety, and upholds scientific integrity. Omitting this process risks severe consequences: research may lack credibility, face publication barriers, or result in ethical violations harming participants—ultimately eroding public trust in science. To him, IRB approval is a cornerstone of responsible research practice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Si Zhao Tang
Si Zhao Tang is a fellow neurointerventionalist with a solid foundation built on experiences as a neuroradiologist and interventional radiologist at the National University Hospital (NUH) — an academic medical institution affiliated with the National University of Singapore (NUS). After graduating with an MD from the Faculty of Medicine at the National University of Malaysia, he launched his medical career in Singapore. He then completed his residency and obtained post-graduate qualifications, including a Master of Medicine (MMed) in Radiology from NUS, a Master of Science (MSc) in Surgical Sciences from the University of Edinburgh, and a Fellowship from the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR). His specialist diplomas in neurointervention include EXMINT-EDSI and ESMINT-EDNI. His research interests primarily lie in cerebrovascular diseases (such as stroke, aneurysms, dAVFs, AVMs, and cerebral venous diseases) and the study of CSF-glymphatic pathways. He is also an active contributor to peer-reviewed publications and serves as a regular reviewer for multiple leading journals in neuroradiology, interventional radiology, and neurointervention.
In Dr. Tang’s opinion, reviewers should approach each manuscript with fairness, scientific rigor, and constructive intent. It is important to assess methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope. While highlighting limitations or concerns, reviewers should also acknowledge strengths and provide actionable feedback that helps improve the manuscript, regardless of its final disposition.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Tang thinks that data sharing enhances transparency, reproducibility, and trust in scientific findings. It allows for independent validation, meta-analysis, and secondary insights that may not have been initially envisioned. Responsible data sharing also fosters collaboration and accelerates progress, especially in rapidly evolving fields like imaging and intervention.
“Reviewing is a form of scholarly service that often goes unseen, yet it plays a vital role in upholding scientific integrity and nurturing academic excellence. To all fellow reviewers: your efforts matter. Each thoughtful critique sharpens the quality of research, mentors’ authors, and sustains the credibility of our field. Thank you for being part of this quiet but crucial process,” says Dr. Tang.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kjell Høyland
Dr. Kjell Høyland is a physician specializing in cardiology and internal medicine. He is currently a PhD candidate at the Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norway, pursuing a PhD in cardiology. His research focuses on novel echocardiographic techniques for quantifying myocardial fibrosis in heart failure. He is following a cohort of aortic valve stenosis patients and healthy controls, aiming to identify an ultrasound marker for early heart failure detection—one that could inform decisions on when to intervene on a stenotic aortic valve. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Høyland believes that a healthy peer-review system balances transparency and blinding. It should focus on assessing a paper’s credibility, novelty, and importance, without reviewers needing to consider downstream consequences of their efforts—particularly crucial for early-career reviewers.
In Dr. Høyland’s opinion, peer review is key to ensuring research paper quality. Feedback may involve requesting more data or trimming superfluous content. It can be a learning experience for both authors and reviewers, guiding better alignment with research protocols in future work.
“I appreciate very much the culture of volunteering to peer review someone else’s paper. It is not self-evident that this is the case for a busy researcher with limited time available, and I think it is important that the reviewer is credited in some way. In the next turn of events, when one submits a paper for peer review, the review work they have done before will enable them to benefit from the same high-quality peer-review process. This mutual interaction is a key feature of peer review,” says Dr. Høyland.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Pak-Wing Fok
Dr. Pak-Wing Fok is a Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Delaware, with research interests in Mathematical Biology, Arterial Mechanics, and Parameter Estimation/Inverse Problems. His work focuses on using continuum and growth mechanics to uncover mechanistic insights into cardiovascular diseases, with publications in esteemed journals such as European Heart Journal, American Journal of Physiology, The Journal of Physiology, and Mathematical Medicine and Biology. Prior to his faculty role at Delaware, he was a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA and a Von Karman Instructor at the California Institute of Technology. He earned his PhD in Mathematics from MIT in 2006. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Fok indicates that peer review plays an extremely important role in science. Reviewers ensure scientific publications are well-written and adhere to rigorous standards—this is particularly critical in today’s digital age, where the internet serves as a platform for unfiltered opinions and informal recommendations. Peer review acts as a safeguard, upholding the credibility of published research amid a sea of unverified information.
Dr. Fok notes that the system’s key limitations stem from human factors: reviewers may be biased, fatigued, or “grumpy”, leading to less objective feedback. Additionally, editors may mis-select reviewers who lack expertise in the paper’s specific domain. To address these issues, he proposes two strategies:
- Increasing reviewer numbers: using 3 or more reviewers can mitigate individual biases or gaps in expertise by balancing perspectives.
- Targeted review for multidisciplinary work: for papers combining experiments and theory (or other interdisciplinary elements), editors should assign reviewers to focus on their specific areas of expertise (e.g., one reviewer for experiments, another for theoretical analysis). He also suggests that academic editors take a stronger managerial role, delegating tasks to align reviewers’ strengths with the paper’s needs.
“When reviewers review for a journal, they play a role in maintaining, or even enhancing, the reputation of that journal. There are several journals that I publish in that I want to succeed. If that journal starts publishing articles that are difficult to read, or contain a lot of mistakes, that may be the beginning of the end for that journal. A journal’s demise could impact my own publishing trajectory. Therefore, I always try to provide fair and timely reviews, especially for journals that I have published in myself. Because a particular field is founded on its journals, reviewers do their part to shape the culture of their discipline and influence the impact that their area has on the general scientific ecosystem. Because I want Mathematical Biology to keep flourishing, I am motivated to provide high-quality reviews for journals in my field,” says Dr. Fok.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Francesco Prata
Francesco Prata is a urologist and PhD candidate in Artificial Intelligence at Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome. After completing his residency in Urology, he developed a strong interest in surgical innovation and medical technologies, with a particular focus on robotics and data-driven decision-making. He is currently enrolled in the Global Clinical Scholars Research Training (GCSRT) Program at Harvard Medical School to strengthen his expertise in clinical research methodology and translational science. His PhD research focuses on integrating computer vision and reinforcement learning into robotic-assisted surgery to develop semi-autonomous systems for intraoperative navigation. He is involved in several multicentric studies on robotic urologic procedures and contributes to the BISTOURY project, which aims to enhance surgical precision through AI-based 3D modeling and real-time guidance. As a reviewer, he values scientific rigor, ethical standards, and clear, constructive feedback to support authors and improve the quality of published research. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Prata thinks that a healthy peer-review system should be transparent, constructive, and fair. It prioritizes scientific quality and methodological soundness over subjective preferences. Reviewers should offer actionable feedback to improve manuscripts, while editors ensure a balanced, bias-free process. However, he reckons that current systems are often opaque, time-consuming, and affected by reviewer variability. On the other hand, reviews sometimes lack depth or objectivity. He adds,“We should promote open peer-review, enhance reviewer training, and implement tools to support reproducibility checks. Recognizing reviewers’ contributions, as QIMS does, also encourages accountability and engagement.”
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Prata points out that conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential to preserve scientific integrity and readers’ trust. While a COI does not automatically invalidate findings, failure to disclose it raises concerns about transparency and objectivity. A well-structured peer review can mitigate COI effects but cannot replace full disclosure.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Davide Cester
Dr. Davide Cester earned a PhD in Nuclear Physics from the University of Padova, Italy, and currently works as a medical physicist at the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich. He has years of experience in radiation measurement, radiation safety and security, data analysis, and software simulations. His main research focus is image quality in Computed Tomography, particularly related to patient dose. He is deeply involved in all aspects of X-ray-based imaging, ranging from the optimization of clinical protocols and the development of analysis tools to the organization of educational courses. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Cester indicates that peer review is essential for distinguishing personal opinions from science. Only after peers scrutinize and validate the methods can the results be widely accepted. Though the system is not free from errors or abuse, it has fulfilled its purpose so far. Moreover, peer review involves an active feedback mechanism between reviewers and authors, which often significantly improves the paper. Thus, it should be seen as more than an editorial tool, almost a vital part of the research process.
Dr. Cester thinks that a subtle challenge for reviewers is to be more flexible when reading a manuscript, similar to how they are with collaborators or students. As field experts, reviewers have their own ways of doing things, like preferred algorithms and naming conventions. Manuscripts may take them out of their "scientific comfort zone", but this is often unrelated to the work's objective merits.
“Peer review is an essential part of the advancement of science, and if each of us dedicates at least a little time to it, that would be not just necessary but also fair. But I found out that the review process also contains an element of learning, from being exposed to different methods and different ways of exposing concepts. The type of focus that we have during a review is different from when we read a published paper; regardless of the main results of a work, sometimes during the review you may end up learning something more about the fundamentals as well. So doing a review is not just a task but, to some extent, also an opportunity for scientific growth,” says Dr. Cester.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Francisco Javier Mendoza Ferradas
Dr. Francisco Javier Mendoza Ferradas is a Chilean interventional radiologist passionate about advancing minimally invasive therapies through science and innovation. He currently works at Hospital Universitario de Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, following his residency at Clínica Universidad de Navarra. His work focuses on patient-centered strategies in interventional oncology, with a strong commitment to enhancing treatment selection and predicting therapeutic responses via artificial intelligence and radiomics. He contributes to multicenter studies and peer-reviewed publications, integrating clinical practice with academic research. He believes oncologic and general radiology form a critical foundation of modern medicine—playing a role not only in diagnosis but also in early treatment guidance, longitudinal monitoring, and precision care. With an evidence-based and collaborative mindset, he views radiology not merely as a technical specialty but as a cornerstone in the shift toward more personalized and effective medical treatment. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ferradas thinks that peer review is fundamental to the scientific process. For reviewers, it offers a unique opportunity to stay current with emerging trends and evolving topics in their field. It also encourages ongoing learning and sharpens critical appraisal skills—essential for both writing and interpreting scientific literature. Beyond its educational value, peer review acts as a collaborative filter, ensuring research meets standards of quality, rigor, and relevance before entering the scientific record. In this sense, it is both a responsibility and a privilege.
In Dr. Ferradas’ opinion, a good reviewer must be committed to scientific integrity and improvement. Curiosity, critical thinking, and a willingness to invest time in the review process are essential. Familiarity with scientific publishing standards and previous research experience—ideally as an active contributor—helps reviewers provide constructive, informed feedback. The best reviewers approach each manuscript with fairness, humility, and a genuine desire to advance knowledge in their area of expertise.
“Scientific ideas don’t have to be perfect to be worth exploring. What truly matters is the desire to generate new knowledge, improve clinical outcomes, and contribute to a shared mission. Peer review is a quiet but powerful way to grow professionally—like mentoring a project from behind the scenes. Every time we help shape a manuscript, we are strengthening the foundation of our discipline. To those dedicating time to this task: your work matters more than you think,” says Dr. Ferradas.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jakub Mlodawski
Dr. Jakub Mlodawski, MD, PhD, EFOG-EBCOG, FMAS, is a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology at the Provincial Combined Hospital in Kielce, Poland, and a faculty member at Jan Kochanowski University’s Collegium Medicum. He completed his medical degree with distinction at the Medical University of Warsaw and holds a PhD in medical sciences. His postgraduate training includes research methodology and minimally invasive surgery. His clinical interests focus on prenatal diagnostics, infertility, and endoscopic gynecological procedures. He has authored over 60 peer-reviewed publications and holds certifications from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, IOTA, and national ultrasound societies. He is a member of ISUOG, EAES, SAGES, and the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians. An active educator and conference speaker, he is committed to advancing women’s health and evidence-based practice.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Mlodawski: A healthy peer-review system relies on an objective approach to the manuscript being reviewed. I always ask myself whether the final reader might have any remaining questions about how the study was conducted. Ideally, all those questions should be answered within the manuscript itself. A healthy review process should also include access to the datasets used in the manuscript, allowing the reviewer to independently verify any questionable results.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Mlodawski: Reviewers should keep in mind that while knowledge itself is largely objective, its application in clinical practice is subjective and varies. There are differences in how up-to-date clinical standards are between countries. What is standard practice in some parts of the world may still be emerging in others—and that gap doesn't always depend on national income, but also on social and geographical factors.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Mlodawski: Every publishing author relies on the support of fellow experts during the peer-review process. As a reviewer, I believe in reciprocity—we help each other improve the quality of our manuscripts and contribute collectively to better science.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
John Nyberg
John Nyberg is a medical doctor educated at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. Since 2021, he has pursued a PhD in medical technology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, defending his thesis in June 2025. His research focuses on medical imaging, particularly myocardial strain measurements in echocardiography—encompassing individual characteristics influencing conventional strain methods in healthy populations and deep learning-based method development to enhance reproducibility and prognostic value. Details of his work are available via his profile and Google Scholar.
Dr. Nyberg views peer review as a safeguard, ensuring published work meets scientific community standards. It also offers authors valuable feedback from field experts to refine manuscripts, bridging gaps between draft and publication.
While acknowledging all reviews carry subjectivity, Dr. Nyberg strives for objectivity by systematically evaluating key elements: clarity of the scientific question, alignment of methods with research goals, clinical relevance of aims, appropriateness of statistical methods, and clarity of presentation (grammar, figures). This structured approach minimizes bias, focusing on actionable improvements.
Dr. Nyberg believes it is important for readers of a published manuscript to know if the authors have conflicts of interest (COI). This can be especially relevant when new medical products or treatments are assessed, if the results and discussion in the paper suggest a potential benefit of these. However, it is important to keep in mind that a COI does not mean a research is invalid or has biased results.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Shaowei Bo
Shaowei Bo is a researcher in the field of pharmaceutical sciences and nuclear medicine. He obtained his PhD from Wuhan University School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, where he focused on designing F-19 MRI traceable drug delivery systems for cancer diagnosis and treatment. In 2018, he joined the group of Prof. Michael T. McMahon at Johns Hopkins University, researching the development of new imidazole CEST MRI pH sensors for kidney diseases. Later, he became a postdoc at Jinan University, concentrating on developing new CEST contrast agents. Currently, he serves as a research associate in the Department of Nuclear Medicine at the affiliated Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital of Jinan University, mainly engaged in the development and clinical translation of tumor-targeted radiopharmaceuticals. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Bo regards peer review as a foundation of science. It ensures integrity by filtering flawed research, validating findings against discipline standards, and providing feedback to strengthen work. Without it, erroneous results could spread, eroding trust and wasting resources—making it the “gold standard” despite debates over efficiency.
Dr. Bo highlights some key principles he believes reviewers should bear in mind: rigor in assessing methodology and originality; adherence to ethical checks (e.g., Institutional Review Board approvals); constructive, specific feedback; and timely, confidential reviews. Reviewers should act as collaborators, aiming to improve papers rather than criticize.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kwang-Sig Lee
Kwang-Sig Lee is Vice Center Chief in the AI Center at the Korea University Medical College and Anam Hospital. His expertise covers: combining business and medical informatics and sociology; synthesizing genetic, image, numeric and text approaches (“Wide & Deep Learning”); graph reinforcement learning and transformer reinforcement learning with Keras and PyTorch. His achievement includes: 47 SCIE articles published with major authorships in the past 5 years (impact factor total 175); Field Weighted Citation Impact 1.76 (128% of 1.38, KAIST Average in 2021), H Index 21, I-10 Index 35; 2025 Most Quoted Paper Award by the European Society of Breast Imaging (2022 European Radiology Article). Also, his achievement encompasses: a reviewer for Nature Communications (SCIE Impact Factor 14.7) since January 2025; 4.0 billion Won projects secured in the past 5 years; 16 patent applications in the past 5 years; 1 doctoral and 12 master’s theses supervised. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Lee reckons that a strong reviewer should possess advanced technical expertise in their specialization, a broad academic vision, and concise writing skills. These traits enable them to guide manuscript revisions to the highest quality. In his view, the existing peer-review system is already highly effective.
“I am really grateful and joyful to spend one hour every morning for reviewing manuscripts, given that it helps me to improve my advanced technology, broad vision and concise writing expertise,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nick Merna
Dr. Nicholas Merna is an Associate Professor of Bioengineering at Hofstra University, specializing in tissue engineering with a focus on decellularization and vascular grafts. His current research explores decellularizing plant leaves as alternative vascular scaffolds. Unlike animal tissues, plant-based scaffolds consist primarily of cellulose, a promising non-thrombogenic material that promotes cell attachment and redirects blood flow. His team has developed small-caliber vascular grafts using decellularized leatherleaf and cross-linked gelatin, incorporating a custom bioreactor to precondition these grafts with physiologically relevant stimuli. Following validation in a small animal model, the research aims to enhance biodegradability and reduce the immunogenicity of the scaffolds. Follow him on ResearchGate.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Merna: A healthy peer-review system ensures fair, constructive, and timely evaluations. It emphasizes transparency in process, even when identities remain anonymous, and encourages reviewers to focus on rigor, clarity, and reproducibility rather than novelty alone. Editors play a key role in maintaining quality by selecting appropriate reviewers, resolving disagreements, and recognizing reviewers’ contributions. The goal should be to improve the science, and that requires mutual respect between authors and reviewers.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Merna: Reviewers must remember that their role is to help strengthen the manuscript. The review should be grounded in objective analysis of the methodology, data interpretation, and clarity of communication. Reviewers should avoid overstepping into rewriting the paper in their own voice or critiquing from the perspective of a different study. I try to be mindful that authors are sometimes early-career researchers and that the tone and substance of my comments should be constructive, specific, and actionable.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Merna: I view peer review as part of my responsibility to the research community. Every published paper has benefited from unseen effort, and I want to contribute to that collective improvement. Reviewing also keeps me current with evolving methods and ideas, which helps me with my own research and teaching. I’ve benefited from thoughtful reviews as an author. I try to provide the kind of feedback I would want to receive, such as comments that are clear, respectful, and focused on helping the work improve.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sapir Golan Shekhtman
Sapir Golan Shekhtman is a researcher at the Joseph Sagol Neuroscience Center, Sheba Medical Center, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. Her research focuses on the relationship between regional abdominal fat and brain health, particularly how different fat depots relate to cognitive outcomes and neurodegenerative risk. She also investigates amyloid-beta pathology and its implications for dementia. Recently, Dr. Shekhtman led a study on the emotional response to amyloid-beta status disclosure among individuals at high risk for dementia, published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia. Her work combines advanced imaging, clinical data, and behavioral measures to better understand the links between metabolic health, brain aging, and Alzheimer’s disease. She is passionate about translating these findings into more personalized prevention strategies and effective communication with patients and research participants.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Shekhtman: Peer review is really at the heart of science. It’s how we make sure our research stands up to scrutiny and adds real value to the field. When we review each other’s work, we’re not just checking for errors—we’re helping each other see blind spots, improve clarity, and ultimately push the science forward. It’s a collaborative process that keeps the standards high and ensures that published findings are reliable and meaningful.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Shekhtman: A good reviewer should be fair, attentive, and constructive. It’s important to approach each paper with an open mind and a genuine interest in helping the authors improve their work. Clear communication, respect for the authors’ efforts, and a strong grasp of both the subject matter and research methodology are essential. Above all, reviewers should act with integrity and remember that our feedback can make a real difference in the quality of published science.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Shekhtman: To all the reviewers out there: your work is essential, even if it often goes unseen. Every careful review helps strengthen our field and supports your colleagues in doing their best work. It’s not always easy, but your dedication keeps science moving in the right direction. Thank you for your commitment and for being such a vital part of the scientific community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Eleonora Ostillio
Eleonora Ostillio, MD, is a radiologist affiliated with the Università del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” in Novara, Italy, and currently practices at Sant’Andrea Hospital in Vercelli. Her research focuses on breast imaging, with a particular emphasis on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and breast MRI for detecting and characterizing breast lesions. Dedicated to boosting diagnostic accuracy, she integrates advanced imaging techniques with evidence-based practices. Her recent work explores functional imaging to refine breast cancer risk stratification and guide patient management, aiming to improve outcomes and drive innovation in the field. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ostillio considers a healthy peer-review system as one that upholds scientific rigor, fosters constructive academic exchange, and operates with integrity and transparency. It is rooted in fairness, objectivity, and methodological robustness, with clear editorial oversight to limit bias and uphold ethics. She highlights double-blind review as crucial for reducing conflicts of interest and implicit biases. Additionally, the system should provide reviewers with clear guidelines, prompt communication, and recognition for their work. Importantly, peer review should not be merely a gatekeeping tool but a collaborative effort to enhance research quality, reproducibility, and impact.
In Dr. Ostillio’s opinion, reviewers bear a dual responsibility: preserving the quality of the scholarly record while fostering the development of their peers. Fulfilling this role requires more than subject-matter expertise—it calls for intellectual humility, analytical rigor, and an unwavering commitment to fairness. Evaluations should prioritize the scientific merit, methodological integrity, and clarity of the manuscript, irrespective of the authors’ institutional affiliations or academic standing. Feedback shouold be constructive, respectful, and actionable, with the primary aim of supporting authors in refining their work rather than deterring their efforts. Reviewers must remain cognizant of their own potential biases, approach divergences with an open and inquisitive mindset, and, where conflicts of interest arise, recuse themselves appropriately. Each review constitutes a vital contribution to the integrity and progression of scientific inquiry.
“Though often voluntary and behind the scenes, peer review offers distinct professional and intellectual rewards. It enables critical engagement with new research, hones evaluative skills, and keeps one closely aligned with developments in the field. More importantly, it embodies scientific citizenship—a way of contributing to the community that underpins our own work. As a collaborative process, it advances the quality of scholarship through collective effort. While recognition can encourage participation, my primary motivation lies in the belief that rigorous peer review is vital to the credibility of science. Contributing to that aim is both a responsibility and a privilege,” says Dr. Ostillio.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Xiaoxiao Sun
Xiaoxiao Sun is a Ph.D. candidate in Biomedical Engineering at Columbia University. Her research interests cover biomedical imaging, neural engineering, neuromodulation, and brain-computer interfaces. Her work centers on understanding brain dynamics during rest and decision-making using multimodal neuroimaging tools like EEG, fMRI, and eye-tracking. At Columbia, her projects involve developing and applying individualized brain stimulation techniques—especially transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)—to modulate neural circuits and promote neuroplasticity. With funding from NIH, DoD, and DARPA, she is contributing to building integrated systems (fMRI-EEG-TMS and EEG-rTMS) to explore causal brain mechanisms and enhance therapeutic outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD). In addition to experimental research, she is advancing data analysis methods for neurophysiological signals, with a focus on artificial intelligence. Her long-term goal is to translate these findings into more effective, personalized neurotechnology. Learn more about her here.
Xiaoxiao reckons that peer review is essential to maintaining the integrity, rigor, and credibility of scientific research. This process helps ensure that published studies are not only scientifically robust but also meet the ethical and methodological standards of the field. More than just a quality filter, peer review is also a collaborative and constructive process that improves the clarity, impact, and reproducibility of the work.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Xiaoxiao believes it is important for authors for obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval for their work. This step ensures that human research is conducted ethically and safely, protects participants’ rights, guarantees informed consent, and minimizes risks. Skipping IRB review can result in ethical violations, invalidated results, and even legal consequences. It is vital to maintain scientific integrity and public trust.
“I see peer review as essential not just for maintaining scientific rigor, but also for personal growth as a researcher. It challenges me to think more critically about my own work and helps me improve both the clarity and impact of what I do. Giving and receiving feedback sharpens my understanding, reveals blind spots, and often leads to better science overall. I see it as a way to give back to the community that supports my own work—and it’s especially meaningful to help others improve their science, just as reviewers have helped me. It’s a quiet but powerful form of mentorship and collaboration,” says Xiaoxiao.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rogério N. Shinsato
Dr. Rogério Neri Shinsato is a Brazilian physician. He graduated from FAMEMA (Faculty of Medicine of Marília) and completed his ophthalmology residency there. He holds a Master’s degree in retinopathy of prematurity from USP-RP and a Ph.D. in molecular genetics (focused on ophthalmological alterations, neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases) from PUC-PR. Currently, he is a faculty member in the medical program at UNISALESIANO and an associate researcher at LaBIN at PUC-PR. His research focuses on molecular and genetic bases of visual disorders, especially those linked to neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative conditions. He has contributed to translational projects integrating clinical ophthalmology with molecular genetics advances.
Dr. Shinsato believes that peer review ensures scientific publishing quality through impartiality, transparency, and methodological rigor. Reviewers need relevant expertise, no conflicts of interest, and provide objective, constructive evaluations. Reviewer diversity is also critical. tTo minimize potential biases in review, it is necessary to adopt double-blind review and ensure reviewer diversity. Reviews should follow objective standards that reviewers clearly understand.
“Being a reviewer means improving science anonymously. Being a reviewer allows you to come into contact with points of view that differ from your own and helps you analyze these differences and learn how to apply them to your own research,” says Dr. Shinsato.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yigit Can Senol
Dr. Yigit Can Senol is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Department of Neurosurgery. He completed his neurosurgery residency at Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, one of Turkey’s highest-volume neurovascular centers, where he also pursued integrated training in endovascular techniques. His research focuses on neurovascular interventions, particularly in stroke, aneurysms, and minimally invasive hematoma evacuation. At UCSF, he collaborates with Dr. Luis Savastano to develop benchtop and cadaveric models to test novel endovascular technologies. His recent projects include the development of a cadaveric platform for transvenous CSF shunt systems and a translational model for ICH evacuation using flat panel CT validation in the angiosuite. He has authored more than 40 peer-reviewed publications and actively contributes as a reviewer for several neurosurgical and neurointerventional journals.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Senol: A healthy peer-review system should be constructive, timely, and transparent. It should serve not just as a gatekeeping mechanism, but as a collaborative process that improves the quality of scientific work. An ideal system encourages open communication, maintains confidentiality, and upholds ethical standards while recognizing and rewarding reviewer contributions.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Senol: An objective review is one that evaluates a manuscript solely on its scientific merit, methodology, and clarity, regardless of the authors’ affiliations or prior reputation. I ensure objectivity by focusing on evidence-based critique, checking for methodological rigor, and avoiding assumptions not supported by data. I also disclose any potential conflicts of interest and re-read my review from a neutral standpoint before submission.
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. Senol: Yes, data sharing is essential for transparency, reproducibility, and scientific progress. Making data available allows others to validate findings, conduct meta-analyses, and build upon previous work. It fosters trust in the scientific community and ensures that research findings are not only publishable but also verifiable and reusable in future studies.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Douglas F. Lightstone
Dr. Douglas F. Lightstone is a national board-certified chiropractor with a private practice in North Georgia, USA. He has completed post-graduate advanced training in spinal biomechanics and the evaluation and treatment of abnormal spinal alignment and posture, scoliosis and spinal deformities, whiplash and trauma, and functional movement. He has presented about chiropractic, spinal rehabilitation, diagnostic methods, his published research, and research efforts at various seminars, research conferences, and speaking engagements. He is the co-founder of the Institute for Spinal Health and Performance, a research institute. He focuses patient care and research efforts on corrective spinal rehabilitation to find and correct the link between abnormal spinal alignment and posture and the onset of disease, dysfunction, and disability in the body. He is a research fellow and peer-reviews for various research journals. He continues to work on spinal biomechanics, physiology, and the health impacts of spinal rehabilitation. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Lightstone: Peer review is a necessary gut check for academia. Experts in their fields come together to evaluate the work of their peers to uphold standards, identify flaws, shortcomings, or overstatements, and improve the quality of scientific literature. While peer review is critical in nature, authors and peer reviewers are on the same team of academia with the same goal in mind: to provide sound, accurate, meaningful contributions to the scientific community while maintaining quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research and publications.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Lightstone: Peer review aims to enhance scientific literature quality, but remains imperfect, with limitations including reviewer bias, potential abuse, inconsistent standards across reviewers, lengthy processes (adding weeks/months to publication), reviewer ignorance, and publication bias. Beyond existing solutions, journals could improve by: strengthening reviewer training (credited for continuing education); diversifying reviewers for varied perspectives; setting clear review criteria; adopting open/blinded review for transparency; making peer review a licensure requirement to expand reviewers; enforcing review deadlines; and using technology to screen formatting, plagiarism, and statistics. Additionally, a universal manuscript format (including citations) for a profession’s journals would reduce tedious reformatting when manuscripts are rejected and resubmitted.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Lightstone: An objective peer review is an unbiased evaluation of scientific literature and involves fairness, impartiality, transparency, and accountability while focusing on merit and providing constructive feedback based on established criteria.
I ensure my reviews are objective by considering personal conflicts of interest before any review and applying a merit first approach to each manuscript I review, focusing on the strength of the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions instead of credentials, affiliations, or personal interests or biases. I have developed a document over time from consulting literature on the appropriate framework, section content, and guidelines or checklists that should be followed based on the study. As I learn, the document grows and future peer reviews and studies benefit.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Chiba Taishi
Taishi Chiba is a radiological technologist in the Department of Radiology at Kakunodate City Hospital, Japan. He holds a Master of Medical Science in Radiological Sciences from the Graduate School of Medicine at Iwate Medical University and has further studied as a research student at the Graduate School of Health Sciences, Showa University. Dr. Chiba’s research focuses on MRI imaging techniques, with a particular emphasis on head imaging. His work includes studies on imaging methods for acute ischemic stroke, such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and arterial spin labeling (ASL). Recently, he has explored how age-related anatomical and functional changes in the very elderly impact MRI acquisition and image quality. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Chiba emphasizes the growing significance of peer review in science, especially amid the rise of AI-generated content. Peer review ensures scientific studies—particularly those applied in clinical practice—meet basic validity standards through diverse expert perspectives, refining and strengthening research. Beyond being a checkpoint, he views it as an intellectual, constructive process that fosters dialogue with early-career researchers and advances the entire field.
In Dr. Chiba’s opinion, key qualities of effective reviewers include: integrity, subject-matter expertise, and a focus on constructive dialogue. He believes that peer review is collaborative, aiming to improve science through precise, respectful communication rather than merely criticizing flaws. Recognizing one’s limits—declining reviews outside one’s expertise—signifies responsibility, while ongoing learning is vital given the interdisciplinary nature of modern studies. Ultimately, he thinks peer review demands conscience and humility, upholding science’s credibility.
“Peer review often happens quietly, without much recognition—but it steadily drives science forward. Your effort, even when done late at night or during limited spare time, lays the groundwork for trustworthy science. That progress can save lives, and perhaps someday, even those of our own families. I have deep respect for every reviewer contributing in this way, and I’m honored to stand alongside you in supporting the advancement of science,” says Dr. Taishi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Vincenzo Vingiani
Dr. Vincenzo Vingiani is a radiologist at Südtiroler Sanitätsbetrieb – Azienda Sanitaria dell'Alto Adige, specializing in cardiovascular imaging. He completed his radiology residency at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Rome. In 2019, he spent six months at the Medical University of South Carolina’s Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, training under Prof. U. Joseph Schoepf—who became his mentor and friend—refining his skills in CT and MRI protocols for cardiovascular conditions like coronary artery disease and structural heart issues. His current research focuses on cardiothoracic radiology, with active involvement in multidisciplinary projects spanning neuro, abdominal, and pelvic imaging. He also explores integrating large language models into radiological workflows, with a keen interest in AI’s future role in diagnostic imaging.
Dr. Vingiani regards peer review as a cornerstone of scientific integrity, ensuring research rigor, ethics, and significance. It also fosters personal growth: evaluating new studies keeps reviewers updated, hones analytical skills, and uncovers relevant methods, making it a valuable educational tool—especially for early-career scientists, whose participation strengthens the community and builds scientific maturity.
In effective review, Dr. Vingiani thinks it is crucial to have deep expertise, critical thinking, and open-mindedness. Reviewers should pose probing questions, identify gaps, and communicate insights clearly to enrich manuscripts, not just critique them. Precision, impartiality, respect, and integrity—including managing conflicts of interest and confidentiality—are essential, as is timely effort; delayed or superficial reviews undermine the process. Ultimately, reviewing is both a duty and an opportunity to advance scientific dialogue and innovation.
“To reviewers working behind the scenes: thank you. Your contributions, though often unseen, are vital. Beyond evaluating, you must ask insightful questions, spot gaps, and communicate clearly to help refine the manuscript. Thoughtful critiques can refine the science, inspire new directions, and improve clarity. In a system that rewards publication, your diligence upholds rigorous standards, transparency, and truth. Reviewing is more than evaluation—it’s stewardship. The future of research depends on those willing to question, suggest, and elevate ideas. Your impact matters a lot,” says Dr. Vingiani.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Karl Goodkin
Dr. Karl Goodkin has been a member of the Committee on HIV Psychiatry of the American Psychiatric Association since 1992 and its Work Group on HIV Practice Guidelines. He was a Work Group member for the American Academy of Neurology’s diagnostic criteria for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders, was given the Distinguished Service Award by the American Society for Microbiology, has been a member of the Neurology Collaborative Science Group of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group since 1996, and has served on Review Committees of the NIMH and other Institutes. He is a founding member of the International Society for Neurovirology and the Society on Neuroimmune Pharmacology. He served on the consensus panel on older people with HIV of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. He served on the Neurocognitive Disorders Work Group for the Text Revision of the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Dr. Goodkin thinks that the role of peer review is critical. A rigorous peer-review process guarantees impartial decision-making, transparency, and academic quality control. It allows for consistency of review across submissions, end–to-end oversight, establishment of research integrity, documentation of the ethical conduct of research, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.
In Dr. Goodkin’s opinion, reviewers should bear in mind that they are not simply listing issues that they determine are relevant to the quality of the manuscript submitted. They are also providing a communication to the authors who have made a strong commitment to the area of investigation represented by their manuscript and have an ongoing interest in this field of research. Hence, there is a mentoring process related to the presentation of issues that might pertain to a specific manuscript submission. This mentoring process acknowledges the efforts of the authors and attempts to provide them with feedback supporting the furthering of their own efforts in the submitted manuscript and in the future as well.
“As reviewers, our goal is not only to give feedback to the authors of submitted manuscripts that come under our scrutiny but also to represent that feedback in such a way that it will permeate the conduct of research in the field. Independently of any specific manuscript submissions, the representation of our position related to the academic quality of research, judgments related to clinically significant research, the responsibility for the ethical conduct of research, and the avoidance of conflicts of interests in published research should be broadly promulgated by us. Further, it is incumbent upon us as reviewers to bring to light any concerns related to inappropriate uses of AI as well as supporting the need for the reproducibility of research findings,” says Dr. Goodkin.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Pedro Henrique Rodrigues da Silva
Pedro Henrique Rodrigues da Silva is a postdoctoral fellow at the Interdisciplinary Service of Neuromodulation of the Institute of Psychiatry of the Hospital das Clínicas of FMUSP. He also holds a research fellowship in the Division of Neuropsychiatry and Neuromodulation at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School under the supervision of Professor Joan Camprodon (2024-2025). His academic journey includes a PhD from the Physics Applied to Medicine and Biology (FAMB) program at the University of São Paulo (USP) (2017-2022), a Master of Science from the same FAMB program (2015-2017), and a Bachelor of Medical Physics from the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters of Ribeirão Preto (FFCLRP/USP) (2011-2015). His doctoral thesis was awarded the 2023 CAPES Thesis Award - Medicine II and received an honorable mention in the 2023 USP Outstanding Thesis Award. Additionally, he serves as a junior editor at the Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry and has experience in analyzing multimodal MRI, cerebral small vessel disease, mood disorders, and non-invasive neuromodulation.
Speaking of the role of peer review in science, Pedro thinks it is a critical and essential part of the scientific process. It functions as a quality-control tool where experts in the relevant field evaluate the article constructively. This contributes to a constantly developing and comprehensive literature, with a positive impact not only on the scientific community but also on the general public.
Pedro believes reviewers must have substantial knowledge and experience in the subject area of the article being reviewed. They should also be impartial and honest, and provide constructive feedback within the stipulated timeframe.
“I would like to say that the efforts of scientific reviewers are pivotal to the advancement of science. Although underappreciated, their experience and knowledge are essential for providing direction and improvement to scientific productions, maintaining the highest level of scientific knowledge being generated and providing a solid path for scientific advancement,” says Pedro.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jingwen Yao
Dr. Jingwen Yao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiological Sciences at UCLA and a faculty member of the Physics & Biology in Medicine graduate program. She obtained her M.B.B.S. in China, completed her Ph.D. in Bioengineering at UCLA, and pursued postdoctoral training at UCSF. Her research focuses on developing advanced MRI techniques for brain tumors and other neurological diseases, with a particular interest in creating and validating MRI biomarkers. These biomarkers reflect physiological and pathological tissue properties, aiding in disease progression monitoring and treatment effect assessment. Her work covers sequence development, image acquisition and reconstruction, post-processing, quantitative image analysis, and clinical translation and evaluation. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Yao thinks peer review is critical for maintaining high-quality and trustworthy scientific literature. It ensures findings relied on in research and for future generations are robust, reproducible, and carefully interpreted. It promotes rigor, transparency, and a collective standard for evidence-based research. Personally, participating in peer review sharpens her critical thinking, offers learning opportunities from peers’ work, and reminds her of what constitutes rigorous science, improving her own research.
However, Dr. Yao reckons that high-quality peer review demands significant time and effort but gets limited recognition. Reviewers often participate out of community responsibility or intellectual growth, which are less motivating than other academic activities. This may limit the reviewer pool, delay reviews, but also attract those willing to provide thoughtful input. For improvement, short-term measures include formal credit via platforms like Publons or in academic evaluations. Long-term, integrating structured peer review training into graduate education could help, as reviewing fosters critical thinking and cultivates motivated reviewers. She also anticipates AI tools will reshape peer review, with the scientific community developing effective solutions as technology evolves.
“I have personally benefited tremendously from the thoughtful and constructive reviews I’ve received over the years, and I know many of us feel the same. This sense of gratitude is sometimes what motivates us to contribute as reviewers ourselves. The future of science is shaped not only by groundbreaking discoveries, but also by these behind-the-scenes efforts. Whether your reviews are tough, kind, or both, they shape the direction of scientific fields in meaningful ways. Thank you for showing up and giving your time and insight. Kudos to all the dedicated reviewers who help uphold the integrity and quality of our shared scientific knowledge,” says Dr. Yao.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez
Dr. Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez pursued her studies at the University of Valencia before qualifying as a radiologist in Barcelona, Spain. She later attained fellowship status with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). Since 2011, she has held a consultant position at Auckland Hospital, while also serving as a consultant for the Centre of Advanced MRI, Sonelle, and Allevia Radiology. Her expertise lies in musculoskeletal imaging—a field where she is actively engaged in lecturing and has amassed an extensive publication record. She holds editorial roles with Skeletal Radiology and AJR (American Journal of Roentgenology), and currently serves as the Musculoskeletal Section Editor for European Radiology Experimental. Additionally, she is an honorary lecturer at the University of Auckland’s School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, and maintains active membership in key radiological societies. Her professional involvement extends to leadership roles within prominent organizations: she is a member of the Education Committee of the European Society of Skeletal Radiology (ESSR) and the E-Learning Subcommittee of the European Society of Radiology (ESR). She also currently holds the position of Vice-Chair of the Metabolic and Bone Disease Subcommittee of ESSR, and Co-Chair of the Research and Education Committee of the International Skeletal Society. Learn more about her here.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Gómez: I think peer reviewing is fundamental to science. To the point that science cannot be understood, cannot be advanced without peer reviewing. Peer reviewing plays the role of the antithesis in the scientific method. It adds to the process. It perfects, shapes up, polishes the concepts. It is a way of creating synergy, of multiplying knowledge and analysis power, in the way I see it. When it is thoughtfully done, it is always contributory to advancement.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Gómez: One of the problems is the lack of time of professionals, with increased workload volumes. It takes time to make a good review. It is necessary to read comprehensively, analyze separately, and question constructively. In some cases, reading science is not easy, particularly if there is a language barrier. Scientific work cannot be dismissed on language grounds - not everyone is as fluent in English, for example, and everyone should have the chance to present their scientific work, and have it evaluated on scientific terms. Providing resources to reviewers is always useful, particularly bibliographic ones. A degree of flexibility in timeframes is also useful, keeping in mind acceptance times. Creating templates, or structured analyses for particular types of articles, could also be a good option.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Gómez: It is the possibility to learn, as first motivation. Aside, it is beautiful to contribute towards the advancement of knowledge, and science in general. One learns a lot through peer reviewing, about what is being done in our specialty fields, but also about every aspect of the scientific method. I have learnt from authors, from other peer reviewers, and of course, from editors. It has helped me tremendously to grow on my ways of working, teaching and preparing and presenting my own work. It has opened up horizons for me.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
George F. Steinhardt
George F. Steinhardt, MD, currently serves as a Senior Associate in Pediatric Urology at Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and is also a Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Urology at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. His research interests have spanned various areas within his field. In the realm of clinical research, he has focused on the intersection of urinary tract infection and vesicoureteral reflux. For a long time, his basic science work centered on renal multicystic dysplasia resulting from in utero ureteral obstruction. More recently, he has dedicated his efforts to studying male genital deformities linked to maternal exposure to endocrine-disrupting environmental toxicants.
For the role of peer review in science, Dr. Steinhardt holds a distinct view. He indicates that the printed word has always held significant respect and influence. It is no coincidence that for thousands of years, the most powerful individuals in the world have also had the largest libraries. Medieval history underwent a dramatic transformation due to both the invention of the printing press and the widespread acceptance of the scientific method as a means of discerning truth. He believes that without peer review, there would be no way to distinguish valid publications from worthless junk. Peer review acts as a necessary filter, enabling people to access information that has been properly evaluated by experts in the relevant field.
“I like reviewing articles to stay current and to do my bit to improve the quality of publications in my field. It is in the best interest of us all to devote a small amount of time and energy to review papers and strengthen the quality of works accepted for publication,” says Dr. Steinhardt.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ali K. Z. Tehrani
Dr. Tehrani, who earned his Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, in 2023, focuses his research on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and medical ultrasound. His work emphasizes developing physics-informed AI methods for ultrasound imaging and tissue characterization. Currently, he serves as a Postdoctoral Fellow at Concordia University and a Research Consultant at Massachusetts General Hospital (affiliated with Harvard Medical School). His recent efforts aim to enhance quantitative ultrasound techniques and shear wave elastography using AI, enabling more accurate, non-invasive assessment of tissue properties. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Tehrani highlights that reviewers play a pivotal role in advancing science and maintaining the quality of published papers at an acceptable standard.
In Dr. Tehrani’s opinion, key qualities for reviewers include strong critical thinking skills and a robust ability to analyze and solve problems. Since authors often overlook methodological or conceptual flaws, reviewers must identify these issues to help improve publication quality. In his reviews, he first grasps the research’s broader context and goals, then systematically assesses key questions: the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed methodology, its practical applicability in real-world scenarios, the clinical or practical significance of reported improvements, and the validity of underlying assumptions. Through such evaluations, reviewers provide constructive feedback that strengthens the work’s scientific contribution.
“Reviewing manuscripts is not only a valuable service to the scientific community, but also an excellent opportunity for professional growth. Through the review process, reviewers sharpen their ability to critically evaluate methodologies, identify subtle flaws, and think analytically and creatively. It also offers early exposure to cutting-edge research, allowing reviewers to stay ahead in their field and gain insights that can benefit their own work. I encourage fellow reviewers to see this responsibility not just as a contribution, but as an investment in their own academic development and a meaningful way to support the advancement of science,” says Dr. Tehrani.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Bright Awadh Sangiwa
Dr. Bright Awadh Sangiwa, MBBS, MMed, FCNP-SA, Theranostics-ICPO, is a consultant nuclear medicine physician trained at the University of Stellenbosch’s Tygerberg Hospital, with board certification (FCNP) from the Council of Medicine South Africa (CMSA). He currently serves as head of the Nuclear Medicine and PET-CT centre at Ocean Road Cancer Institute in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and is an honorary lecturer in the Clinical Oncology Department at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS). His interests span all aspects of nuclear medicine, with a special focus on gallium-based diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals and nuclear medicine therapies. He pioneered the use of gallium-based pharmaceuticals in the region, as his centre was the first to establish the use of Ga-68 PMSA/DOTANOC and FAPI. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Speaking of the importance of peer review, Dr. Sangiwa highlights its role in maintaining the overall integrity and quality of research. Peer reviewers identify errors and suggest approaches to meet the highest publication standards, making it a vital process.
However, Dr. Sangiwa points out the limitations of the current peer-review system, such as reviewers lacking honesty, assessing work outside their expertise, and prioritizing quantity over quality in reviews. To improve this, he suggests journals rigorously screen reviewers to ensure research is sent to relevant experts. Conversely, experts should humbly decline reviews if the work is outside their scope, uninteresting, or if they lack sufficient time.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Sangiwa thinks that authors must follow reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE, PRISMA, CARE). These guidelines enable more efficient reviews by providing a uniform, standard approach that ensures research is complete, transparent, and reproducible.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Caitlin Schneider
Caitlin Schneider is the Director of Clinical Development at Sonic Incytes Medical Corp, a Vancouver, BC-based startup founded in 2017 by her PhD supervisors. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering from Johns Hopkins University (2009) and Master’s and PhD degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering from The University of British Columbia (2011, 2017). Her research has focused on ultrasound applications since her undergraduate years, spanning ultrasound, ultrasound elastography, and quantitative ultrasound. Early work involved integrating ultrasound into surgical robotics to enable physicians to "see" and "touch" beneath tissue surfaces in minimally invasive settings. She later collaborated with transplant surgeons to use ultrasound for assessing subclinical transplant rejection, and now focuses primarily on qualitative ultrasound and elastography for evaluating patients with chronic liver disease at Sonic Incytes.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Caitlin: Peer review does allow for an external assessment of the work, to double-check on the relevancy and clarity of the work. I think that this external review is critical to check errors and oversights that the authors might have had. I believe that the process does help to foster a sense of community, as you know when you are writing your own articles that others will be part of the process.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Caitlin: Reviewers need to be able to ask critical questions that the authors may not have thought of themselves. I think it is often a difficult task, though, since as a reviewer, you never have all the data or the whole story. It is all about being able to put the pieces to together and see if there are any holes left. Transparency and honesty are other key qualities. You need to make sure your own bias is not affecting your review. Also, you need to acknowledge what you do and do not understand and how you can use that to improve the paper that you are reviewing.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Caitlin: I do like the feeling of being able to give back to the community. As an author myself, I know that my papers will need this type of review, so I want to give as well as take. I also like to feel like I am part of the latest research. It is great to get a sneak peek at new studies and be able to contribute to making that research better in some way.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Eduardo Domínguez-Adame
Eduardo Domínguez-Adame Lanuza earned his Medicine and Surgery degree at the University of Seville (1983-1989) and specialized in General and Digestive Surgery via a competitive residency at Seville’s Virgen del Rocío University Hospital (1991-1995). He holds a 2009 PhD from the University of Seville with Outstanding Cum Laude, awarded unanimously. His clinical career includes roles as Area Specialist Physician at multiple hospitals in Seville and Cádiz, becoming a Statutory Area Specialist at Seville’s Virgen Macarena University Hospital in 2005 (via national competition). Since 2008, he has served as Head of Section there, leading the Esophagogastric, Metabolic and Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery Unit, with his management consistently rated “excellent”. He contributes to key hospital committees (Ethics, Bariatric, etc.) and has evaluated Andalusian Health Service management roles. In academia, he has taught at the University of Seville since 1991, holding titles from Honorary Collaborating Professor to, since 2024, Associate Professor (via competition). He directs doctoral theses (7 completed, 4 pending), teaches in medicine and dentistry, and has led courses on morbid obesity. Research focuses on portal hypertension, bariatric surgery, and esophageal pathology, with membership in the CTS-544 Group and projects funded by regional and national health bodies. He has trained at London’s St. Mark’s Hospital and Montpellier’s Hôpital Saint Eloi, published 184 articles, and received national/international awards. He is affiliated with major surgical societies and holds expert accreditation in bariatric surgery. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Domínguez-Adame thinks peer review is a cornerstone of scientific integrity, with multifaceted roles in advancing research. He emphasizes its role in quality control: filtering low-quality studies, ensuring methodological rigor through expert scrutiny of experimental design and data analysis, and verifying originality to uphold scientific literature standards. He recognizes peer review’s role in enhancing manuscripts—providing feedback to refine arguments, suggesting improvements like additional experiments, and enforcing ethical standards (e.g., proper citation, transparency in human/animal research). It fosters trust by legitimizing research via expert vetting, supporting cumulative knowledge, and maintaining scientific integrity. It also standardizes communication and encourages dialogue, sparking new insights.
Acknowledging inevitable biases, Dr. Domínguez-Adame supports mitigation strategies like blinded review: single-blind (reviewers know authors), double-blind (mutual anonymity, reducing biases from reputation/affiliation), and rare triple-blind (editors unaware of authors), while noting limitations in specialized fields.
In Dr. Domínguez-Adame’s opinion, motivations to engage in anonymous, unpaid peer review include altruism in giving back to the community, staying updated in his field, refining his own research skills, and gaining indirect professional recognition. Intellectual stimulation and a commitment to preventing flawed science further drive his participation, rooted in the understanding that robust peer review is vital to scientific progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ícaro Agenor Ferreira Oliveira
Dr. Ícaro Agenor Ferreira de Oliveira is the MRI physicist and researcher at the Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (HCFMRP-USP). He developed a strong interest in MRI during his Bachelor's in Medical Physics at USP, where he began working with brain perfusion using the non-invasive Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL) technique—a research area he continued through his Master’s. He earned his PhD from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, conducting research at the Spinoza Centre for Neuroimaging. He then completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Krembil Brain Institute (University Health Network) in Toronto, Canada. His research focuses on developing innovative MRI techniques to study human brain function and physiology. He specializes in ultra-high field (UHF) MRI, functional MRI (fMRI), and quantitative MRI (qMRI), aiming to enhance the sensitivity, specificity, and translational value of neuroimaging biomarkers in both health and disease. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. de Oliveira: Peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. Reviewers help ensure that manuscripts meet high standards of quality, accuracy, and credibility before publication. Beyond this gatekeeping role, peer review also provides a constructive purpose: it offers authors valuable feedback, often guiding them toward more rigorous, refined, and impactful versions of their work. By critically evaluating methods, interpretations, and conclusions, reviewers contribute not only to the improvement of individual manuscripts but also to the overall trustworthiness and progress of science.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. de Oliveira: Reviewers should remember that their role extends beyond simply deciding whether to accept or reject a manuscript. A careful and objective review emphasizes the scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance of the research. Importantly, reviewers should aim to give constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work, regardless of the final editorial decision. The goal is to guide authors toward a more solid, transparent, and impactful manuscript. A good review highlights both strengths and areas for improvement, offering suggestions that are specific, respectful, and based on scientific reasoning. By adopting this approach, reviewers not only enhance the quality of individual papers but also support the overall progress and integrity of the scientific process.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. de Oliveira: I would like to acknowledge and encourage all fellow reviewers who dedicate their time and expertise to advancing science behind the scenes. While peer review is often unpaid and largely invisible, it plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and reliability of scientific research. I find the review process enriching—not only does it sharpen my critical thinking, but I also learn a great deal from the work I review. It’s a unique opportunity to stay connected with cutting-edge developments while contributing meaningfully to the scientific community. Ultimately, peer review is a shared responsibility: just as we rely on reviewers to assess our work, we should take pride in doing the same for others. It’s a community effort that keeps science moving forward.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jing Yuan
Dr. Jing Yuan, MBBS, is a radiology resident in the Singapore Health Services (SingHealth) Regional Health System and a member of the Radiological Sciences Academic Clinical Programme (RADSC ACP) at the SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Academic Medical Center. He received his medical degree from Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (YLLSoM), National University of Singapore (NUS). He is passionate about clinical research, medical education, and quality improvement. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Yuan: Peer review is a key part of the scientific process and helps with quality control. It allows fellow researchers to critically appraise scientific research to ensure it is sound and meaningful. Peer review also offers an opportunity for fellow researchers to provide constructive feedback to one another, which can further improve the quality and rigor of the research.
QIMS: What is so fascinating about peer reviewing?
Dr. Yuan: Peer review offers a unique opportunity to get a sneak preview of new research from your fellow peers, which can be really exciting. You also get a chance to critically assess new research and sometimes even help shape the final manuscript.
QIMS: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Yuan: Yes. Reporting checklists help standardize how research is presented and provide authors with clear guidelines to follow, which improves the overall quality of research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Maurício Fregonesi Barbosa
Dr. Maurício Fregonesi Barbosa earned his medical degree from Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP) in 1996, followed by a residency in Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging at Hospital das Clínicas, Botucatu Medical School (UNESP), completed in 2001. He obtained a Master’s degree in Clinical Radiology in 2006 and a Ph.D. in the same field in 2021, both from the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP). He further enhanced his expertise through a postdoctoral fellowship in Cardiothoracic Imaging at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. He currently serves as Radiologist and Director of the Advanced Center for Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging (CADRI) in Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil. He is also one of the coordinators of the annual national meeting on cardiac radiology. His primary clinical and research interest focuses on the application of myocardial strain analysis by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to optimize patient care and outcomes. Connect with him on X @FMaufbarbosa.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Barbosa: Peer review plays a critical role in science by ensuring the integrity, quality, and credibility of research before it is published. Through this process, experts in the field evaluate the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of a study to identify potential errors, biases, or weaknesses. This not only helps maintain high scientific standards but also fosters improvement by providing authors with constructive feedback and suggestions. By challenging assumptions and raising important questions, peer reviewers contribute to refining the research, making it more robust and reliable. Moreover, peer-reviewed publications are widely regarded as more trustworthy, guiding future research, informing policy, and supporting academic recognition. In this way, peer review acts as both a quality-control mechanism and a vital tool for scientific progress.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Barbosa: An objective review is one that assesses a work based solely on its scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and relevance, without being influenced by personal biases, opinions, or the identities of the authors. To ensure that my review is objective, I focus on whether the research question is well-defined, the methods are appropriate, the data are accurately analyzed, and the conclusions are logically drawn from the results. I avoid letting personal preferences or assumptions about the topic influence my judgment, and I make sure to provide constructive feedback that helps the authors improve their work rather than simply pointing out flaws. If I recognize any conflict of interest or feel that I cannot remain impartial, I would decline the review. Remaining grounded in evidence and committed to fairness is essential for maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Barbosa: Yes, it is very important for authors to disclose any COI. Transparency about potential COIs helps maintain trust in the research process and allows readers, reviewers, and editors to assess the findings with appropriate context. A COI—such as financial ties, personal relationships, or affiliations with organizations that could benefit from the study’s results—does not automatically discredit the research, but failing to disclose it can raise serious ethical concerns. A COI can influence a study at various stages, from how the research question is framed to the interpretation and reporting of results. For instance, financial interests might lead to biased study designs, selective reporting of favorable outcomes, or downplaying of negative findings. Even subconscious bias can affect how data are analyzed or presented. Therefore, full disclosure enables the scientific community to judge the work more fairly and to identify any need for additional scrutiny or independent validation. Ultimately, acknowledging COIs is essential to uphold scientific integrity and public trust.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Andreas Giannakou
Dr. Andreas Giannakou is a board-certified breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He specializes in advanced breast surgery techniques, including skin-sparing mastectomies, nipple-sparing mastectomies, and oncoplastic surgery. His research focuses on implementation science, de-escalation of care, innovation, and artificial intelligence, with a vision to use technology and AI to optimize surgical outcomes and minimize diagnostic procedures. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Giannakou stresses that research is the only path forward, relying on new ideas and bold scientists who ask difficult questions and design trials to answer them. Peer review of each other’s work is crucial to ensure research is conducted safely, properly designed, and executed to address the questions posed. Only then can results be safely extrapolated and applied to real-world populations.
Dr. Giannakou views reviewing others’ work as a great responsibility. His personal approach is to provide honest opinions that highlight not only areas for improvement but also strengths in the research, endorsing researchers for their good work. He believes that being challenged helps unlock new perspectives, and through such constructive interaction, both reviewers and authors gain knowledge and expertise.
Though the burden of being a doctor is heavy, Dr. Giannakou says, “There is always something that needs to be done. Clinical care by default comes first. But Science is equally important. Making time is a skill that comes with experience. When you value something as much as we value science, time happens. Between cases, on a light academic day, or on a calm Sunday morning before anyone else in the house wakes up.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Arjun Krishna
Arjun Krishna is a Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science at Stony Brook University, specializing in generative models for medical imaging and related computer vision applications. With deep expertise in deep learning and generative AI frameworks, he develops synthetic medical imaging technologies across modalities like CT, mammography, and ultrasound. His core research focuses on generative modeling in medical imaging—including diffusion model frameworks to synthesize annotated lung CT and mammography images, which augment and balance training datasets for pathology detection. He has also contributed to low-dose CT simulation and deep reinforcement learning for medical image data augmentation. Arjun serves as a reviewer for high-impact journals such as IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, NPJ Digital Medicine, Communications Medicine, Medical Physics, Theranostics, and Scientific Reports. Leveraging his background in generative AI and medical imaging, he continues to build AI-driven solutions to advance medical imaging and diagnostics. Learn more about him here.
Arjun highlights that peer review acts as the primary quality-control mechanism for publishing scientific findings. Drawing from his own PhD experience, he highlights its practical value: several of his manuscripts on medical imaging were significantly strengthened after reviewers suggested additional experiments. He notes that even a single comment from an anonymous reviewer can uncover critical weaknesses or prompt validation steps authors might have overlooked—ultimately elevating the rigor, reliability, and impact of the research. For him, peer review is not just a checkpoint, but a collaborative process that refines work and ensures it meets the standards of the scientific community.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Arjun stresses the importance of authors adhering to reporting guidelines like STROBE, PRISMA, and CARE. These standards, he explains, exist to ensure research is reported in a transparent, complete, and standardized manner. For medical imaging research—where reproducibility and clarity are critical to translating findings into clinical practice—such guidelines help reviewers (and readers) easily assess methodology, data, and conclusions. They also reduce ambiguity, streamline the review process, and uphold the integrity of the research by ensuring consistent, comprehensive reporting.
“I choose to review for QIMS because the journal’s scope closely aligns with my own expertise. As someone specializing in generative models for radiology, I find it rewarding to engage with manuscripts at the intersection of technical innovation and patient-centric application,” says Arjun.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Artur Chudzik
Dr. Artur Chudzik earned his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the Polish-Japanese Academy of Information Technology, where his research centered on machine learning applications in neurodegenerative disease modeling. He also holds M.Sc. and B.Sc. degrees in Computer Engineering from Rzeszow University of Technology. Currently working as an independent researcher, he explores computational neuroscience and intelligent systems at the intersection of physics and AI. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Chudzik reckons that reviewers should provide clear and honest feedback, even if focused on just a few key points. He notes that it is professional to decline reviewing papers outside one’s area of expertise, and there is no shame in doing so. What matters most, he stresses, is focus, quality, and consistency—regardless of the journal’s prestige. Reviewers should also strive to be fair and thoughtful, particularly when evaluating references or methods.
Dr. Chudzik believes that it is crucial for authors to share their research data. In his opinion, public datasets like ADNI or PPMI, as well as code shared on platforms like GitHub, are tools that help the entire scientific community advance more quickly. Even if the shared code is not perfect, making it available allows others to learn, test, and build upon it. He adds that privacy rules must be followed, especially when working with human data.
“As an author, I think that good feedback is one of the most valuable parts of writing. A considerate review can really help someone grow, and sometimes even change their whole path. It is a big responsibility, but also a real chance to make a difference in someone’s work and in science itself,” says Dr. Chudzik.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Glen Mervyn Blake
Dr. Glen Mervyn Blake is a physicist whose career spans radio astronomy and medical physics. He earned his PhD in radio astronomy before transitioning to the UK NHS, where he began working in medical physics in Sheffield. During this time, he was tasked with reporting on the newly installed EMI CT scanner in Manchester and developed an interest in bone densitometry through collaboration with John Kanis. He later moved to Southampton, contributing to projects like using strontium-89 to treat metastatic bone disease, then to Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London, where he resumed work in bone densitometry at the Osteoporosis Unit under Ignac Fogelman. He also became involved in teaching and supervision at King’s College London. Since retirement, he has remained productive, exploring new areas of medical imaging with collaborators and continuing research and publication efforts.
Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Blake notes that the proliferation of journals has created an unsustainable workload for reviewers, with frequent invitations leading to many refusals. Journals often exploit reviewers’ goodwill, set unrealistically short deadlines to advertise quick turnarounds, and send excessive reminders, disillusioning reviewers—especially when they experience poor service as authors. He suggests publishers offer a fast-track option: authors could enter it if two senior authors volunteer to review one paper each, with their own paper fast-tracked once the reviews are satisfactory. This would incentivize timely reviews.
In addition, Dr. Blake believes that blinding reviewers to authors’ names and institutions is essential to avoid bias. Additionally, reviewers with diverse backgrounds (e.g., a clinician and a scientist) bring complementary skills, ensuring comprehensive coverage of a paper’s topics. As a physicist, he excels at spotting numerical errors and understanding scientific principles but acknowledges limitations in clinical knowledge.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ziyu Shu
Ziyu Shu is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Stony Brook University. He earned his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Florida in 2023. His research interests encompass machine learning, medical imaging, and computer vision—fields he leverages to drive innovation in radiation oncology and diagnostic imaging. Currently, he focuses on three key areas: few-view and limited-angle CT reconstruction (a technique that enhances imaging efficiency while reducing radiation exposure), intensity modulated proton therapy (to optimize precise, tumor-targeted radiation delivery), and the development of an ultra-compact CT system. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Shu: Peer review allows experts in the field to critically evaluate the validity, methodology, and significance of submitted work, helping to prevent the spread of flawed or misleading findings. It also offers authors valuable feedback that can improve the quality of their work. Moreover, peer review enables authors to receive input from individuals working in related but not identical areas, often leading to more comprehensive manuscripts and a broader perspective. For example, authors focused on algorithm development may overlook practical challenges in real-world applications. Conversely, peer review also benefits reviewers by exposing them to the latest research in adjacent fields, helping to expand their own knowledge and inform their future work.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Shu: Your work is the backbone of scientific advancement. Though often unseen and unsung, your thoughtful critiques, careful reading, and intellectual generosity help maintain the rigor and reliability of research worldwide. By lending your time and expertise, you are not only shaping better science but also mentoring the community. Your dedication matters—thank you for being the quiet champions of progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sen Wang
Dr. Sen Wang is a research scientist in the Department of Radiology at Stanford Medicine. His work centers on medical image processing, reconstruction, and recognition technologies. For his Ph.D., he explored X-ray spectral imaging—including photon-counting detector modeling/correction, plus quantitative imaging and deep learning-driven computer vision for X-ray and other medical images. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Wang highlights that peer review safeguards academic publishing quality. A good reviewer must be meticulous and prioritize constructive questions and comments to refine manuscripts.
“The peer-review process may not be as time-consuming as expected. With the knowledge accumulated through daily research, one can become increasingly experienced and efficient in reviewing manuscripts. Additionally, peer review offers a valuable opportunity for me to understand the publication process from a reviewer’s perspective and to better support my own future submissions. I usually try to set aside two time slots of 1–2 hours per week for reviewing papers—first to read them through and form a general impression, and then to draft and finalize my comments the following day,” says Dr. Wang.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kourosh Kalayeh
Dr. Kourosh Kalayeh is a Research Investigator in the Urinary Dynamics & Ultrasound (UDUS) research group, Department of Radiology, at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI, USA. His work sits at the intersection of engineering, computational techniques, and ultrasound imaging—focused on advancing understanding of the urinary tract, its disorders, and their management. By developing quantitative imaging methods and computational models, he aims to translate technical innovation into clinical practice, closing the gap between research and real-world patient care. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Kalayeh points out the key structural limitations of the existing peer-review system:
- Lack of accountability: reviewers typically contribute unpaid, voluntary work, making it hard to enforce consistency, timeliness, or depth—especially as they balance reviews with their own research and teaching. This leads to variable review quality and common delays.
- Bias & volume strain: unconscious bias (tied to authors’ institution, geography, or field prominence) and the growing number of submissions further burden the system.
To improve it, he suggests three actions:
- Meaningful incentives: offer compensation, academic credit, or visible acknowledgment to boost accountability.
- Transparency to reduce bias: expand double-blind or open review practices.
- Reviewer training: provide structured training (especially for early-career scientists) to enhance quality and consistency.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Adam Farag
Dr. Adam Farag, PhD, is a PET-MR physicist at Toronto’s University Health Network and an Assistant Professor affiliated with the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Canada. His research focuses on enhancing PET-MR image quality and quantification accuracy—leveraging novel PET image reconstruction, PET attenuation, and motion correction techniques. He uses MRI anatomical data to guide PET reconstruction for regions like the brain, pelvis, and whole body, optimizing imaging precision. He collaborates with scientists, oncologists, interventionalists, and radiologists to study hypoxia in kidney transplant patients, as well as cancerous and non-cancerous tissue, using tracer kinetic modelling of PET uptake. He is also currently developing quantitative techniques for Alzheimer’s disease research, utilizing hybrid imaging modalities like PET-MR and PET/CT. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Farag reckons that peer review is critical to upholding research quality standards. It validates findings for both the scientific community and the public, anticipates questions readers may later have, and ensures research is genuine and free of errors—acting as a safeguard for scientific integrity. He often reviews during the monthly knowledge development time allocated in his calendar.
To address inevitable biases, Dr. Farag prioritizes two key steps: first, maintaining impartiality toward the manuscript’s theory or topic, while still providing constructive criticism to uphold quality; second, only accepting review requests where he has sufficient experience and confidence in the subject matter—ensuring his assessments are grounded in expertise, not personal bias.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yutaka Natsuaki
Yutaka Natsuaki is an Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology and an ABR Board-Certified Medical Physicist at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. He holds a B.S. in Bio & Agricultural Engineering and a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from UC Davis. With a decade of industry MRI R&D experience at Siemens Healthcare, he contributed to advanced pulse sequence design, image reconstruction algorithms, over 150 publications/presentations, and 7 patents. After completing the UCLA CAMPEP Certificate Program and a medical physics residency at UCSF, he now applies his MR and imaging science expertise to radiation oncology. His research focuses on AI-driven multimodality imaging transformation models, aiming to enhance treatment precision, efficiency, and personalization in radiation oncology. Leveraging his background in MR innovation and clinical medical physics, he is committed to advancing imaging technologies that enable impactful, multidisciplinary cancer care research.
Dr. Natsuaki believes that peer review is a cornerstone of science and scholarly communication. It serves as quality control and a “gatekeeping” mechanism, builds credibility and trust in research, offers scholars constructive feedback for growth, and fosters an academic community. In short, it upholds the reliability, rigor, and reputation of scientific work.
In Dr. Natsuaki’s opinion, key limitations of the current system include:
- Bias: even with blinded reviews, authors’ reputation, institution, country, or gender may influence assessments.
- Lack of transparency/accountability: anonymous, closed reviews hinder fairness checks.
- Inconsistency: variable review approaches lead to uneven feedback.
- High reviewer burden: unpaid, time-consuming volunteer work strains participants.
Improvements could include:
- Open review (publishing reviews with articles) to boost accountability.
- Double/triple-blind review (masking author and reviewer identities) to reduce bias.
- Reviewer training and academic recognition (e.g., badges, ORCID credits) to enhance quality.
In addition, Dr. Natsuaki highlights that an objective review evaluates a manuscript solely on scientific merit—method validity, presentation clarity, and field contribution—ignoring authors’ identity, reputation, or the reviewer’s personal beliefs. It avoids emotional language, focuses on whether the research question is important, methods appropriate, results reliable, and conclusions justified. To ensure objectivity, he focuses on evidence, not authors; identifies and mitigates personal bias; declines reviews if conflicts of interest (e.g., competing research) exist; uses clear journal criteria (novelty, rigor, reproducibility) for evaluation; and provides specific, constructive feedback and maintains professional, neutral language.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Amna Juma Al Jabri
Dr. Amna Al Jabri is an Assistant Professor in the Medical Physics Unit at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), Oman, where she has held an academic role since 2011. She is deeply involved in education: teaching and training SQU’s Medical Physics students, as well as Radiology residents from the Oman Medical Specialty Board, shaping the next generation of medical physics and radiology professionals. Her academic background is distinguished: she holds a PhD in Clinical Medicine from Trinity College Dublin, an MSc in Medical Physics from the University of Glasgow (UK), and a BSc in Physics from SQU. Her research focuses on a critical clinical area—implementing radioactive iodine dosimetry to manage both benign and malignant thyroid diseases. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Al Jabri believes that peer review is vital to upholding scientific integrity. It ensures research protocols and findings are evaluated for accuracy, originality, and methodological rigor by field experts before publication. This process maintains high research standards, prevents flawed results from being shared, and strengthens public trust in scientific outcomes.
According to Dr. Al Jabri, an objective review assesses a manuscript solely on its scientific merit—free from personal bias, institutional affiliations, or preexisting assumptions. To keep her own opinions objective, she focuses on evidence-based evaluation, ensuring feedback is constructive, specific, and centered on enhancing the work’s clarity and scientific quality.
In addition, Dr. Al Jabri deems Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure essential. It fosters transparency, letting reviewers assess potential biases. Undisclosed conflicts risk eroding the credibility of findings and raising doubts about why they were hidden. Full disclosure enables reviewers to uphold the highest scientific integrity standards—a responsibility shared by all researchers, as it directly impacts the scientific community’s overall credibility and reputation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Fathima Fijula Palot Manzil
Fathima Fijula Palot Manzil, MD, is an Associate Professor of Radiology in the Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Before joining Rush, she was the Chief of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), Little Rock, Arkansas, USA. She was also the Program Director for the NuRad pathway (Combined Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Radiology) residency program at UAMS. She has authored several book chapters and is a cover author in the Elsevier books Diagnostic Imaging: Nuclear Medicine 3rd and 4th editions (also available online in STATdx/ExpertConsult.com). She has many peer-reviewed journal articles published, has presented multiple abstracts and presentations at the various Radiology and Nuclear Medicine conferences, has given multiple invited lectures and is a peer reviewer for various journals and meeting abstracts. Her main interest is to explore the physiological aspects of various diseases through functional and metabolic imaging like Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Manzil: Before any article gets published, it should undergo peer review by the experts in the field to ensure that the study is of relevance to the field and to the audience reading it, to make sure the study is not biased and to ensure there is solid evidence supporting the study/article.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Manzil: Many repetitive articles are being published. It is important that the reviewers carefully investigate the data and ensure there is no plagiarism, and the data submitted are not repetitions and are reliable. Also, reviewers should make sure that the articles published are of good quality, and give constructive feedback to the authors to enhance the quality of the article.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes?
Dr. Manzil: Reviewers should be respectful, acknowledge the hard work of the authors, constructively criticize the work if the article is not up to the mark, and provide meaningful suggestions to improve the work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yuta Imai
Dr. Yuta Imai, MD, is a cardiologist at Saiseikai Shiga Hospital in Japan’s Shiga Prefecture, specializing in coronary and peripheral vascular interventions. His expertise centers on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and endovascular therapy (EVT) for complex lesions, guided by advanced imaging tools like optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). His recent research focuses on optimizing PCI strategies for challenging cases: chronic total occlusions, heavily calcified lesions, and patients with chronic kidney disease. Dr. Imai has published numerous case reports and clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals, and actively presents findings at national and international academic meetings. Beyond clinical and research work, he mentors junior physicians, promotes high-quality clinical research, and contributes to peer review to uphold scientific rigor in cardiovascular medicine.
Dr. Imai thinks a healthy peer-review system is transparent, constructive, and fair. It should offer authors clear, actionable feedback to boost their work’s scientific quality (not just point out flaws), balance timeliness (for rapid knowledge sharing) with rigorous standards, and rely on reviewers with relevant expertise—who act without bias and aim to advance the field.
In Dr. Imai’s opinion, reviewers should bear in mind prioritizing manuscript improvement. Critical evaluation is needed, but feedback must be respectful, professional, evidence-based, and specific, with balanced recognition of strengths and weaknesses. Reviewers must also maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, acknowledge their expertise limits (declining reviews outside their core area), and ultimately serve both authors and the broader scientific community.
“Peer review is often an unseen and uncredited contribution, yet it is one of the cornerstones of scientific progress. By offering thoughtful, fair, and constructive feedback, reviewers help ensure the reliability and credibility of published research. Every careful review you provide not only supports the authors but also strengthens the foundation upon which future studies are built. Although it may feel like a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort, your work has a lasting impact on the quality of science. I encourage all reviewers to take pride in this important role and to view it as both a responsibility and a privilege,” says Dr. Imai.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mariama Touray
Dr. Mariama Touray earned her medical degree from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, where she also completed training in internal medicine and cardiology at the University Hospitals of Lausanne and Bern. A Swiss Board-certified cardiologist, she is now in her first year of a fellowship in adult and pediatric/congenital interventional cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center (North Rhine-Westphalia) at the University of Bochum. Her research on adult congenital heart disease has been recognized with the prestigious Otto Hess Trainee Award—an honor bestowed by the Swiss Society of Cardiology for excellence in the field. Beyond clinical and research work, she is deeply committed to advancing healthcare equity and ensuring global access to high-quality cardiology care. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Touray points out three core qualities for effective peer review:
- Deep expertise: a reviewer must have in-depth knowledge of the subject to accurately assess the work’s accuracy and relevance.
- Objectivity and constructiveness: the ability to provide unbiased feedback that highlights both strengths and areas for improvement—rather than just criticism.
- Critical thinking and attention to detail: being able to analyze methodology and conclusions critically, while offering specific ways to enhance the work’s quality.
Dr. Touray believes that data sharing is crucial for scientific progress. It fosters transparency and trust, allowing other researchers to verify findings, compare results, and improve study reproducibility. It also encourages collaboration across teams and accelerates innovation—ultimately driving forward advancements in science and technology.
“It is true that as doctors we take on increasing responsibilities, which makes effective time management essential. When it comes to peer review, I focus on selecting manuscripts that align closely with my domain of expertise, as this allows me to provide high-quality feedback while also making the process intellectually rewarding. Moreover, I view peer review as both a professional duty and a valuable opportunity to remain up to date with the latest developments in my field,” says Dr. Touray.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Carlos Hernández-Pascual
Carlos Hernández-Pascual earned his M.D. in 2002 and completed orthopaedic specialization at Madrid’s “Gregorio Marañón” Hospital in 2008. With over five years as Associate Professor in the University of Salamanca’s Department of Human Anatomy and Histology, and more than a decade in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, he is a seasoned expert in his field. In 2013, he passed the European Board of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EBOT) exam and now serves as an EBOT examiner. His clinical focus lies in osteoporotic fractures and primary total hip/knee arthroplasties. Set to defend his doctoral thesis at the University of Salamanca in September 2025 (based on three JCR-published scientific articles), his research centers on the safety of short intramedullary nailing for osteoporotic extracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Hernández-Pascual highlights peer review’s importance as a meticulous process that demands slow, careful, objective analysis—free from personal interpretations. He believes it should be fast, transparent, fair, and deliver positive feedback to authors, ultimately elevating manuscript quality.
To minimize bias in reviews, Dr. Hernández-Pascual prioritizes objectivity and evaluates each article independently. He leverages anonymous author/affiliation formats (where available) and declines reviews if a conflict of interest arises. Additionally, he stays current in his field via new publication alerts (to maintain scientific rigor) and focuses on statistical analysis—an area of his expertise—to ensure impartial assessments.
“To be honest, peer review is not a very appealing activity, and many of my colleagues do not want to do it... However, having experienced it from the other side, I consider it to be of great importance from an ethical point of view. Furthermore, it can be considered another relevant task of our professional responsibilities and is an opportunity to keep up to date with the latest advances in Orthopaedics, which ultimately benefits my own research and clinical practice.
I usually take time for it on weekends, when I can concentrate without interruptions and maintain my focus on the task,” says Dr. Hernández-Pascual.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Antonio Corvino
Dr. Antonio Corvino, MD, PhD, currently holds the position of Associate Professor of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy at the Department of Medical, Movement and Wellbeing Sciences, University of Naples “Parthenope”, Italy. He received his medical degree in 2008 from the Second University of Naples and completed his residency in Radiology at the University of Naples Federico II in 2014. His research activity focuses on ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in both abdominal and extra-abdominal settings, as part of a diagnostic pathway also including advanced cross-sectional and functional imaging modalities. His main areas of interest encompass hepatic, gastrointestinal, vascular, breast, cutaneous, and musculoskeletal diseases. He has authored or co-authored over 110 peer-reviewed publications (Scopus h-index 22) and has contributed to several editorials and expert commentaries in diagnostic and interventional imaging. He serves on a number of editorial boards and regularly acts as a reviewer for numerous international journals. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Corvino: A qualified reviewer should combine competence, objectivity, and scientific rigor. In addition to subject-matter expertise, it is essential to critically and impartially evaluate the aims, methodology, results, and conclusions of the research, while respecting the authors’ work. A reviewer should be able to provide constructive suggestions to improve the clarity and scientific quality of the manuscript instead of only underlining its shortcomings. Timeliness is also a crucial aspect, as it ensures the timely sharing of scientific results.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Corvino: My motivation arises primarily from a sense of responsibility toward the scientific community: since my own research benefits from the work of reviewers, I consider it my duty to give back this contribution to colleagues worldwide. At the same time, reviewing represents a concrete way to contribute to the quality of the scientific literature, ensuring that published studies meet standards of accuracy and reliability. Peer review is also an opportunity for professional growth, as it allows me to stay updated on the latest developments of imaging and to explore innovative methodologies and approaches, thereby enriching my perspective as both researcher and clinician.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Dr. Corvino: I particularly appreciate QIMS for its focus on novelty and the quality of scientific research, offering an original approach that encourages the quantitative assessment of medical imaging. The journal distinguishes itself by attention to clinical research and openness to multidisciplinary contributions in the field of imaging, thus offering an innovative perspective. Being able to contribute to this mission through peer review represents an added value for me, as it allows me to support the sharing of innovative research while, at the same time, enriching my professional experience. I also recognize the professionalism of the editorial team and value the attention QIMS devotes to its reviewers, which is a tangible sign of the importance attributed to this activity.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hugo Le Boité
Hugo Le Boité is currently a final-year ophthalmology resident specializing in vitreoretinal surgery at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, France, under the mentorship of Professor Aude Couturier. Clinically, he focuses on the diagnosis and management of retinal diseases, including age-related maculopathy, diabetic retinopathy, and retinal vascular occlusions. Surgically, he specializes in the treatment of epiretinal membranes, macular holes, and retinal detachment, in addition to performing cataract surgery. In April 2025, he earned his PhD in Artificial Intelligence. His doctoral research centered on developing deep learning tools for the diagnosis and assessment of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy, leveraging image segmentation techniques. Over the course of this four-year project, he gained a comprehensive understanding of artificial intelligence methodologies and their applications in the medical field—with a particular focus on medical image analysis and computer vision.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Le Boité: Peer review is at the core of scientific publication. The purpose of scientific experiments is to increase humanity's knowledge and understanding of the world and its processes. Each scientific publication should be a brick added to the wall of human knowledge, and therefore should be as solid and validated as possible, as the next experiments could be based on it. The scientific community as a whole relies on the validity of scientific publications to move forward. Peer review becomes a powerful tool to estimate the validity of the proposed methodology, the interpretation of the results or even the scientific context of a specific experiment, and allow the publication of only interesting, well-constructed work respecting scientific integrity.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Le Boité: The main limitation of the current peer-review system is the fact that in most publications, only 2 or 3 reviewers are designated to evaluate the quality of the proposed work, when we could benefit from the opinion of a larger group of experts, in order to limit interpersonal competition, diverging opinions or misunderstandings in the scientific orientation of the work. Open peer-review could be an alternative, as we could benefit from insights from a large community of researchers.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Dr. Le Boité: QIMS, by focusing on the development and validation of imaging techniques and tools for medicine and surgery, is driving the scientific community in the right direction, as imaging is at the core of clinical practice, especially in ophthalmology, and developing adapted and automated tools will allow for a better and more precise medicine.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mira M. Liu
Mira M. Liu is a medical physicist focused on the clinical translation of perfusion and diffusion MRI. Her work centers on developing and applying advanced MRI techniques for physiologic and microstructural imaging—aimed at improving disease detection and prediction—with a focus on kidney fibrosis, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and acute stroke. Key methods she explores include multi-component spectral diffusion, intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI. Currently, she is completing a postdoctoral fellowship at the Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine’s Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, where she studies MRI for kidney transplantation and nephrectomy. Her PhD at the University of Chicago focused on imaging local perfusion in acute stroke using IVIM and local-AIF DSC MRI.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Liu: I regard a healthy peer-review system as a collaboration between scientists working together to ensure scientific rigor, repeatability, context, and clarity. It is a delicate balance that requires the best intentions on all sides. The editor must find appropriate reviewers for promising papers; the authors must perform all experiments, analyses, and representations in good faith; and the reviewers must provide feedback, critique, and questions that are intended only to improve the final paper.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Liu: I believe that reviewers should do their best to only weigh the scientific rigor and clarity of the research presented while recognizing their limitations. I often try reading the methods and results first to develop as unbiased a viewpoint of the study as possible. With focus on study population, study design, and statistical analyses, I can compare my own conclusions from their study to the ones that they argue for. If I don’t understand their conclusions, I do my best to provide suggestions and critiques on what I believe would be needed to reach their conclusions and ask for clarity on the aspects I am not familiar with or were unclear.
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. Liu: I personally believe this is a complex and nuanced question especially regarding patient information and privacy. However, reproducibility is crucial, so I’ve appreciated publications with extensive supplements, and those for which data is available on a moderated archive to ensure that any data are transferred and interpreted openly, safely, and correctly. I am in strong support of completely open-source code, simulations, and phantoms that do not struggle with the same issues of patient information and privacy.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Salar Tayebi
Salar Tayebi obtained his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Biomedical Engineering from Amirkabir University of Technology (2016) and from Vrije Universiteit Brussel–Ghent University (2021), respectively. He received a strategic-basic Ph.D. fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) to pursue his doctoral research on intra-abdominal pressure sensing and measurement methodologies. He is currently affiliated with the Department of Electronics and Informatics at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, where he conducts research on the design, development, and validation of biosensors for various biomedical sensing applications. He is a member of the International Fluid Academy (IFA), the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), and the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE). Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Tayebi: I focus strictly on the scientific quality, originality, and clarity of the work, independent of the authors’ identities, or affiliations. I avoid assumptions and base my evaluation on evidence presented in the manuscript. If I feel any potential bias may influence my judgment, I consciously check my comments to ensure they remain objective, constructive, and consistent with the journal’s guidelines.
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. Tayebi: Yes, I believe data sharing is crucial in modern scientific research. It promotes transparency and reproducibility, which are fundamental for building trust in scientific findings. By making data available, authors allow others to validate results and identify potential errors or limitations. At the same time, shared datasets provide opportunities for new analyses, collaborations, and innovation, accelerating the pace of discovery. Of course, data sharing should be done responsibly, with attention to ethical concerns such as patient privacy and intellectual property. Overall, I see it as a key element in strengthening both the integrity and impact of research.
QIMS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Tayebi: In one review, I initially felt the manuscript had serious limitations, but after carefully re-reading and checking the supplementary materials, I realized some of my concerns were already addressed by the authors. This reminded me of the importance of patience, thoroughness, and giving each submission a fair chance before forming a final judgment.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Chan-Sol Park
Chan-Sol Park, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Human Convergence Health Science, Gachon University, South Korea. His work focuses on brain science, diagnostic imaging, and cerebrovascular diseases, with recent projects dedicated to exploring advanced neuroimaging techniques—aimed at enabling earlier diagnosis and more timely intervention for conditions affecting the brain and its blood vessels.
In Dr. Park’s view, peer review is a vital pillar of science, as it brings diverse perspectives to a study. This diversity allows for rigorous verification of a research’s validity and reliability, while also strengthening the structural completeness of the work—ensuring findings meet standards before entering the broader scientific discourse.
Dr. Park thinks that reviewers must evaluate data through a scientific lens rooted in the research’s actual results, free from personal preferences or conflicts of interest. Crucially, it must also adhere consistently to clear, predefined evaluation criteria—avoiding arbitrary judgments that could skew assessments. To ensure his own reviews are objective, he grounds his feedback strictly in the study’s methodology, data, and conclusions, sets aside personal biases, and aligns his evaluations with established scientific standards.
In addition, Dr. Park reckons that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential for authors, as COI can influence multiple stages of research: from the design of the study and how it is executed, to the formulation of conclusions. By disclosing COIs, researchers uphold transparency—letting the scientific community assess whether external factors might have shaped the work, and thus preserving the credibility of the research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Anya König
Dr. Anya König is a biomechanics-oriented anatomist with a PhD in Human Anatomy from the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Her research integrates anatomy and biomechanics, focusing on orthopaedics, spinal health, and human movement—her doctoral work explored seated Whole-Body Vibration’s effects on spinal biomechanics in an animal model, offering translational musculoskeletal research insights. She currently serves as Specialist Anatomy Consultant and Head of Biomechanics at Clone Robotics (Wrocław, Poland), applying anatomical expertise to model human-like musculoskeletal function. Previously, she contributed to anatomical education and surgical training at the University of Pretoria, managing the Surgical Wet Skills Laboratory and supporting radiographic/clinical anatomy teaching. A published researcher, she has presented at national conferences and earned awards like the Hanno Boon Award and JM Boon Award for anatomy research excellence. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. König thinks that peer review is fundamental to safeguarding research quality and credibility. It ensures studies undergo critical assessment for methodological rigor, reproducibility, and clarity pre-publication. Beyond quality control, it is constructive—helping authors refine work and align research with community standards. Ultimately, it strengthens trust in findings and supports reliable knowledge accumulation.
To reduce the inevitable biases, Dr. König evaluates manuscripts solely on scientific merit, ignoring authors’ identity, affiliation, or reputation. She focuses on sound methodology, reliable data, and justified conclusions. To address unconscious bias, she reflects on her perspectives and checks feedback against objective criteria. If facing potential conflicts of interest or lacking expertise, she recuses herself to uphold fairness.
“My decision to serve as a reviewer for QIMS stems from both my research focus and my commitment to advancing the field of anatomy and biomechanics. QIMS’s interdisciplinary scope—bringing together radiology, imaging, and clinical sciences—aligns closely with my expertise in clinical anatomy, biomechanics, and radiographic interpretation. The journal’s emphasis on translational and applied research resonates with my own work, particularly in orthopaedics and spinal biomechanics, where accurate imaging and anatomical understanding are essential for clinical impact. I view peer review as an opportunity not only to contribute to scientific rigor, but also to stay engaged with emerging research at the intersection of anatomy and imaging. By supporting QIMS, I aim to help maintain high standards of methodological quality and clarity, while also fostering meaningful dialogue between anatomy, biomechanics, and imaging sciences,” says Dr. König.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ranit Karmakar
Dr. Ranit Karmakar is a researcher and data scientist specializing in artificial intelligence, computer vision, and biomedical image and data analysis. He earned his PhD with a focus on medical AI, combining applied machine learning with translational healthcare projects. Following his doctoral studies, he joined Harvard as a researcher. He has also worked in the technology industry and startups. His recent work includes developing frameworks to evaluate the real-world applicability of small language models, building generative AI systems for healthcare and education, and advancing robust methods for image segmentation evaluation. Passionate about bridging research and application, he is also committed to teaching and mentoring, having designed hands-on courses on AI, machine learning, and bioimage analysis. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Karmakar: The current peer-review system is essential but imperfect. It often suffers from delays, inconsistent quality, and a lack of transparency. Reviewers may have unconscious biases, and the anonymous structure sometimes discourages constructive feedback. Moreover, the system relies heavily on unpaid volunteer labor who are already overburdened with work and research. Improvements could include wider adoption of open peer review, broader recognition for reviewers, and structured review frameworks that balance rigor with fairness. As the AI models get better, leveraging systems to assist reviewers can also help with initial checks allowing human reviewers to focus on depth and novelty.
QIMS: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Karmakar: IRB approval is fundamental whenever research involves human participants or sensitive data. It safeguards ethical standards, ensures participant rights and well-being, and upholds public trust in science. Without IRB oversight, research risks violating ethical norms, exposing participants to harm, and undermining the credibility of both the study and the institution. Furthermore, omission can lead to legal consequences, publication retractions, and loss of funding.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profit. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Karmakar: For me, peer reviewing is both a responsibility and a privilege. It is an opportunity to contribute to the collective growth of the field by ensuring research quality and rigor. Reviewing sharpens my own critical thinking, exposes me to emerging ideas, and helps me stay at the forefront of innovation. I see it as a way of giving back to the community that has shaped my own academic and professional journey.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Atsushi Urikura
Dr. Atsushi Urikura is a Professor in the Division of Radiological Technology, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Japan. He is also actively involved in academic societies, serving as Vice President of the Japanese Society of CT Technology and as an editorial board member for both international and domestic journals. His main research focuses on computed tomography (CT) technology, particularly quantification of image quality and radiation dose optimization, including nonlinear image reconstruction (e.g., iterative reconstruction, deep learning-based reconstruction) and spectral shaping techniques. He is committed to advancing CT technology through collaborative research and education, while also contributing as a reviewer and editorial board member to maintain high standards in scientific publications. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Urikura: Peer review is not only a quality-control mechanism but also a constructive and collegial dialogue among researchers. It helps improve the quality of manuscripts and ensures that scientific findings are dependable and valuable for the wider community.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Urikura: An objective review focuses on the scientific content of the manuscript rather than the authors' identity, reputation, or background. To maintain objectivity, I carefully evaluate the study design, methods, results, and conclusions based on established scientific principles and current evidence.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Urikura: My primary motivation is the responsibility to contribute to my scientific community. Peer review not only maintains research integrity but also gives me an opportunity to learn and expand my views. I see it as a reciprocal process. Just as my work benefits from reviewers’ constructive feedback, I feel responsible for providing the same to others.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jack Virostko
Jack Virostko serves as an Associate Professor of Diagnostic Medicine at Dell Medical School, the medical school at The University of Texas at Austin. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Vanderbilt University. Following the completion of his doctorate, he completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science and a Master of Science in Clinical Investigation from Vanderbilt University Medical School. His research uses medical imaging—primarily MRI—to better understand metabolism and oncology. He focuses on quantitative imaging of the pancreas, aiming to better understand and characterize pancreatic pathology. He also serves as Associate Chair of Research for his department and Director of Research for a radiology residency program. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Virostko: A reviewer should be curious – peer review is a chance to learn about the latest science before it reaches the general public. A reviewer should be willing to learn new disciplines and expand their expertise into new areas. A reviewer should be fair and able to balance the strengths and weaknesses of a study while keeping in mind the broader impact of the paper.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Virostko: The peer-review system does not currently align the workload and credit for completing peer review. Good peer review is important for science as a whole – maintaining credibility of science and ensuring the best studies are published in the best journals. But there is no individual reward for good peer review. It is typically anonymous and not recognized. Some journals are piloting publication of reviewers, which may improve this process.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Virostko: Peer review is yeoman’s work – no one knows how hard reviewers work at it or the broad knowledge base required to be a good reviewer. But peer review benefits science and is a crucial part of maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature. Without peer review, our scientific literature would devolve into the current state of social media posts – clickbait designed to get the most attention without any basis in facts.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jin-Ho Joo
Dr. Jin-Ho Joo is an ophthalmologist at Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital and a faculty member at Chung-Ang University College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea. His research focuses on retinal diseases, including age-related macular degeneration, central serous chorioretinopathy, retinal vascular occlusion, and inherited retinal disorders. He has published and reviewed extensively in the fields of optical coherence tomography (OCT), OCT angiography, and advanced imaging technologies, with a strong interest in AI-assisted diagnostics. Recently, Dr. Joo has participated in clinical trials on novel therapies for macular diseases and contributed to several multicenter collaborative studies. Beyond his clinical and research activities, he actively serves as a peer reviewer for international journals, aiming to promote rigorous academic standards and advance evidence-based ophthalmology. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Joo regards a healthy peer-review system as one that ensures fairness, transparency, and constructiveness. It should provide balanced and timely evaluations to help authors refine their work while upholding high scientific and ethical standards. Editors play a crucial role in maintaining objectivity, and reviewers should strive to offer feedback that is both rigorous and supportive—ultimately strengthening the integrity of the academic publishing process.
In Dr. Joo’s opinion, reviewers should remember that they are not only critics but also contributors to the advancement of science. It is important to approach manuscripts with an open and unbiased mind, carefully assess the methodology and validity of the findings, and provide specific, actionable feedback. Respect for the authors’ efforts is essential, and comments should be aimed to guide improvement rather than discourage. Confidentiality and adherence to ethical guidelines must always be observed.
“My main motivation lies in contributing to the scientific community. Peer reviewing allows me to stay updated on the latest research, sharpen my critical thinking skills, and engage with diverse perspectives in my field. Although it is not financially compensated, the process itself is rewarding, as it ensures the dissemination of high-quality science and supports colleagues in presenting their work more effectively. Ultimately, peer review is a form of academic service that strengthens both the discipline and my own professional growth,” says Dr. Joo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marco Fogante
Dr. Marco Fogante, MD, is a Radiologist at the University Hospital of Marche. His primary clinical and research focus is cardio radiology, with a focus on advanced diagnostic techniques to improve early detection of cardiac conditions and patient outcomes. He has worked on projects exploring cardiac CT and MRI, and the integration of radiology into multidisciplinary care pathways, with a particular interest in how precision imaging guides clinical decision-making. Beyond clinical work, he regularly contributes as a reviewer and author for several peer-reviewed journals. He views peer review as both a professional responsibility and an opportunity to stay updated, engage critically with the field, and advance radiological sciences. His work aims to combine clinical practice with academic research to drive innovation and support evidence-based patient care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Fogante thinks that peer review is fundamental to the scientific process. It ensures the quality, accuracy, and reliability of published research by acting as a filter—promoting methodological rigor, strengthening conclusions, and helping authors refine their work. Beyond safeguarding scientific integrity, it also fosters constructive dialogue in the academic community and drives innovation by highlighting areas needing further research.
According to Dr. Fogante, an objective review evaluates work solely on scientific merit, free from personal opinions, affiliations, or preconceived notions. To keep his reviews objective, he focuses on four core elements: the clarity of the research question, the appropriateness of the methodology, the robustness of results, and the soundness of conclusions. He avoids subjective judgments about authors, instead focusing on whether data supports the claims. Transparency, consistency, and respect are key to delivering fair, constructive feedback.
“Balancing clinical responsibilities with research and reviewing can indeed be challenging. I usually dedicate specific time slots during evenings or weekends to complete reviews, treating them as a professional commitment just like patient care or academic duties. Careful time management, prioritization, and a genuine passion for scientific advancement help me integrate peer review into my schedule. I also view reviewing as an opportunity for continuous learning, which makes the effort rewarding and sustainable,” says Dr. Fogante.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Masahiro Sugihara
Masahiro Sugihara, MD, serves as a neurosurgeon at the Department of Neurosurgery, Shinsuma Hospital in Kobe, Japan. His clinical and research focus is on cerebrovascular diseases. Recently, his work has centered on lenticulostriate artery (LSA) aneurysms—lesions that are technically challenging and carry a high risk of hemorrhage. As a research theme, he has undertaken case series and literature reviews on this rare pathology, aiming to clarify its natural history and establish safer endovascular strategies. Through literature reviews, he has also reflected on how neurointerventional specialists have historically devised creative solutions to overcome these challenges, which has reminded him of the importance of accumulating medical research for the advancement of the field.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Sugihara: A manuscript represents the crystallization of an author’s serious research efforts, into which much labor and professional experience have been invested. Peer review is indispensable because it allows other experts to examine the work against their own knowledge and to provide alternative perspectives. This process not only detects potential weaknesses but also refines the work into a more polished and meaningful contribution. In my own experience, when I submitted manuscripts, the revisions I received offered insights from different angles based on the reviewers’ expertise. These constructive comments enabled me to improve my work and make it more valuable for readers.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Sugihara: Having benefited from reviewers’ constructive feedback, I see it as both a responsibility and a privilege to serve in the same role for others. Reviewing allows me to give back to the community, stay updated with new advances, and sharpen my own critical thinking while supporting the progress of scientific communication.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?
Dr. Sugihara: Yes, COI disclosure is essential for transparency and trust. While a COI does not automatically invalidate a study, failure to disclose it can undermine credibility. In rapidly evolving fields such as neurosurgery and endovascular treatment, bias can influence study design, data interpretation, and conclusions. Full disclosure allows fair evaluation of the work and helps protect both scientific integrity and patient welfare.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Qifan Yang
Qifan Yang is a PhD candidate in Computer Science and Engineering at Ohio State University, with a master’s degree in biomedical engineering from the State University of New York at Buffalo. His research focuses on the application and advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across multiple fields, including medical signal processing, medical imagery, networking, and sensing. He has previously explored using AI techniques to support the study and management of neurological diseases like epilepsy, and is currently working on advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) for neurological disease monitoring and treatment, alongside research in remote sensing and networking.
Dr. Yang believes that peer review provides critical informed judgment for research. Peers, with specialized backgrounds, can identify method errors, logical gaps, or over-claims. They understand disciplinary standards to assess originality and have a stake in upholding the field’s rigor, encouraging honest critique. Additionally, as practicing researchers, their feedback is relevant, practical, and grounded in current theory—helping authors meaningfully improve their work.
Dr. Yang points out a key limitation in the current peer-review system: individual reviewers may carry personal biases, knowledge gaps, or inconsistent evaluation standards, leading to unfair or inconsistent assessments. To address this, he suggests journals adopt a baseline rubric or standardized evaluation framework. This rubric would judge all submissions against core criteria (originality, methodological soundness, clarity, significance, ethical integrity, and writing) to boost fairness, transparency, and consistency. It would also guide less experienced reviewers and help authors understand how their work will be assessed.
“Reviewing papers offers researchers real benefits for their own work: by critiquing others’ methods, logic, and presentation, you sharpen your critical thinking and get better at spotting flaws—which improves your own experimental design and writing; you stay up to date with the latest findings and techniques, which can inspire ideas or suggest new directions; seeing what reviewers and editors look for helps you anticipate how to write more clearly, structure your arguments more convincingly, and avoid common pitfalls; and finally, it builds your reputation, network, and credibility in your field,” says Dr. Yang.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Shogo Sawamura
Shogo Sawamura, PhD, is a Lecturer in the Department of Rehabilitation at Heisei College of Health Sciences in Japan, while also serving as a Research Fellow at Hiroshima University. A licensed physical therapist, his academic expertise lies in the application of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to medical education and neurorehabilitation. His recent work includes evaluating the performance of generative AI using national licensing examinations and clinical guidelines in physical therapy. In the field of neuroimaging, he has conducted research on patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness—examining the associations between MRI and FDG-PET findings and clinical outcomes. Looking forward, he aims to explore innovative applications of AI technologies in rehabilitation to enhance both clinical practice and educational methodology, contributing to the advancement of evidence-based strategies that support patients, learners, and the broader healthcare community. Connect with him on X @sawarmbigmac.
Dr. Sawamura believes that a healthy peer-review system balances fairness, transparency, and constructiveness. It must evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, free from bias or prejudice, and provide authors with clear, balanced feedback to improve the rigor and clarity of their work. Timeliness is also essential—respecting authors’ efforts and maintaining journal efficiency—while protecting confidentiality and upholding ethical standards are critical to sustaining trust. Beyond quality assurance, he thinks that peer review should function as a scholarly dialogue: one that supports authors and advances the field as a whole.
In Dr. Sawamura’s opinion, a reviewer needs to combine subject-area expertise with fairness, objectivity, and integrity. Technical knowledge is foundational, but so is the ability to identify both strengths and weaknesses constructively. Reviewers must provide feedback that is respectful, clear, and specific enough to guide authors in strengthening their work. Additionally, upholding confidentiality, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, and meeting timelines to ensure publication efficiency are essential responsibilities. Reviewers should see themselves not just as evaluators, but as contributors to knowledge advancement—supporting authors in producing robust, transparent, and meaningful research for the scientific community.
“I choose to review for QIMS because it is a respected and growing journal that provides a strong platform for quantitative imaging and related medical sciences. Its commitment to rigorous scientific standards and constructive peer review resonates with my own academic values. Reviewing for QIMS allows me to contribute to the scientific community by supporting authors in refining their work, while also keeping me engaged with the latest advances and methodologies in the field. I value the journal’s emphasis on fairness, transparency, and quality, which fosters a positive review culture. Serving as a reviewer for QIMS is both an opportunity to give back to the community and a meaningful way to stay at the forefront of developments in imaging and medical research,” says Dr. Sawamura.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Vincenzo Fiorentino
Dr. Vincenzo Fiorentino is a pathologist and researcher at the Department of Human Pathology of the Adulthood and Developing Age “Gaetano Barresi”, Section of Pathology, University of Messina (Messina, Italy). He earned his medical degree in 2015 and completed his specialization in Pathological Anatomy with honors in 2020 at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Rome. His main research and clinical interests focus on cytopathology, histopathology and molecular pathology particularly regarding thyroid, urological, and head and neck diseases. He has co-authored over 70 peer-reviewed publications, presented at international conferences such as the European Congress of Pathology, and received distinctions including victory at the Cytopathology World Wide Contest during the 22nd International Congress of Cytology. He also contributes as a peer reviewer and serves on the editorial boards of several international journals. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Fiorentino: A healthy peer-review system is one that is fair, transparent, constructive, and timely. It should ensure that manuscripts are evaluated on scientific merit rather than external biases, and that reviewers provide balanced and constructive feedback aimed at improving the work. The system must also protect integrity by minimizing conflicts of interest and encouraging an open and respectful dialogue between authors, reviewers, and editors.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Fiorentino: The current peer-review system can suffer from issues such as delays in the review process, inconsistencies in reviewer quality, potential biases, and lack of transparency. Sometimes, innovative or unconventional ideas are penalized, while well-established but less innovative work is favored. To improve it, journals should encourage double-blind or even open peer review where appropriate, offer training for reviewers to improve consistency and quality, and introduce recognition mechanisms to value the contribution of reviewers. Leveraging technology, such as automated checks for plagiarism and data integrity, can also help strengthen the process.
QIMS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Fiorentino: Balancing clinical, research, and academic duties is certainly challenging. I view peer reviewing as an essential part of my responsibility to the scientific community, so I dedicate specific time slots in my weekly schedule to this activity, usually outside of peak clinical hours. Careful time management and prioritization allow me to contribute effectively without compromising my other commitments. Additionally, reviewing helps me stay updated with the latest advancements, which ultimately benefits my own practice and research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Emeline J. Ribot
Dr. Emeline J. Ribot is a scientist at the Centre de Résonance Magnétique des Systèmes Biologiques (CNRS, University of Bordeaux) in France. She leads the “Innovative MR Technologies” team, where her research focuses on multi-parametric quantitative MRI. Her team develops advanced 3D MR sequences for lesion characterization in all three spatial directions, plus acceleration strategies combined with advanced reconstruction methods. Their work mainly uses T1 and T2 mapping for neuroimaging in humans and small animals, aiming to investigate pathologies and evaluate treatment efficiency. They also optimize these methods for vulnerable patient groups—children, non-breath-holdable individuals, the elderly, and obese patients—via motion correction and fat suppression. Currently, their research expands into low-field MRI, which may boost scanner accessibility, reduce waiting times, and address medical deserts. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ribot indicates that a healthy peer-review system needs reviewers to give thorough, constructive feedback, not judgment. It relies on trust: authors must be honest (avoid cherry-picking data), while reviewers suggest meaningful improvements. No study is perfect—proof-of-concept work, though preliminary, is key for progress. Transparency and integrity from both sides matter, and double-blind review is a major asset for quality.
In Dr. Ribot’s opinion, an objective review assesses only the manuscript’s results, avoiding external biases. Reviewers must be field experts to evaluate technical/scientific aspects accurately—this ensures research quality stands on its own merits.
According to Dr. Ribot, data sharing is crucial. Manuscripts have limited figures, so full cohort images reveal result repeatability and protocol feasibility. Scientific progress needs collaboration: one dataset can aid multiple teams (e.g., improving acquisition, developing AI). Sharing also helps evaluate global image diversity, essential for standardizing protocols.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Joanna Bidzińska
Joanna Bidzińska, PhD, MBA, holds positions at the 2nd Department of Radiology (Medical University of Gdansk) and the Department of Radiology (University Clinical Centre in Gdansk), both in Gdansk, Poland. A scientist with deep expertise in oncology, molecular biology, biotechnology, and drug discovery, she serves as an assistant professor and leads the second-cycle master’s degree program in clinical trials at the Medical University of Gdansk’s 2nd Department of Radiology. At the University Clinical Centre’s Department of Radiology, she heads the Radiographers’ Team. From 2020 to 2023, she coordinated the Pilot National Lung Cancer Screening for Poland’s northern microregion. Her research interests span translational oncology, lung cancer screening and treatment, drug development, clinical trials, AI in medicine, ageing, pain, and neurodegenerative diseases. In 2023, she and her team were awarded the IASLC Cancer Care Team Award. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Bidzińska believes that peer review is essential for research, as it upholds quality, credibility, and trust. It provides an independent evaluation, promotes objectivity, and delivers constructive feedback to strengthen studies. Despite a demanding workload, she carves out time for peer review during less intensive research periods or in her free time.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Bidzińska points out that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is very important. Transparency through disclosure is key to maintaining trust and integrity in research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lia Talozzi
Lia Talozzi is a researcher (faculty staff) at the Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma. Her research focuses on integrating neurogenetics and neuroimaging to investigate the biological mechanisms underlying Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. She serves as the Principal Investigator of LATENT-AD (Latent Genetic Configurations Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease: A Comprehensive Embedding Framework for Personalized Risk Factor Assessments), a project funded by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Seal of Excellence – Young Researchers Italy program. In this initiative, she combines structural variant discovery, long-read sequencing, and multi-omics integration with advanced statistical and machine learning models to identify hidden genetic architectures linked to disease susceptibility and progression. Her broader goal is to bridge genomics, proteomics, and imaging within a precision medicine framework for neurodegeneration, while strengthening translational connections between key research initiatives—including the Stanford ADRC (Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center), ADSP (Alzheimer’s Disease Sequencing Project), and UK Biobank. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Talozzi points out that a major limitation of the existing peer-review system is the limited time availability of researchers. Research schedules are already demanding, and adding peer-review duties can be challenging. To address this, peer review could ideally be integrated into grant timelines or institutional time management plans, and recognized as a professional activity that can be performed during regular working hours—rather than on weekends or while commuting.
In Dr. Talozzi’s opinion, a reviewer should have a publication record in the topic or scientific area of the paper under review. Equally important is honesty, which enables a fair and objective evaluation—free from influence by scientific trends or personal opinions. Respectfulness and politeness in posing questions are also valuable, paired with firmness when raising major concerns. Ultimately, the key balance for a reviewer is to challenge authors constructively: daring to request more details or revisions where necessary, while at the same time acknowledging and respecting the authors’ efforts and achievements in developing the manuscript.
“The motivation of reviewing is to contribute more broadly to scientific advancement. This is not limited to one’s own work but also involves asking questions and raising points that can strengthen the work of others. If there are no major issues or errors in the study’s methodology or rationale, most publications will eventually appear in one journal or another. My goal as a reviewer is to help make this output the best it can be, through constructive comments and by sharing my knowledge,” says Dr. Talozzi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lucas Alexandre Zick
Lucas Alexandre Zick is a Software Engineer, Researcher, and Educator currently affiliated with the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR). Following his Master’s phase in Computer Engineering (CPGEI), he was approved for Direct Doctoral entry, reflecting his accelerated academic performance and setting the start of his PhD for 2025. His primary research interests are concentrated at the intersection of Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Computer Vision, and Human-Computer Interaction, focusing on intelligent control systems. As a Researcher at LABIND/UDESC CEPLAN, Lucas contributes to advanced system development, including projects in multi-robot teleoperation. He possesses a multidisciplinary background, which includes industry experience as a Software Engineer, a Bachelor’s degree from UDESC, and academic studies conducted at Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft (HTW) Berlin. His trajectory is supported by multiple merit-based scholarships.
Dr. Zick reckons that the essential function of peer review is to serve as a fundamental pillar of scientific validation and quality assurance. It is a mandatory process in scholarly communication, wherein a work is scrutinized by subject-matter experts prior to publication. This rigorous assessment ensures the validity, originality, and methodological soundness of the research, thereby maintaining the integrity and credibility of the scientific record.
According to Dr. Zick, disclosing a Conflict of Interest (COI) is crucial. A COI introduces the risk of bias—even unconscious bias—that can significantly influence the research process. This potential for influence exists across multiple stages: study design, data selection and interpretation, and the decision to publish or withhold specific results. Empirical evidence indicates that financial COIs, in particular, correlate with more favorable study outcomes, making transparency about such conflicts essential for maintaining research credibility.
“My participation in peer review is driven primarily by professional duty and intellectual reciprocity. As active members of the scientific community, we recognize that we rely on the expertise and time of our peers to critically evaluate our own work. Therefore, contributing to the review process is a necessary reciprocal commitment to upholding the quality standards of our discipline. Furthermore, it offers significant ancillary benefits, such as gaining early access to novel research and continuously sharpening one’s critical analytical skills,” says Dr. Zick.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Patiwet Wuttisarnwattana
Dr. Patiwet Wuttisarnwattana is an Associate Professor of Computer Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at Chiang Mai University, Thailand, and affiliated with the Biomedical Engineering Institute. He earned his Ph.D. and M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from Case Western Reserve University, USA, where he specialized in cryo-imaging technology for tracking stem cells and immunological cells in disease mouse models. Currently, he leads two major initiatives: AIDOC, his proprietary AI platform for oral cancer detection—deployed across nine Thai provinces under appointment by Thailand's Department of Health—and eDENT-ELDER, a strategic fund project developing senior-friendly AI screening platforms. His research spans fundamental cryo-imaging (published in Nature Scientific Reports and IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging) to applied AI systems, which have demonstrated 1.29% oral cancer detection rates in real-world deployment (MEDINFO 2025). With over 100 peer reviews for top journals including Medical Image Analysis and QIMS, and as an IEEE Senior Member, he actively advances the field through scholarly review and conference leadership. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Wuttisarnwattana: Peer review safeguards patient safety in quantitative medical imaging. Through reviewing over 100 manuscripts for journals like Medical Image Analysis and IEEE TNNLS, I've witnessed its critical role in preventing premature clinical translation. In medical imaging AI, we aren't merely evaluating algorithms—we're gatekeeping technologies that directly impact diagnosis and treatment. Peer review ensures that reported metrics—sensitivities, IoU scores, segmentation boundary qualities (Hausdorff distance, Boundary F1 score), and AUC values—reflect genuine clinical utility rather than computational novelty. I consistently verify that models undergo testing with patient-specific data splits and demonstrate robustness across diverse clinical environments. The process also enforces reproducibility standards essential for global deployment. Through rigorous review, I've identified models with hidden overfitting that would fail catastrophically when deployed to diverse populations—a crucial consideration given my experience deploying AI across Thailand's varied provinces, where imaging conditions and patient demographics differ significantly from typical training datasets.
QIMS: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Wuttisarnwattana: Constructive reviews advance the science while respecting authors' efforts. From my 100+ reviews spanning conferences like IEEE CAI to journals like QIMS, I've learned that effective feedback is specific and actionable. For instance, when reviewing U-Net variants for medical segmentation, I don't merely note poor performance—I suggest specific architectural modifications, recommend ablation studies, or propose stratified analysis by imaging modality. Destructive reviews dismiss work without substantive rationale or demand impossible additions. Recently, I reviewed a paper claiming superior oral lesion detection using only high-quality clinical images. Rather than rejecting it outright, I suggested validation against my AIDOC platform's diverse dataset, which includes smartphone images captured under suboptimal lighting conditions typical of field deployment. I provided references for cross-device calibration methods and image quality harmonization techniques. The revised submission evolved into a valuable contribution addressing real-world challenges in resource-limited healthcare settings.
QIMS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Wuttisarnwattana: While reviewing for Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, I encountered a manuscript proposing AI-powered oral cancer screening for rural healthcare. The authors achieved 95% accuracy on their dataset but made a critical oversight: their model required 2GB of memory and high-end GPU inference, which is completely impractical for their target setting. Rather than recommending rejection, I recognized the value in their clinical approach and suggested specific solutions: model quantization, knowledge distillation, and pruning techniques that could reduce computational requirements without sacrificing accuracy. I shared references from my own experience deploying AIDOC on basic smartphones across Thai provinces. The authors embraced this feedback, ultimately achieving a 50MB model that runs in 200ms on standard devices while maintaining 92% accuracy. Six months later, they reached out for collaboration, leading to joint research on federated learning for privacy-preserving oral cancer screening across distributed rural clinics. This experience reinforced that peer review, when done constructively, can transform technically sound but practically limited research into genuinely impactful solutions. It also demonstrates how the review process can catalyze unexpected collaborations that advance the field beyond what either party could achieve independently.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Patricia Ulloa
Dr. Patricia Ulloa is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH) Campus Lübeck (Germany)—aligning her work with UKSH’s strength in advanced medical imaging and translational research. Her research centers on advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods for non-invasive human brain analysis, with key interests in the glymphatic system, diffusion MRI, and double diffusion encoding techniques. She has led and supported clinical imaging studies, mentored medical doctoral students, and contributed to multidisciplinary projects bridging engineering, physics, and medicine—reflecting UKSH’s collaborative approach to healthcare innovation. Her recent work includes methodological studies on the reliability of "diffusion along perivascular spaces" for glymphatic function assessment, as well as clinical applications in brain tumors. Internationally recognized, she has received awards from the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) and the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology (ESMRMB). Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ulloa acknowledges peer review’s role in advancing research but points out its key limitations: reviewer bias toward specific topics/methodologies, lack of transparency, and delays in the review process. To improve the current system, she thinks that diversifying reviewer pools by including both experienced and early-career researchers, implementing double-blind reviews, and providing better recognition of reviewers’ contributions could enhance fairness and efficiency. Furthermore, combining constructive criticism with open peer review could encourage increased accountability and transparency.
According to Dr. Ulloa, an objective review evaluates a manuscript solely on scientific merit—focusing on methodology rigor, clarity, and alignment of conclusions with data—independent of authors’ identity, affiliation, or reputation. To ensure her own reviews are objective, she uses four criteria: whether the research question is well-posed, methods are rigorous, study limitations are clearly stated, and conclusions are supported by data. She grounds feedback in evidence and constructive criticism, avoiding personal beliefs.
Dr. Ulloa thinks that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential to maintaining trust in the publication process. Undisclosed conflicts undermine the credibility of both the study and authors, though disclosure itself does not invalidate research. COIs can influence study design, data interpretation, and result reporting; clear disclosure allows readers and reviewers to assess potential biases and interpret findings with appropriate caution. For reviewers, identifying potential overinterpretation of data in cases of disclosed COIs is a key responsibility.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Roujia Wang
Dr. Roujia Wang is an Associate Director of Data Science at Merck & Co., Inc. She earned her Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Duke University, where she developed a molecular imaging platform leveraging surface Hsp90 expression for rapid, on-site breast cancer diagnosis. At Merck, she focuses on advancing computational approaches for preclinical drug safety assessment. Her expertise in medical imaging analysis, machine learning, and computational toxicology supports the development of in silico toxicity models for predictive toxicology and digital pathology methods for quantitative interpretation of drug-induced tissue responses in preclinical studies. She has published extensively across the fields of medical imaging, digital pathology, and computational toxicology and serves as an active reviewer for multiple scientific journals. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Wang: The most important qualities are integrity, critical thinking, and a genuine commitment to advancing science. Upholding research integrity means treating every manuscript with fairness, confidentiality, and respect. A good reviewer should possess the ability to critically assess whether the study’s design, methods, and conclusions are logically and scientifically sound. At the same time, open-mindedness is essential to avoid personal or disciplinary biases and to recognize value in innovative or unconventional ideas. Strong academic grounding and expertise in the relevant field further ensure that feedback is both accurate and constructive. Ultimately, a good reviewer aims not only to evaluate a paper but to help authors strengthen the quality and impact of their work.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Wang: An objective review focuses entirely on the scientific merit of the study rather than the identity, reputation, or affiliation of the authors. I only accept manuscripts that fall within my area of expertise, allowing me to assess the work with both depth and fairness. Before each review, I revisit the reviewer guidelines to ensure that my evaluation aligns with the journal’s expectations. I also make sure to dedicate enough time to read the manuscript thoroughly and reflect on the evidence presented. Staying familiar with recent QIMS publications helps me maintain consistency and a clear understanding of the journal’s scope. My goal is always to provide balanced, evidence-based feedback that supports constructive improvement rather than criticism.
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. Wang: Data sharing is an essential part of maintaining transparency and credibility in modern research. When authors make their data available, it allows others to validate findings, build upon existing work, and promote collective progress in science. While I recognize that data sharing can be challenging in industrial or proprietary contexts, it should be encouraged whenever possible. Responsible data sharing strengthens the integrity of scientific communication and fosters a more open, collaborative research community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sayar Kumar Munshi
Sayar Kumar Munshi is a pediatric cardiac surgeon currently working as a Visiting Instructor in the Department of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery at Stanford University School of Medicine. He completed his medical schooling at the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research, India; post-graduate training in General Surgery at Calcutta National Medical College, India; and post-doctoral training in Cardiothoracic Surgery at Nilratan Sircar Medical College, India. Prior to his current role, he worked as an Associate Consultant in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery at Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi, India. He also pursued advanced fellowship training: in pediatric and adult congenital cardiac surgery at Alder Hey Children's Hospital and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, UK; and in cardiac transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK. His experimental research primarily focuses on two areas: basic science research related to neuroprotection during congenital cardiac surgery, and translational research focusing on pediatric cardiac valve biomechanics and bioengineering, as well as complex biventricular repair.
Dr. Munshi reckons that peer review is the backbone for publication of research work in any journal. Honest and sincere peer review is necessary for important research work to find its platform to reach out people in that domain. This would contribute immensely to the growth and development of any discipline in basic and applied science across the world.
Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, but the peer-review process itself is a great learning process for Dr. Munshi. He indicates that it always adds to his wisdom and keeps him updated about the recent development in his fields . It also gives insight to analyze topics from various angles and to understand the interpretation from others. It challenges his knowledge and analytical power every time and makes him stronger in his domain.
“Peer review is indispensable for the growth and development of a researcher. It gives insights and new ideas, keeps one updated, and has significant positive impact in career progression,” says Dr. Munshi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yixuan Jia
Yixuan Jia, PhD, is a student from the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in the University of Michigan. His recent research projects mainly focus on scientific AI, i.e., applying AI/ML methods to solve scientific problems. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Jia thinks that a good reviewer should be fair, constructive, and detail-oriented. The goal is not only to evaluate the soundness of the work but also to help authors improve it. A reviewer should understand both the technical depth and broader motivation of the paper, recognize genuine contributions, and provide clear, actionable feedback. Intellectual humility is also important: acknowledging when a method or perspective lies outside one’s expertise, and focusing on clarity and reproducibility rather than personal preference.
In Dr. Jia’s opinion, a healthy review system values transparency, accountability, and diversity of perspectives. Reviews should be timely, respectful, and grounded in evidence rather than authority. Editors play a key role by matching papers to qualified reviewers and encouraging open dialogue when opinions differ. Ideally, the process should balance rigor and openness: maintaining high scientific standards while welcoming innovative or unconventional ideas that are well justified.
“I consciously separate my evaluation into objective and interpretive parts. For the objective portion, I first check methodology, data quality, and reproducibility without looking at author names or affiliations; then I consider novelty and clarity. When I sense personal bias—for instance, favoring familiar methods or well-known authors—I pause and ask whether the same standard would apply if the paper came from a different group. I also review my comments before submission to ensure they are factual, respectful, and focused on the work, not the authors,” says Dr. Jia.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yohei Kamikawa
Yohei Kamikawa is a radiological technologist at Oita University Hospital in Oita, Japan. Beyond his clinical responsibilities, he specializes in image quality assessment for PET, gamma cameras, and MRI, alongside medical image engineering and artificial intelligence (AI). His core research focuses on balancing technological reliability with clinical utility in medical imaging, while exploring AI applications to maintain the accuracy of diagnostic devices. Recently, his work has centered on leveraging AI-driven approaches to enhance PET and MRI image quality and diagnostic performance, with long-term goals of developing technologies for AI-powered image enhancement, quality assessment, and segmentation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Kamikawa thinks that peer review is an essential process to ensure the scientific validity of a manuscript. In addition, confirming that a published paper is accessible and understandable to readers is crucial for the development of subsequent research and the advancement of science. Moreover, peer review fosters healthy scholarly debate among researchers and guarantees high-quality scientific communication. In this sense, peer review plays a highly significant role in the scientific process.
An objective review, in Dr. Kamikawa’s view, is one that excludes personal bias or individual experiences and is grounded in scientific evidence. Rather than imposing subjective opinions on the authors’ claims, it is important to evaluate their work based on established scientific knowledge and methodology. To ensure objectivity in his reviews, he makes a conscious effort to communicate with the authors from a scientific standpoint and focus on evaluating the manuscript in a fair and evidence-based manner.
“QIMS is an open-access, peer-reviewed international journal that covers medical imaging modalities such as X-ray, ultrasound, CT, MRI, and nuclear medicine, along with their clinical applications, as well as studies in image processing and medical physics with an emphasis on quantitative approaches. I accepted the review request because the submitted manuscript aligned with my research field. I am sincerely grateful for this valuable opportunity to serve as a reviewer,” says Dr. Kamikawa.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Cynthia Lopes Pereira de Borborema
Cynthia L. P. de Borborema currently serves as a research fellow in abdominal radiology at University Hospitals in Cleveland, OH, USA. She is a board-certified radiologist by the Brazilian Board of Radiology, with specialized training in abdominal, thoracic, and cardiovascular radiology. Beyond her clinical and research work, Dr. de Borborema brings extensive experience in medical education, contributing to the training and development of medical students and residents. Over the years, she has earned multiple awards in recognition of her outstanding research and professional achievements. Her current research focuses on abdominal radiology, with a specific emphasis on prostate imaging. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. de Borborema believes that peer review is a cornerstone of modern science. It acts as a quality-control mechanism to safeguard accuracy, ethical integrity, and relevance, ensuring research meets the highest standards. It also fosters peer collaboration by providing critical feedback—helping researchers refine their work and address gaps that might otherwise be overlooked.
In Dr. de Borborema’s opinion, biases are inevitable, but they can be reduced through objective, critical, and constructive evaluations. Reviewers should avoid conflicts of interest and ideally participate in double-blinded reviews. It is essential to strive for impartiality, apply clear assessment criteria, and remain open to diverse perspectives—all while providing feedback that preserves the manuscript’s originality.
Additionally, Dr. de Borborema reckons that institutional review board (IRB) approval is vital to avoid repeating historical research errors. It is a fundamental step to protect patients’ safety, rights, and data, minimizing potential risks, ensuring informed consent, and guaranteeing research benefits the broader population. Omitting this process can expose patients to serious harm, undermine data quality, and compromise the validity of research results.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
José Ignacio Tudela Martínez
José Ignacio Tudela Martínez, MD, works in the Radiology Department at the Virgen de la Arrixaca University Hospital in Murcia. He also serves as an Honorary Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology, Dentistry, Radiology and Physical Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, and is a member of the Radiology Research Group at the Biomedical Research Institute of Murcia (IMIB). His academic and research interests focus on diagnostic neuroradiology, radiopathological correlations, and medical education. Through his clinical training, academic collaboration, and research activity, he is committed to advancing radiological knowledge and contributing to both patient care and the education of future physicians.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Tudela Martínez: Peer review plays an essential role in maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific publishing. It allows research findings to be evaluated by experts before they become part of the scientific record. In this way, potential methodological flaws, biases, or unsupported claims can be identified, while constructive feedback helps authors strengthen their work. By doing so, peer review supports readers, clinicians, and researchers in accessing reliable information and contributes to the overall integrity of scientific progress.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Tudela Martínez: An ideal reviewer combines research experience, clinical expertise, and strong statistical or analytical knowledge, which is a demanding combination rarely found in a single person. Another limitation is the time required for a thorough review. Most reviewers are active researchers or clinicians with demanding schedules, so peer review often becomes an additional task taken on voluntarily. As a result, the process can be slow, not due to lack of dedication, but because providing a careful and responsible evaluation takes significant effort alongside other duties. To improve the system, journals could encourage collaborative or interdisciplinary reviewing, where different aspects of a manuscript are evaluated by experts in complementary fields. In addition, offering structured reviewer training and providing greater recognition would help motivate reviewers to contribute their best efforts, while also expanding the pool of qualified experts.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Tudela Martínez: Although reviewing often seems invisible, it is an indispensable service to science. By taking time to critically evaluate manuscripts, we protect the integrity of research and help our colleagues present their findings with greater rigor and clarity. Even if it feels like a hidden effort, every thoughtful review contributes to advancing science and improving patient care.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Katrina L Falk
Katrina L. Falk is currently pursuing an MD/PhD through the Medical Scientist Training Program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Upon graduation in 2027, she will start a Radiology residency program and aims to be a physician-scientist devoted to improving the lives of patients through biomedical engineering research, technology development, and innovation. Before embarking on her dual-degree journey, Katrina gained hands-on translational and clinical research experience at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, and at UW-Madison. During her master’s degree, she studied fluid dynamics in the fields of Neuro-interventional Radiology and Maternal and Fetal Medicine. During her PhD training, Katrina is deeply involved in pioneering preclinical research around histotripsy—a non-invasive focused ultrasound technique for targeted tissue destruction. Her publications span topics from improving registration in cone-beam CT–guided histotripsy, finding solutions to improve targeting of hard-to-visualize tumors, and answering clinical problems to improve workflow. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Katrina: Peer-reviewed science is essential to ensure quality, accurate and meaningful work is being conducted and shared. It provides a helpful assessment of your work from colleagues in your field and motivates you to strive for excellence. Peer review allows science to advance reliably and responsibly.
QIMS: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Katrina: The recent addition of data sharing outlets for published work is helpful for the scientific community to support each other and work together for a common goal. Collaboration is key in science and having open lines of communication for how the work was completed is a step in the right direction to achieving greater discoveries in the future.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Katrina: Being a part of the scientific community is a privilege and a responsibility. We are at the cutting edge of discovery which is pivotal to advance knowledge for humanity. In order to do this work, we must not only conduct the research and share it but also be good stewards of the community by supporting and reviewing the work of others. A professor once told me that for every paper we publish, we should review three others, so the system doesn’t collapse. This perspective resonated with me and is something I strive to uphold in my career.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sungin Lee
Sungin Lee, DVM, PhD, serves as an Associate Professor of Small Animal Surgery at Chungbuk National University, Korea. His clinical and research efforts center on oncologic and soft tissue surgery, with a distinct focus on integrating surgical resection with electrochemotherapy (ECT) and advancing tumor immunology and immunotherapy for companion animals. He has also pioneered the application of translational imaging—including indocyanine green fluorescence, short-wave infrared imaging, and PET/CT—to enhance intraoperative guidance and diagnosis. In parallel, Dr. Lee is dedicated to developing innovative surgical instruments, holding patents for devices like the Bidirectional Ureteral Stent (BUS). Beyond research, he actively handles complex surgical referral cases, leveraging these experiences to boost clinical outcomes and enrich the education of veterinary students and graduate researchers. In 2025, his clinical and academic contributions were recognized with an appointment as a De Facto Diplomate of the Asian College of Veterinary Surgeons (AiCVS).
Dr. Lee believes that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific trust. It ensures manuscripts are methodologically sound, ethically compliant, and adds new knowledge to the field. In clinical oncology and surgery—where findings directly impact patient outcomes—peer review is vital for safeguarding accuracy and reliability. Beyond quality control, it is a collaborative process: reviewers help refine ideas, clarify interpretations, and guide authors to strengthen their work. In this way, peer review acts as both a filter and a catalyst, upholding the integrity of scientific literature while driving meaningful progress.
In Dr. Lee’s opinion, reviewers must approach each manuscript with fairness, objectivity, and responsibility. Important considerations include scientific rigor, originality, clinical or translational relevance, and adherence to ethical standards such as patient welfare and research integrity. At the same time, feedback should be constructive, highlighting strengths as well as areas needing improvement. Particularly for early-career researchers, balanced and respectful comments can be transformative. Reviewers should avoid bias based on geography or affiliation and aim to mentor “at a distance,” helping authors improve not only their manuscripts but also their future work.
“Reviewers are the unseen guardians of science. Although the effort is often anonymous and unpaid, each thoughtful critique strengthens the foundation of research and clinical practice. I encourage my fellow reviewers to see this work as a form of service to the scientific community. By investing time and care, we not only ensure high-quality publications but also nurture the growth of authors and the advancement of veterinary and medical sciences. Reviewing is an opportunity to learn, to give back, and to help shape the future of our discipline,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Harry Marshall
Dr. Harry R. Marshall, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Radiology & Radiological Sciences at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and a clinician-scientist specializing in abdominal imaging. His research centers on liver MRI, abbreviated imaging protocols, and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into radiology. He has led prospective clinical trials, including a randomized study evaluating gadoxetate-enhanced abbreviated MRI for colorectal liver metastases. His recent projects focus on building multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) study infrastructure and developing AI-enabled tools for lesion detection, classification, and radiomics analysis. In collaboration with colleagues at Western University, he is working to create a web-based platform that combines image viewing, reader annotation, and statistical analysis—aiming to accelerate clinical trials and radiology education. He has published extensively, delivered invited talks internationally, and remains committed to advancing imaging science through collaborative, translational research. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Marshall: A healthy peer-review system is one where there are sufficient numbers of qualified and willing reviewers so that no single individual is overburdened. Reviewers should have the right expertise to fairly evaluate the work, and the process should be timely, ideally with initial reviews completed within a couple of weeks so authors are not held up unnecessarily. Just as importantly, transparency in editorial decisions and consistent standards across journals help maintain trust in the system. In short, it’s about striking the right balance between rigor, efficiency, and fairness.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Marshall: The key is to provide feedback that is constructive rather than destructive. Reviewers need to recognize the effort and value behind a manuscript while also pointing out areas where clarity, rigor, or methodology can be strengthened. Being overly critical or nit-picking can discourage authors, while being too lenient does little to improve the science. Ideally, a reviewer acts as a thoughtful colleague, helping the author make the paper better, ensuring the science is sound, and keeping in mind that the ultimate goal is to advance knowledge.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Marshall: For me, peer review is both a responsibility and a privilege. It’s a cornerstone of the scientific process, and I believe all researchers have an obligation to contribute. Personally, I find it rewarding because it offers a first look at cutting-edge research, often before it appears publicly. It sharpens my critical thinking, exposes me to new methods and perspectives, and helps me reflect on how I present my own work. Even though it’s not compensated, it’s one of the most direct ways to give back to the community and to help ensure the literature we all rely on is as accurate and useful as possible.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rojine T. Ariani
Dr. Rojine T. Ariani, MD, MS, is a radiation oncology resident physician at the University of California, Los Angeles. She holds dual Bachelor’s degrees in Political Science and Biological Science from the University of Southern California, followed by a Master of Science in Global Medicine and a medical degree from the Keck School of Medicine of USC. Her research interests and ongoing/recent projects focus on four key areas: improving radiation delivery while reducing radiation-related toxicity, integrating advanced imaging techniques into radiation oncology care, advancing cancer survivorship initiatives, and exploring brachytherapy applications in gynecologic malignancies.
In Dr. Ariani’s opinion, a reviewer must combine domain expertise with intellectual humility. First, she thinks that deep familiarity with the subject area allows the reviewer to assess novelty, methodology, and inference rigor. At the same time, humility keeps one open to unconventional ideas and mitigates dismissal of innovative approaches. Objectivity and fairness are essential: the reviewer must judge the science itself, not the reputation of the authors or institutions. To that end, they should actively reflect on potential biases (confirmation bias, institutional bias, methodological preference) and discard them. Clarity and tact in communication also matter, as criticisms are more likely to be heeded when they are precise, constructive, and respectful. The reviewer should point out where improvements are needed, but also highlight strengths and pathways to revise. Finally, timeliness and accountability complete the picture; a reviewer who submits feedback by the deadline and takes responsibility for the quality of that feedback supports the integrity of the publication process.
“Balancing clinical, research, and review duties is challenging, but I consider peer review part of my professional duty. I integrate it deliberately into my workflow. For example, I reserve fixed time blocks dedicated to peer review. I also triage review invitations, and accept only manuscripts that align with my expertise and for which I can add value. That helps prevent overcommitment and ensures I give each review the care it deserves. When my schedule is tight, I decline or defer requests rather than produce superficial reviews. This practice preserves credibility and protects my bandwidth for high-quality contributions. Proactively scheduling, setting boundaries, and selective acceptance allow me to uphold review obligations without compromising other responsibilities,” says Dr. Ariani.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Siavash Swieczkowski-Feiz
Dr. Siavash Swieczkowsk-Feiz is a general surgeon who currently specializes in vascular surgery. His professional interests encompass vascular surgery—including open, endovascular, and hybrid procedures—and endocrine surgery, with a particular focus on managing complex adrenal disorders. Deeply engaged in translational research, he is involved in projects exploring vascular pathologies and surgical outcomes in the field of endocrine surgery. His work seamlessly integrates clinical practice with academic inquiry, centering on enhancing perioperative care and optimizing long-term outcomes for patients undergoing vascular and endocrine procedures. He is committed to advancing minimally invasive surgical techniques and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between vascular and endocrine surgery disciplines. He maintains professional affiliations with the Medical University of Warsaw and the State Medical Institute of the Ministry of Interior and Administration (PIM MSWiA) in Warsaw.
From Dr. Swieczkowsk-Feiz’s clinical and research perspective, peer review stands as a cornerstone for upholding high standards in scientific publications—especially critical in surgical fields where research directly informs patient care. He emphasizes that this process enables fellow experts to rigorously evaluate whether research has been conducted methodologically sound and whether its conclusions are logically consistent with the underlying data. In his view, peer review serves as a vital safeguard by identifying errors, ambiguities, or overinterpretations before findings are published. It functions as a discerning filter, ensuring that only reliable, valuable studies enter the academic and clinical mainstream. Beyond quality control, he notes that reviewers often provide actionable feedback that strengthens authors’ work, elevating the overall quality of surgical research.
Dr. Swieczkowsk-Feiz highlights major flaws in peer review: inherent subjectivity from personal biases (especially in specialized surgical fields), conflicts of interest in tight-knit communities, prolonged timelines that delay critical research translation, and inconsistent review quality due to insufficient effort. To fix these, he proposes structured, type-specific review templates for greater transparency and standardization; mandatory certified training for reviewers in surgical methodologies; and even modest financial compensation to boost motivation and thoroughness. These changes, he argues, would strengthen peer review and better support high-quality surgical research for patient benefit.
“I would like to thank all reviewers for their time, dedication, and contribution to the advancement of science. The work of reviewers often remains unseen, yet it plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality of research. Your expertise and integrity help maintain high publication standards and support young researchers in improving their work. I encourage everyone to continue contributing to this process — with honesty, passion, and the belief that our efforts truly make a difference in the progress of science,” says Dr. Swieczkowsk-Feiz.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Amirhossein Arezoumand
Amirhossein Arezoumand is a Ph.D. student and Graduate Research Assistant at the University of Oklahoma’s School of Computer Science. His research centers on developing advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning systems for medical image and signal analysis, with a focus on stroke risk prediction and cardiac arrhythmia detection. His recent projects include Composite Radiological Tools for Stroke Risk Prediction—which integrates clinical, radiological, and laboratory data for computer-aided diagnosis—and Development of Optimized AI Systems for Early Detection of Pediatric SVT Arrhythmia. Bridging data science, medical imaging, and computational intelligence, his work aims to create interpretable, clinically viable AI models that enhance healthcare outcomes. Learn more about him here.
In Amirhossein’s opinion, peer review serves as the backbone of scientific integrity, ensuring research quality, validity, and credibility through rigorous, independent evaluation by field experts prior to publication. For reviewers, upholding objectivity, confidentiality, and fairness is paramount; feedback should be constructive, unbiased, and focused on the work’s scientific merit, clarity, and relevance, free from personal biases or ethical conflicts.
“I want to take part in peer review because I care about science. By reviewing others' work, I help maintain high research standards and stay updated on new developments in my field. I also support the academic community that reviews my own work,” says Amirhossein.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Frederico Celestino Miranda
Dr. Frederico Miranda, MD, is a board-certified musculoskeletal radiologist with over 15 years of experience at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and Aliança Saúde in São Paulo, Brazil. He completed a clinical fellowship in musculoskeletal radiology at the Instituto Israelita Albert Einstein de Ensino e Pesquisa, where he currently coordinates the postgraduate program in musculoskeletal radiology. He has extensive expertise in MRI and CT of musculoskeletal conditions and sports-related injuries. Deeply committed to medical education, he has lectured to numerous residents, fellows, and postgraduate students, fostering excellence in diagnostic imaging and clinical practice. His current academic focus includes advanced MRI techniques, image quality optimization, and research on musculoskeletal diseases. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Miranda thinks that peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific process, serving as a critical quality-control mechanism that upholds the integrity, validity, and credibility of published research. It enables the evaluation of a study’s rigor, originality, and methodological soundness before publication. Through this process, reviewers identify potential flaws, biases, or gaps, ensuring that only work meeting high scientific and ethical standards enters the scientific record. Peer review also refines manuscripts by providing constructive feedback that enhances clarity, accuracy, and contextual relevance. Beyond its gatekeeping function, it fosters accountability and trust within the scientific community, ensuring that knowledge advances through reproducible, evidence-based contributions.
In Dr. Miranda’s opinion, reviewers must approach each manuscript with objectivity, confidentiality, and a strong commitment to fairness. They should evaluate the study’s originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope while avoiding personal or institutional biases. It is essential to distinguish between major scientific limitations and minor editorial issues, focusing on whether the data support the conclusions and whether ethical standards were met. Reviewers should provide constructive, evidence-based feedback aimed at enhancing the quality of the work rather than discouraging the authors. Respect for confidentiality and timely submission of the review are also key professional responsibilities.
“Balancing clinical and academic responsibilities can be demanding, but I view peer review as both a professional duty and an opportunity for continuous learning. I allocate dedicated time, often on weekends, to conduct reviews thoughtfully and without distraction. I accept review invitations only when I can provide a thorough and timely evaluation, ensuring fairness to authors and editors. Engaging in peer review also strengthens my own scientific rigor, keeping me current with emerging methodologies and evidence in my field,” says Dr. Miranda.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Junhan Zhao
Junhan Zhao is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, Section of Biomedical Informatics, and Center of Data for the Common Good at the University of Chicago, as well as a visiting scientist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. His research group focuses on developing advanced AI methods to link molecular aberrations, pathology patterns, and clinical phenotypes in patients with complex diseases. His academic and professional background is extensive: he completed a biomedical informatics fellowship in medical AI at Harvard Medical School, earned a Ph.D. in computer graphics as a Bilsland Fellowship awardee, and served as a lecturer at Purdue University. He graduated with distinction from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Cornell University for his engineering training, and holds a M.Sc in Biostatistics from Harvard University. As a prolific researcher, he has been first or senior author on high-impact publications in journals including Nature, Nature Communications, Light Science & Applications, Med, and various IEEE journals (TVCG, TIP, TMI, TIM, TCSVT, JBHI). He has also led AI development in early-stage ventures spanning AI, wearable devices, space medicine, stem cell therapy, privacy, and rejuvenation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Zhao’s opinion, peer review is central to maintaining the rigor, credibility, and integrity of science. It encourages constructive scientific discussion, ensuring that new findings are critically evaluated before entering the public domain. Beyond quality control, peer review normally highlights different perspectives, and often helps shape research into a stronger, more impactful contribution. Note that reaching consensus is not always necessary, because innovations often emerge from the unsettlement of established consensus.
Dr. Zhao thinks that peer review is to improve the quality and clarity of the work, not to show off one’s own expertise. Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and actionable feedback that helps authors strengthen their study. When offering critiques or expressing disagreements, it is essential to accompany them with specific suggestions and guidance, so the comments remain productive rather than discouraging.
“Although the demands of research, teaching, and services can be intense, peer review for me is an important part of scientific practice. It is a valuable opportunity to keep myself learning. You don’t know what you don’t know. Reviewing others’ work exposes you to the latest ideas, methods, and perspectives, which helps refresh and expand your own thinking. In this sense, I view peer review as part of continuous study and professional growth rather than an additional burden,” says Dr. Zhao.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marco Parillo
Dr. Marco Parillo is a Radiologist at the Radiology Unit of Rovereto and Arco (Provincial Health Services Agency of Trento, Italy) and an Adjunct Professor in the Bachelor’s Degree Program in Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Techniques at the University of Verona. He graduated in Medicine and Surgery in 2017 and completed his Radiology specialization in 2022 at Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome. In 2023, he earned a second-level Master’s degree in Diagnostic Neuroradiology from Sapienza University of Rome. In 2025, he was awarded the “Magna Cum Laude” prize for an educational poster at the European Congress of Radiology and achieved National Scientific Qualification as Associate Professor in Radiology. He has authored or co-authored 49 scientific publications in international peer-reviewed radiology journals, with research focusing on contrast agents and guidelines in diagnostic radiology. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Parillo, the current peer-review system faces four critical challenges:
- Reviewer overload: rising submission volumes paired with a limited pool of qualified reviewers lead to fatigue, delays, superficial evaluations, and uneven quality across journals.
- Potential bias: institutional, geographical, or confirmation biases can unconsciously influence decisions—especially in competitive academic environments.
- Opacity: traditional single- or double-blind models lack transparency, obscuring reviewer accountability.
- Lack of recognition: peer review is often unpaid and under-recognized, despite being vital to the research ecosystem.
To address these gaps, five targeted actions can be implemented:
- Standardize evaluations with structured review templates and clear journal guidelines, reducing inconsistency in feedback quality.
- Adopt open peer-review models (disclosing reviewer reports or identities) to boost transparency and accountability.
- Launch training programs for early-career researchers to build reviewing skills, ensuring fairness and methodological depth.
- Implement recognition mechanisms—such as reviewer awards, public acknowledgment, or certification programs—to motivate engagement.
- Leverage AI for initial screening (e.g., plagiarism checks, reporting completeness, statistical accuracy) so human reviewers can focus on scientific interpretation.
“I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all reviewers who dedicate their time and expertise to supporting scientific research. Peer reviewing often happens quietly, without recognition, yet it is essential to maintain the quality and credibility of academic publishing. Each thoughtful review helps authors improve their work, ensures methodological soundness, and strengthens the reliability of the scientific record. Being a reviewer also brings personal value. It allows us to stay up to date with new research, to learn from diverse approaches, and to reflect on how others address similar challenges in imaging and data analysis. Reviewing can therefore be seen not only as a service to the community but also as a meaningful part of one’s professional development,” says Dr. Parillo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matheus Dantas de Araújo Barretto
Matheus Dantas de Araújo Barretto is an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon with a Master’s and Doctoral degree, currently serving as a Postdoctoral Researcher in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology at the School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. He is a member of the Brazilian College of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology, a faculty member of the Dentistry Program at Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul, and the professor in charge of the Oral Surgery discipline. His main research areas focus on 3D Virtual Surgical Simulation, Orthognathic Surgery, and the Temporomandibular Joint. Learn more about him here.
Dr. de Araújo Barretto highlights the role of peer review in strengthening science. He reckons that peer review is essential because it helps make science stronger and more reliable. It is not just about spotting mistakes; it is also about improving the quality of the research and encouraging constructive scientific dialogue. Furthermore, peer review helps maintain trust in published science and ensures that what reaches the public and the scientific community meets high standards of quality and ethics.
In Dr. de Araújo Barretto’s opinion, it is very important for authors to be open about any potential conflicts of interest (COI). Being transparent about financial ties, personal connections, or institutional relationships helps readers trust the research and the researchers. A COI does not necessarily mean the study is biased, but hiding it can raise doubts about the work’s objectivity. When authors are upfront about these issues, it shows integrity and respect for the scientific process — and it helps maintain the trust that science depends on.
To fellow reviewers advancing science behind the scenes, he offers encouragement: “Reviewing is both a generous and professional act: we share our time and expertise to help others strengthen their work and to uphold the integrity of scientific research. At the same time, the process allows us to learn from the studies we review, gaining insight into new discoveries and fresh perspectives that help us grow within our own fields of interest.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Naofumi F. Sumitomo
Naofumi F. Sumitomo is affiliated with the Department of Pediatrics at Keio University School of Medicine, Japan. His research focuses on congenital heart defects, echocardiography, medical imaging, arrhythmia, pulmonary hypertension, and the application of artificial intelligence in pediatric cardiology. His recent projects include serving as Principal Investigator of a national survey on protein-losing enteropathy following Fontan surgery in Japan, and as a Committee Member of the Japanese Association of Congenital Heart Disease–Pulmonary Hypertension Registry. He is also a Clinical Research Member in studies applying AI-based ECG diagnosis for school cardiac screening, a Committee Member for the post-marketing clinical use evaluation of a new surgical patch, and a Co-investigator of a multicenter observational study on targeted therapy for pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension in Japan. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Sumitomo, the core of effective peer review is focusing on three key questions: whether the manuscript clearly articulates what the investigators set out to elucidate, what findings they actually uncovered, and how those results may impact clinical practice and society. Keeping these priorities front of mind ensures reviews remain relevant, purposeful, and aligned with the research’s real-world value.
Dr. Sumitomo believes that sincere disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI) is essential. Regardless of whether a researcher has any COIs, maintaining a scientific, objective approach to their work is non-negotiable. While a COI does not inherently invalidate research, full transparency allows reviewers and readers to assess findings with appropriate context, safeguarding the integrity of the research process.
“Given the challenge of finding long, uninterrupted time, I leverage short intervals between daily clinical and research duties to make gradual progress on reviews. A consistent habit I follow is taking notes on every question or observation that arises while reading the manuscript—this approach ensures I capture critical points without relying on extended focus, making the process manageable amid competing demands,” says Dr. Sumitomo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Şenay Mihçin
Dr. Şenay Mihçin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at İzmir Institute of Technology (İYTE), Turkey. Her research focuses on biomechanics, medical device design, and mechanical testing of orthopedic implants—with particular emphasis on hip joint simulators, wear analysis, and ISO 14242-compliant testing systems. She leads experimental and computational studies on implant tribology, motion simulation, and patient-specific design, leveraging additive manufacturing and biocompatible polymers like PEEK. She has coordinated several national and international research projects funded by TÜBİTAK and university BAP programs, including the development of next-generation hip implant testing systems and integrated soaking stations. Her recent work also explores regulatory frameworks and quality management for medical devices in Turkey, aiming to bridge engineering innovation with clinical application and national health technology standards. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Mihçin believes that the current peer-review system is effective for proper research assessment, but there is room for targeted improvement. It can be made more guided to enhance consistency, but this balance is critical—over-guidance would restrict reviewers’ freedom, which is vital for research integrity. The key is to refine structure without stifling independent critical thinking, ensuring reviews remain thoughtful while reducing variability in quality.
According to Dr. Mihçin, reviewers should have a critical eye for high-quality research, and be aware of modern tools to understand if it is real work or produced through AI tools. Additionally, they should have relevant expertise or work experience in the field, and be dedicated to providing feedback to improve the quality of the work.
“Peer review enables monitoring research to achieve higher quality for humanity's benefit, keeps me updated with new advancements, provides critical assessment as a gatekeeper to maintain standards, reciprocates the efforts of others who review my work, and refines my own research for publication,” says Dr. Mihçin.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Vladimir Laletin
Dr. Vladimir Laletin holds a medical degree in Sports and Physical Readaptation Medicine from Saint Petersburg State Medical University and a PhD in Immuno-Oncology from Aix-Marseille University. During his career, he explored pre-clinical and clinical aspects of innovative questions in medicine, ranging from performance-enhancing physiology to mechanisms of cancer cell immune evasion and intracellular immune checkpoints. Building on this multidisciplinary foundation, he has turned his attention to the transformative potential of artificial intelligence and computer vision in radiology. His recent work focuses on clinical AI evaluations for detecting vertebral compression fractures, osteoporosis, atherosclerotic heart disease, and acute conditions such as intracranial hemorrhage, cervical spine fractures, and aortic dissections. Currently, he advances this mission at the young and dynamic radiological AI startup Avicenna.AI, where he strives to bridge medical expertise with technological innovation to enhance diagnostic precision and patient care. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Laletin thinks that the peer-review system faces several challenges that affect its efficiency and fairness. One major issue is the lack of transparency, as the traditional anonymous process can limit accountability and discourage constructive feedback. Additionally, reviewer fatigue and shortage have become serious problems, with the increasing number of submissions overburdening reviewers and reducing the quality and speed of reviews. Furthermore, the limited valorisation of reviewers’ work provides little motivation to engage thoroughly in the process. To address these issues, journals could promote open peer review to increase transparency and offer recognition for reviewers to encourage participation and maintain high standards.
In Dr. Laletin’s opinion, exceptional reviewers must combine deep field expertise, unwavering objectivity, and strict ethical rigor. Their professional knowledge enables accurate assessment of research validity and originality; impartiality ensures bias-free judgments; and adherence to ethics, including confidentiality, upholds the integrity of the process. Additionally, they should provide clear, gentle, and constructive feedback aimed at helping authors refine their manuscripts.
Additionally, Dr. Laletin reckons that institutional review board (IRB) approval is crucial for maintaining ethical and scientific integrity in research, as it safeguards participants’ rights, safety, and well-being. The review process assesses risks, consent procedures, and adherence to ethical standards, helping to prevent legal complications and invalid or unpublishable results. Without IRB approval, participants may be exposed to unnecessary risks, the study could face legal or institutional penalties, and the findings might be deemed invalid, unpublishable, or ineligible for funding, potentially damaging the researchers’ professional reputation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Michael Romann
Michael Romann is a Senior Scientist in Sports Science at the Swiss Federal Institute of Sport Magglingen (SFISM), Federal Office of Sport (BASPO), Switzerland. His research focuses on talent identification and development, youth and elite performance, and the interaction between biological maturation, training load, and long-term athlete development. He has led and contributed to numerous applied research projects and PhD theses in collaboration with national sport federations and high-performance programs, aiming to translate scientific evidence into daily coaching practice and policy. His recent work includes projects on competition design in youth sport, player profiling and monitoring in team sports, and the transfer of strength and conditioning to sport-specific performance. He also serves as a reviewer and editorial board member for several international journals in sport and exercise science. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Romann: Peer review is one of the central quality-control mechanisms of science. It ensures that manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts who can judge whether the research question is relevant, the methodology appropriate, the statistics sound, and the conclusions justified by the data. This process does not guarantee perfection, but it substantially reduces the risk of flawed or misleading work entering the literature. Peer review also has a strong developmental function: good reviews help authors improve the clarity, transparency, and robustness of their manuscripts, and often sharpen the underlying scientific ideas. Finally, peer review underpins trust. Editors, practitioners, policymakers, and the public rely on the idea that published work has undergone critical scrutiny by knowledgeable peers. Without this collective gatekeeping, the scientific record would quickly become noisy, inconsistent, and much less useful for guiding practice and future research.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Romann: The current peer-review system is indispensable but far from perfect. Reviews can be highly variable in quality, from superficial to extremely detailed, and they are influenced by human biases, such as confirmation bias, prestige bias, or preferences for “positive” and novel findings. Work from less well-known institutions, early-career researchers, or non-native English speakers may be judged more harshly. Reviewers are often overloaded, leading to long turnaround times and sometimes rushed reports. Moreover, the system relies heavily on unpaid volunteer work that is only weakly recognized in academic evaluation.
Improvements are possible at several levels. Journals can provide clearer, structured review templates and better guidance and training for reviewers, including on statistics, reporting standards, and ethics. Increasing transparency—through open or at least published, signed reviews—can improve accountability while still protecting junior reviewers when appropriate. Double-blind review may help mitigate some biases, especially regarding authors and institutions. Editorial teams should actively broaden and diversify their reviewer pools in terms of geography, gender, career stage, and methodological expertise. Finally, institutions and funding bodies should explicitly value high-quality review work in hiring, promotion, and grant assessments, turning reviewing into a recognized scholarly contribution rather than invisible labour.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Romann: I would encourage colleagues to see reviewing as part of their identity as scientists, not as an administrative burden. It keeps us up to date with current research, sharpens our critical skills, and gives us a voice in shaping the direction and quality of our discipline. Even if your name is not on the published article, your expertise is embedded in it. Taken together, these invisible contributions are essential for maintaining the credibility and progress of science—especially in applied areas like sport and exercise science, where practitioners and athletes ultimately rely on the robustness of our evidence.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
James A. Rioux
James Rioux is a Research Scientist with Nova Scotia Health (NSH), based in Halifax, Canada. He is also cross-appointed to the departments of Diagnostic Radiology, Physics and Atmospheric Science, and Biomedical Engineering at Dalhousie University. He joined NSH in 2015, after completing his Ph.D. in Physics at Dalhousie and a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University. His research focuses on developing quantitative methods for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), with a particular emphasis on relaxometry—including T1, T2*, and T1ρ mapping—to enhance disease diagnosis. Current research projects include fat-compensated T1 mapping of the liver, T1ρ imaging for glioma and pancreatic cancer, and the application of radiomics for analyzing multi-parametric MR data. He is also interested in using AI/machine learning tools for MRI data reconstruction and explores the intersection of AI and research ethics, a focus that complements his role as co-chair of the NSH Research Ethics Board. Learn more about him here.
Mr. Rioux reckons that peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Its most apparent role is to verify that research is conducted properly, using appropriate methods, and that conclusions are supported by data. However, he notes an equally vital yet often overlooked aspect: ensuring research is clearly communicated. Even if a manuscript has impeccable methods and unassailable conclusions, it will have little field impact if it is incomprehensible due to dense jargon, confusing figures, or misalignment with its target audience. He stresses that, in the era of generative AI, the research community’s obligation to uphold the integrity of published manuscripts. Reviewers must remain vigilant about AI-produced content and advocate for the irreplaceable role of expert review—especially as the industry faces growing temptation to shift review tasks to LLMs and other AI tools. Efficiency gains must never come at the cost of quality, as this would undermine the entire scientific enterprise.
Additionally, Mr. Rioux clarifies that reviewers are not editors. While it is critical to identify areas where information is conveyed incorrectly or ambiguously, rewording a manuscript to match personal preferences falls outside their role. He also distinguishes reviewers from grant panel members, whose responsibility includes assessing impact and "return on investment." For reviewers, if research is conducted rigorously and explained clearly, it merits publication regardless of whether it transforms clinical practice or leads to commercial products.
“Peer review is hardly ever rewarded or recognized, either tangibly or otherwise, but that’s not why we do it. It is a responsibility that should be accepted by anyone who wishes to publish scientific papers themselves. Indeed, we should aspire to be the kind of reviewers that we would want to have overseeing our own work – critical but fair, knowledgeable without being overbearing, and with the intention of elevating a paper rather than trying to hold it back,” says Mr. Rioux.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ahmed Ali Aziz
Dr. Ahmed Ali Aziz is an Internal Medicine Hospitalist Physician at INTEGRIS Health Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and also serves as Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine at Oklahoma State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine in Stillwater, Oklahoma. He is board-certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine. As a physician-researcher in Internal Medicine, he focuses on Gastroenterology and Hepatology. He has authored 38 peer-reviewed publications (cited 46 times) and presented multiple posters at major national scientific conferences. His academic contributions extend to editorial roles: he serves on the editorial boards of two medical journals and acts as a peer reviewer for several others. Additionally, he has served as a judge for the American Medical Association Research Symposium. Being passionate about advancing translational research and multidisciplinary collaboration in digestive and liver diseases, he has multiple research papers pending publication and is leading several projects involving gastroenterology, chronic liver disease, and transplant hepatology. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Aziz believes that a healthy peer-review system centers on scientific rigor rather than personal opinion, with several core components. First, it establishes set, predefined timelines for completing reviews to ensure timely publication of authors’ work. It also prioritizes transparency, ideally operating as a double-blinded system where neither reviewers nor authors know each other’s identities. Additionally, a healthy system promotes constructive feedback—appreciating authors’ efforts while offering targeted suggestions for improvement. It also emphasizes reviewer diversity to minimize bias and requires proactive disclosure of conflicts of interest, ensuring the process remains fair and credible.
In Dr. Aziz’s view, an objective review evaluates a manuscript based solely on scientific rigor and established guidelines, free from personal opinions, preferences, or biases related to the topic, journal, or authors. To ensure his own reviews meet this standard, he first reviews the journal’s peer-review guidelines to align with its specific expectations. He also conducts thorough background research on the manuscript’s topic, grounding his evaluation in current scientific knowledge. He proactively discloses any potential conflicts of interest and rechecks his comments to ensure they align with the latest evidence—steps that safeguard the objectivity of his reviews.
Additionally, Dr. Aziz indicates that data sharing is increasingly crucial for authors. It accelerates scientific progress by enabling other researchers to utilize existing data in their own studies, validate results, conduct follow-up research, and support literature reviews. Beyond advancing knowledge, data sharing enhances the quality and impact of research—making it an essential practice for authors contributing to the scientific community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Almudena Pérez-Lara
Almudena Pérez-Lara is a neuroradiologist at the Regional University Hospital of Málaga and a member of the Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging research group at IBIMA (Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga). She earned her medical degree from the University of Málaga in 2008, completed her radiology residency at the Regional University Hospital of Málaga in 2013, and obtained her PhD in Medicine from the same university in 2016. Additionally, she completed two fellowships at McGill University, specializing in diagnostic neuroradiology and head and neck imaging. She has contributed to numerous research projects and publications focused on the application of artificial intelligence in radiology—particularly in head and neck imaging—as well as studies involving dual-energy CT. Her collaborative work spans international borders, with participation in projects across Canada, the USA, and Spain. By integrating clinical expertise with technological innovation, she aims to advance imaging-based diagnosis and enhance patient care. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Pérez-Lara believes that peer review is a pivotal step in scientific dissemination, enabling specialists from diverse fields to critically assess manuscripts and elevate their quality and validity. It serves as an independent verification of a study’s methodology, clarity, originality, and relevance, ensuring adherence to proper scientific practices. By incorporating complementary perspectives, reviewers assist authors in strengthening their arguments, addressing research gaps, and enhancing the transparency and robustness of their work. Ultimately, peer review guarantees that published studies provide reliable scientific evidence, supporting the responsible advancement of knowledge.
In Dr. Pérez-Lara’s view, an objective review focuses solely on the manuscript's content, ignoring authors and affiliations. She maintains objectivity by evaluating methodology robustness, result clarity and accuracy, and logical conclusions using evidence-based criteria. She differentiates major scientific issues from minor editorial ones, ensures alignment with scientific standards, reflects on personal biases, and avoids unsubstantiated assumptions. Her goal is to provide constructive, fair, consistent feedback that strengthens the work while confirming it advances knowledge meaningfully, justifying publication.
“I choose to review for QIMS because the journal maintains high standards in the field of imaging and medicine and consistently publishes high-quality, innovative research. The editorial process is well organized, transparent, and respectful of reviewers’ efforts. I believe that all physicians share the responsibility to contribute to maintaining a high scientific standard and to actively participate in the peer review process to help improve the quality and rigor of published work. Contributing to QIMS allows me to stay connected with advances in my area while supporting a journal that values rigor, scientific relevance, and constructive academic dialogue,” says Dr. Pérez-Lara.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Eva Aalbregt
Eva Aalbregt is a technical physician and PhD-student in the Amsterdam UMC at the departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine and Vascular Surgery in the Netherlands. She is currently working on (quantitative) MRI for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), with a particular focus on 4D flow MRI. Her research investigates whether MRI can replace the current standard imaging modalities throughout all phases of AAA management including surveillance, preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and postoperative follow-up.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Eva: Peer review plays a central role in science because it helps ensure that research is reliable, clinically relevant and thorough. By having experts in the field evaluating a study before it is published, the scientific community “keeps each other sharp.” Reviewers bring different perspectives and alternative angles that the authors may not have considered. This process encourages researchers to stay critical of their own work and of the work of others. In this way, peer review not only filters scientific output but actively improves the quality of the research itself.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Eva: Yes, it is very important for authors to disclose any COI. Scientific research should always be as impartial and objective as possible. When a COI exists, it may influence how a study is designed, conducted, or interpreted. Even if the research is performed rigorously, the possibility of bias must be transparent. Disclosing COIs ensures that readers can properly interpret the findings. If significant conflicts are present, the scientific work may be viewed as less reliable, and readers or reviewers may weigh the conclusions with greater caution. Transparency does not necessarily invalidate the research, but it is essential for maintaining trust, credibility, and integrity within the scientific community.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Eva: Being part of the reviewing process offers many rewards. As a reviewer, you learn to read more critically, to question methods, and to recognize strong scientific reasoning. You also stay up to date with the latest advancements in your field, often seeing new ideas and innovations before they are widely known. However, it is important to stay close to your area of expertise when reviewing. Not every article is suitable for every reviewer, and accepting only those manuscripts that match your knowledge ensures that your feedback is accurate and fair. But beyond the personal benefits, I believe that all researchers share a responsibility to contribute to peer review. It takes at least two reviewers to publish a paper, and since we all hope to see our own work published, we must also help carry the reviewing workload for others. By doing so, we support the scientific community and help maintain the quality, integrity, and progress of our field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kaori Endo
Dr. Kaori Endo is an orthopedic surgeon, emergency physician, and independent researcher based in Sapporo, Japan. With over 16 years of clinical experience, she specializes in orthopedic trauma, sports medicine, and acute care—blending hands-on clinical practice with academic research. Her recent research focuses on heatstroke, musculoskeletal biomechanics, and evidence synthesis, where she utilizes systematic reviews and meta-analyses to strengthen the evidence base in her fields. Beyond clinical and academic work, she provides consulting for medical innovation projects, supports data-driven healthcare improvement, and actively engages in peer review across multiple international journals. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Endo reckons that peer review plays a dual role in her professional journey: it fosters her growth as a researcher while serving as a key source of motivation for her daily research activities. By engaging critically with others’ work, she refines her own scientific thinking, and the collaborative nature of the process reinforces her commitment to advancing evidence-based practice in orthopedics and emergency care.
Dr. Endo points out three core qualities of effective peer reviewers: fairness, objectivity, and timeliness. She emphasizes that reviewers must possess sufficient expertise to evaluate a manuscript’s methodology and scientific rationale—critical for assessing work in specialized areas like musculoskeletal biomechanics or evidence synthesis. Equally important, she notes, is humility—the ability to recognize limitations in one’s own knowledge. This self-awareness ensures reviewers avoid overstepping their expertise, leading to more credible, respectful evaluations that truly contribute to manuscript improvement.
“When other reviewers point out issues in my scoping reviews that I had also been concerned about, it makes me feel encouraged. On the other hand, receiving a simple rejection can be disappointing. I continue to learn from the depth and detail of reviewers’ comments, and many offer helpful advice, from which I benefit greatly,” says Dr. Endo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Keisho Ryu
Keisho Ryu, MD, PhD, is affiliated with the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at The Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan, and currently serves as Director of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at Tokyo Metropolitan Toshima Hospital. His clinical specialization in orthopedics centers on knee joint surgery, encompassing total knee arthroplasty, knee osteotomy, and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. His recent research focuses on the regeneration of the tendon-bone interface. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree in 2020 with a dissertation titled “Enhancement of tendon-bone interface healing and graft maturation with cylindrical titanium-web (TW) in a miniature swine anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction model: histological and collagen-based analysis”—a study that contributes valuable insights to improving ACL reconstruction outcomes.
Dr. Ryu believes that scientific validity must be the paramount focus for peer reviewers. In his view, reviewers bear the responsibility of objectively evaluating core components of a study to verify its scientific accuracy: the rigor of the research design, the appropriateness of the methodological approaches employed, the validity of statistical analyses, and the consistency between the study’s results and its conclusions. This thorough assessment ensures that only methodologically sound, reliable research progresses through the publication process.
In Dr. Ryu’s opinion, sharing research data is crucial for advancing orthopaedic science. He notes that research confined to specific countries, regions, or ethnic groups inherently carries limitations, as its findings may not be generalizable to broader populations. Data sharing, he argues, is essential for enabling large-scale, multi-cohort studies that can validate findings across diverse groups, identify subtle patterns, and strengthen the evidence base for clinical practices—ultimately leading to more effective, universally applicable orthopaedic treatments.
“Even when a submission receives a revision or rejection decision, the carefully crafted peer-review comments you provide guide authors to refine their work. When authors integrate your insights into their research, it elevates the quality of their findings. Your dedication is vital to advancing our field—please persevere in this important work, knowing it directly fuels stronger science,” says Dr. Ryu.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kentaro Ohara
Dr. Kentaro Ohara is affiliated with the Department of Radiology at Ehime University Hospital. His research focuses on cardiovascular imaging, encompassing key areas such as coronary computed tomography angiography, myocardial computed tomography perfusion, and positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. His recent work and current focus center on optimizing contrast material protocols, investigating coronary artery disease and microvascular dysfunction, and exploring myocardial strain.
Dr. Ohara thinks that peer review is a core safeguard of scientific rigor and credibility. It provides an independent assessment of whether a study’s research question is meaningful, methods are appropriate, data are analyzed correctly, and conclusions logically follow from the results. He notes that effective reviewers go beyond simple "approve" or "reject" decisions: their comments help authors refine their research questions, clarify figures and tables, and honestly acknowledge limitations. In this way, peer review not only filters scientific literature but also actively enhances its quality, ensuring published work becomes more reliable and reproducible over time.
As biases are inevitable in peer review, Dr. Ohara adopts systematic and transparent practices to mitigate their impact. Before reviewing authors’ names, affiliations, or past publications, he focuses on the manuscript’s core elements: research question, study design, imaging protocols, statistical methods, and the alignment between conclusions and data. He also uses a consistent checklist for every submission, evaluating criteria such as the clarity of the clinical question, methodological soundness, analytical robustness, and clinical relevance. This standardized approach ensures uniform standards, regardless of the authors’ identities or institutional backgrounds.
“As an author, I benefit from careful and sometimes quite tough reviews that ultimately make my own work better, so I see reviewing as a way to return that favor. It is also intellectually rewarding: peer review exposes me early to new methods and emerging clinical questions in cardiovascular imaging, and critically appraising these studies helps me refine my own research ideas and clinical thinking. The process continuously sharpens how I design studies, interpret data, and write, which ultimately benefits my patients and trainees. Even though the work is anonymous and not financially compensated, contributing to a more reliable evidence base and helping good science reach publication is, in itself, highly motivating,” says Dr. Ohara.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Koki Takegawa
Koki Takegawa, MD, is a senior researcher at the Department of Medical and Health Information Management, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. He is a clinical cardiologist with a primary background in the intervention of ischemic heart disease and valvular disease, and the management of heart failure. His current work focuses on real-world cardiovascular research using a large nationwide database. His research interests include implementation science, especially the design and evaluation strategies to close evidence–practice gaps and integrate evidence-based care in routine cardiovascular practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Takegawa: Peer review serves both as quality control and as a safeguard of trust in science. When researchers submit a paper, experts in the field examine whether the question is meaningful, the methods are appropriate, the data are handled correctly, and the conclusions are supported by the evidence. They point out errors or weaknesses, suggest ways to clarify the argument, and identify important work that should be cited, so that a rough manuscript becomes a stronger piece of research. The key role of peer review is not only to judge research, but to provide complementary discussion that improves the work. Through this process, the reliability of published findings and the overall quality of scientific knowledge are maintained.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Takegawa: Disclosure of COI is essential for maintaining transparency and trust in research. COI can influence the research design, the interpretation of data, or the way authors present their results, sometimes without their awareness. A COI does not automatically invalidate a study. However, full disclosure allows readers and reviewers to assess possible influences in a critical way and to interpret the findings in an appropriate context. Journals need clear COI policies and a culture of transparency for disclosure. Careful and objective scientific evaluation of each study is fundamental, with or without a COI.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Takegawa: My motivation to participate in peer review stems from a desire to contribute meaningfully to my field—compounded by the realization that this process simultaneously enriches my own research perspective. Throughout the review journey, I frequently witness manuscripts evolve into more rigorous, lucid versions of their initial submissions; this transformation alone makes me feel I have upheld a core professional responsibility. Beyond service to the community, peer review serves as a valuable educational experience for me. It compels me to reflect critically on how I design studies, analyze data, and present research findings—refinements that directly strengthen my own work. Moreover, the anonymous and unpaid nature of the task fosters a more objective environment, free from external pressures, which in turn makes my contribution feel all the more authentic and meaningful.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Koloud N. Alkhamaiseh
Dr. Koloud N. Alkhamaiseh is an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Michigan Technological University. Her research focuses on image processing and machine learning for medical applications, cybersecurity for healthcare systems, HTML parsing, information retrieval, and pattern recognition. She has worked on projects involving automated performance assessment for medical training, secure AI-based decision systems, and the integration of artificial intelligence into educational tools. She is also passionate about innovative teaching practices and frequently incorporates interactive, collaborative learning methods into her courses. Her recent work includes developing AI-driven tools for education and improving hands-on learning in computer networks, artificial intelligence, and programming courses. She continues to explore interdisciplinary applications of computing to address real-world challenges.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Alkhamaiseh: An objective review focuses on the quality, rigor, and contribution of the research rather than personal preferences, relationships, or assumptions. To ensure objectivity, I evaluate the manuscript against clear scholarly standards: originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope. I avoid making judgments based on the authors’ identities, affiliations, or backgrounds, and I ground all comments in evidence from the text. If I notice any bias emerging—positive or negative—I deliberately refocus on the scientific merit, not the author.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Alkhamaiseh: Yes, disclosure of COI is essential for transparency and trust in scientific communication. COI—whether financial, personal, or professional—can shape research design, data interpretation, or reporting. Even unintentional bias can compromise credibility. COI disclosure does not invalidate research, but failing to disclose one can undermine the integrity of both the authors and the publication. Clear disclosures allow reviewers and readers to evaluate the work with full context and protect the integrity of the scientific process.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Alkhamaiseh: I view peer review as a professional responsibility and a way to contribute to the integrity of the academic community. Reviewing strengthens my own research by exposing me to new ideas, methods, and emerging trends. It also helps maintain the quality of published work and supports fellow researchers. I benefit from peer review as an author, so I consider it important to give back through thoughtful and constructive evaluations.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Luk Ping Lam
Dr. Luk Ping Lam is a specialist resident in the Adult Intensive Care Unit at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong. After graduating from the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, she completed specialty training in respiratory medicine, advanced internal medicine, and critical care medicine, and holds a specialist qualification from the Hong Kong College of Physicians and the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. Her clinical practice focuses on respiratory failure and complex critical care, with research interests in diaphragmatic ultrasound and non‑invasive ventilatory support, including high‑flow nasal cannula therapy.
Dr. Lam reckons that peer review provides independent validation of methods, data, and conclusions before findings enter the scholarly record, acting as a quality control gatekeeper that reduces the spread of flawed or irreproducible results. It also improves clarity and usability by pushing authors to explain methods and limitations more clearly, and it helps allocate academic credit and trust within disciplines.
From Dr. Lam’s perspective, the current peer-review system is imperfect and under studied. Peer review can be subjective, inconsistent, and vulnerable to bias (disciplinary, geographic, gender, and career stage biases), and editorial decisions are not always transparent. Reviewers are volunteers facing growing submission volumes, which leads to fatigue, delays, and variable review quality. There is limited evidence about what works best because peer-review practices and outcomes are not systematically recorded or shared.
To improve the system, Dr. Lam believes that normal training programs, recognition (certificates, reviewer credits), and tangible incentives can reduce burnout and raise quality. Clearer editorial policies, open peer review options, and minimum reporting standards would improve accountability and reproducibility. Automated checks for plagiarism, statistics, and data availability can catch routine problems early, letting human reviewers focus on interpretation and novelty. A common data layer for peer-review records and metrics would enable research into which practices improve outcomes. These steps shift gatekeeping from opaque judgment to structured, evidence-based quality assurance.
“Peer review is often unpaid, time-consuming, and underappreciated, yet it is essential to scientific progress. Your careful critiques catch errors, sharpen arguments, and protect the integrity of literature. If you’re feeling stretched, remember that small, constructive feedback often has an outsized impact: a clear comment about methodology, a pointer to a missing control, or a suggestion to improve clarity can change a paper for the better. Advocate for better training and recognition in your community and consider mentoring early career reviewers; this multiplies quality and builds a more resilient system for everyone. Peer review matters because it safeguards trust; it needs reform through transparency, support, and smart tooling; and every reviewer’s contribution, however quiet, advances science,” says Dr. Lam.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Natsumi Kuwabara
Natsumi Kuwabara, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Kyoto University of Medical Science and a radiological technologist specializing in breast imaging. Her core research focuses on image quality assessment, digital breast tomosynthesis, and the technical factors that influence diagnostic performance in mammography.Beyond her research, she is actively involved in clinical and educational activities related to breast ultrasound, contributing to both the advancement of diagnostic technologies and the training of future professionals in the field.
Dr. Kuwabara believes that peer review plays a foundational role in upholding scientific quality. It helps ensure research is accurate, reliable, and conducted in accordance with appropriate scientific standards. By rigorously evaluating a study’s methodologies and data interpretations, peer reviewers not only help authors refine the quality of their manuscripts but also safeguard the integrity of scientific communication—critical in breast imaging, where research directly impacts diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes.
In Dr. Kuwabara’s view, a competent reviewer must possess three core qualities: fairness, objectivity, and specialized knowledge in the relevant field. Equally essential is the ability to provide clear, constructive comments—feedback that guides authors to improve their work while upholding scientific integrity. She actively strives to embody these principles in her own peer-review practice, ensuring her evaluations are both rigorous and supportive.
According to Dr. Kuwabara, Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential for maintaining scientific transparency. Financial or personal interests have the potential to influence key aspects of research, including study design, data interpretation, and result presentation. By disclosing such interests, authors enable readers and reviewers to appropriately assess the potential impact of these factors—ensuring that judgments about the research are grounded in full context and preserving trust in the scientific process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rohit K. Singla
Dr. Rohit Singla is a resident physician with Vancouver Coastal Health and an MD/PhD graduate in Biomedical Engineering from the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on medical imaging and machine learning, with particular expertise in quantitative ultrasound for the kidney. He has led interdisciplinary teams developing diagnostic algorithms, open-access imaging datasets, and image-guidance systems. As a postdoctoral fellow, he works on wearable breast ultrasound technologies to advance women’s health. Dr. Singla is also active in health innovation and strategy, having consulted for venture firms and biotech companies on diligence, market analysis, and platform development. His work has been recognized with top honours including the Vanier Scholarship and awards from the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame and Vancouver Coastal Health. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Singla: It’s a fundamental part of scientific integrity. It provides an independent evaluation of a work’s methodology, validation, and interpretation that ensures published work meets both a journal’s and the scientific field’s standards for rigor, soundness, and ethical conduct. When done appropriately, peer review strengthens the quality of scientific communication and helps maintain trust and credibility in the scientific process.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Singla: Objective reviews evaluate a manuscript based on the quality of its science, rather than who the authors are, the institution, popularity, or personal preferences. It focuses on methods, data reports, analyses, and the interpretation of conclusions. I try to focus on whether the conclusions are supported by data, and whether there are potential sources of error that may have been missed and to apply a consistent level of rigor in my reviews. I also explicitly acknowledge limits in one’s methods from my own personal views on novelty or style. All of this is done in a professional, constructive, and respectful manner. I also aim to acknowledge the work authors put in to making a submission in the first place. It’s hard work doing science!
QIMS: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Singla: Good quality reporting guidelines are essential. They allow for standard comparisons across studies, which in turn improve our ability to perform meta-analyses and draw strong conclusions. It reduces errors or omissions, and clear reporting using guidelines supports responsible translation and trust. For reviewers, guidelines provide a consistent framework to evaluate manuscripts efficiently and fairly. For authors, they help ensure that research is communicated clearly, responsibly, and in line with global scientific best practices.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Saurabh Jindal
Dr. Saurabh Jindal, holding MBBS, MD, and B.Tech degrees, is a Clinical Fellow in Nuclear Medicine and Imaging Informatics at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, USA. He completed his Diagnostic Radiology residency in India and is currently pursuing the American Board of Radiology Alternate Pathway, which includes specialized fellowships in Neuroradiology and Nuclear Medicine. His research focuses on neuroimaging, molecular imaging, and AI-driven educational tools. He has co-authored numerous peer-reviewed publications in neuroradiology and nuclear medicine, presented his work at prestigious conferences such as RSNA, SNMMI, and ARRS, and contributed to NIH-funded projects focused on Alzheimer’s disease imaging. Additionally, he serves on the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Medicine Residents Organization and is passionate about advancing imaging informatics and precision diagnostics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Jindal: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity. It ensures that research findings are critically evaluated for accuracy, validity, and relevance before publication. By engaging experts in the field, peer review helps maintain high standards, prevents dissemination of flawed data, and fosters trust in scientific literature. It also provides constructive feedback that strengthens the quality of research and promotes continuous learning among authors.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Jindal: Current limitations include reviewer fatigue, delays in turnaround time, and occasional bias. Additionally, the process can lack transparency and recognition for reviewers’ efforts. Improvements could include structured reviewer training, use of AI-assisted tools for initial checks, and implementing open or double-blind review models to reduce bias. Recognizing and incentivizing reviewers through formal acknowledgment programs, like QIMS’ initiative, can also enhance engagement and quality.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Jindal: Reviewers are the unsung heroes of scientific progress. Your meticulous work ensures that knowledge shared with the world is accurate and impactful. By dedicating time and expertise, you uphold the integrity of research and inspire innovation. Keep contributing—your efforts shape the future of science and patient care.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Shota Kaburaki
Dr. Shota Kaburaki is a respiratory physician at Nippon Medical School Hospital. His work integrates clinical care and research in interstitial lung diseases, drug-induced lung injury, and advanced bronchoscopic diagnostics like transbronchial lung cryobiopsy.
In Dr. Kaburaki’s opinion, peer review allows other researchers to check whether the question, methods, and conclusions are reasonable and clearly described. It cannot make a study perfect, but it can reduce obvious problems and misunderstandings, so that the final paper is a bit more reliable for readers.
Dr. Kaburaki adheres to a constructive mindset when conducting peer reviews, noting that he always strives to remember his core role: to help improve the manuscript, not to criticize the authors personally. He recognizes that most submissions possess both strengths and areas requiring clarification. To him, a useful review lies in identifying specific, concrete points where minor revisions can enhance the clarity or balance of the study’s message—ensuring the feedback directly contributes to strengthening the paper.
“Given my demanding clinical workload, I’m highly selective, only accepting invitations to review that are directly in my area of expertise. Ultimately, I see it as a way to support my colleagues, but it's also driven by intellectual curiosity and the opportunity to learn, which keeps it from feeling like a chore,” says Dr. Kaburaki.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Taejoon Park
Taejoon Park received his master’s degree from the Catholic University of Daegu in Korea and currently works as a neurosurgeon at Cheju Halla General Hospital, the regional emergency and trauma center and the first training hospital on Jeju Island. He specializes in the treatment of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke—including cerebral aneurysms, vascular malformations (AVM and AVF), and atherosclerotic and non-atherosclerotic vascular diseases—through microsurgical cerebrovascular surgery and endovascular neurosurgery. His recent research focuses on defining treatment criteria for atherosclerotic disease and developing strategies to prevent complications during neurovascular procedures.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Park: Peer review is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of scientific research. A manuscript is like a clock: many gears must work together for it to show the correct time. Authors drive the study forward, and peer reviewers help ensure the research questions, methods, and conclusions reflect the study’s true intent and align with the journal’s standards. In this way, peer review ensures the study is accurate and reliable.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Park: As a practicing clinician, I believe reviewers should assess the potential impact of research on real-world patient care. Research that goes beyond academic curiosity to guide evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment carries greater value and can improve patient outcomes.
QIMS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Park: Reviewers dedicate their time to advancing science while fulfilling responsibilities in various professional fields. Although their work is not always visible, it is essential to the progress of science. I am honored to contribute alongside them.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takuro Ishii
Takuro Ishii is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan. His primary research focus lies in biomedical ultrasonics and photoacoustics, with work spanning three core areas: the development of advanced acoustic imaging architectures, the design of signal-processing frameworks for image-quality enhancement and biological flow measurement, and the translation of emerging imaging technologies to address unmet biomedical and clinical challenges. His recent research projects include multi-scale quantification of complex flow dynamics in arterial and urological diseases, as well as the development of high-frame-rate ultrafast acoustic and photoacoustic imaging systems for microvascular visualization—work that aims to bridge technological innovation and clinical application in diagnostic imaging.
Dr. Ishii thinks that a healthy peer-review system is one that consistently reinforces the journal’s credibility among its readership. Beyond this, it should fulfill the journal’s core responsibilities to both the broader research community and society at large, ensuring that published work meets rigorous scientific standards and delivers tangible value to the field.
In Dr. Ishii’s view, reviewers must recognize that their core role extends beyond critique: it is to help authors communicate their findings in a manner that is clear, rigorous, and accurate, while ensuring the work is accessible and comprehensible to readers with diverse academic and professional backgrounds.
“Authors and reviewers work together to advance scientific knowledge. Contributing to this process is both a professional duty and a meaningful way to support the progress of the field,” says Dr. Ishii.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yasuyuki Mizumori
Dr. Yasuyuki Mizumori, MD, PhD, is a respiratory physician at the National Hospital Organization Himeji Medical Center in Hyogo, Japan. His clinical and research expertise centers on bronchoscopic diagnosis and therapy, with specialized focus on the bronchoscopic management of intractable pneumothorax, endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), diagnostic approaches to peripheral pulmonary lesions, virtual bronchoscopy, and the application of novel airway devices. Beyond clinical practice, Dr. Mizumori is actively engaged in developing innovative bronchial occlusion techniques using silicone spigots. As an organizer of the Respiratory Intervention Seminar in Japan, he plays a key role in advancing professional education in the field and collaborates with experts nationwide to drive progress in bronchoscopic diagnostic technologies.
Dr. Mizumori reckons that peer review is an indispensable safeguard of scientific accuracy and credibility. It serves as a critical filter to prevent the publication of research with flawed methodologies or erroneous interpretations, thereby upholding high standards in medical research—where evidence directly informs clinical decision-making and patient care. In respiratory medicine, this rigor is particularly vital, as it ensures that advancements in bronchoscopic techniques and therapies are grounded in reliable science.
According to Dr. Mizumori, reviewers must prioritize fairness, objectivity, and constructiveness in their evaluations. Their core responsibility is to assess the scientific validity of the work, focusing on the rigor of methods, the validity of data interpretation, and the coherence of conclusions. Reviewers should provide specific, actionable feedback that helps authors refine their manuscripts, while strictly avoiding personal bias and upholding the confidentiality of the peer-review process. This approach ensures that feedback is both meaningful and respectful, contributing to the overall improvement of scientific literature.
“Reviewers play a vital but often unseen role in supporting scientific progress. Thoughtful reviews strengthen research quality and contribute to better clinical practice. I deeply appreciate the dedication of fellow reviewers and encourage them to take pride in their work,” says Dr. Mizumori.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yosuke Nozawa
Dr. Yosuke Nozawa is a vascular and interventional radiologist at Tokyo Dental College Ichikawa General Hospital and is also affiliated with The Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan. His clinical work focuses on endovascular and image-guided procedures, covering a range of conditions and treatments. These clinical procedures include embolization for visceral artery aneurysms and arteriovenous malformations, treatment of endoleaks, angioplasty for peripheral arterial disease and dialysis access, minimally invasive interventions for portal hypertension, and oncologic procedures such as transarterial chemoembolization and cryoablation. His current research centers on the clinical application of the triple coaxial microcatheter system, aiming to enhance precision and safety in complex embolization procedures. He also serves as a reviewer for journals in interventional radiology and cardiovascular imaging.
Dr. Nozawa believes that a qualified reviewer should possess three core qualities: objectivity, conciseness, and constructiveness. He advocates for highlighting the strengths of a manuscript while providing targeted suggestions that help authors move toward acceptance whenever possible. Clear and respectful communication is also essential to ensure feedback is well-received and effectively guides manuscript improvement.
Dr. Nozawa points out key limitations in the existing peer-review system—review outcomes are often variable due to reviewers’ differing perspectives and evaluation criteria. Additionally, the limited pool of available reviewers affects both the consistency of assessments and the efficiency of turnaround times. To address these issues, he suggests two targeted improvements: implementing more standardized review guidelines to align evaluation standards and expanding reviewer recruitment to widen the expert pool—both of which can help reduce variability and streamline the process.
Acknowledging that biases are inevitable, Dr. Nozawa has developed practical strategies to minimize their impact. He focuses strictly on the scientific and clinical content of manuscripts, deliberately avoiding consideration of authors’ affiliations or reputations. To ensure a fair and balanced evaluation, he draws on his own clinical and research experience while supplementing with relevant literature reviews when needed. He also takes other reviewers’ comments into account, using collective insights to mitigate personal biases and enhance the comprehensiveness of his assessment.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yusuke Oshita
Yusuke Oshita, MD, PhD, is an orthopaedic spine surgeon at Showa Medical University Northern Yokohama Hospital in Yokohama, Japan. His clinical and research interests cover a broad spectrum of adult and pediatric spine conditions, including degenerative disorders, spinal infections, metastatic spinal disease, osteoporosis and vertebral fragility, minimally invasive spine surgery, and pediatric atlantoaxial rotatory fixation (AARF). He participates actively in multicenter collaborative studies and contributes to academic endeavors through peer review and presentations at national scientific meetings. His recent work has focused on advancing diagnostic approaches and treatment strategies for spinal infections, metastatic spinal disease, and pediatric AARF, as well as exploring the application of minimally invasive techniques such as unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE). He strives to integrate clinical practice and research to gently advance the standard of spine care.
According to Dr. Oshita, a key limitation of the current peer-review system is the inherent variability in review quality across different reviewers. To enhance consistency, providing clearer, more standardized review guidelines and encouraging broader participation from diverse experts in the field would be effective measures.
Dr. Oshita thinks that reviewers should remain objective, fair, and constructive throughout the evaluation process, while staying mindful of potential biases that may influence their assessments.
Dr. Oshita recalls one notable experience with a manuscript that initially lacked clarity. After targeted requests for clarification were made to the authors, the paper underwent substantial improvements, evolving into a much more coherent and rigorous piece of research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
