In 2026, 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.
Huili Yang, United Imaging Research, USA
Bruno Donegá Constantin, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Gabriele Cordoni, Arnaud de Villeneuve University Hospital, France
Julio J. Contreras, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Konstantin Klambauer, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Monchai Phonlakrai, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Thailand
Nienke P. M. Wassenaar, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands
Ruzanna A. Shushanyan, Yerevan State University, Armenia
Gary Ka Wai Chan, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China
Aviad Rabinowich, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Israel
Christopher Gasparis, Northwell Health, USA
Eduardo Messias Hirano Padrao, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, USA
Lexiaozi Fan, Northwestern University, USA
Luca Costanzo, “G. Rodolico-San Marco” University Hospital, Italy
Taichiro Tokura, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Japan
Tetsuya Shimizu, Nippon Medical School, Japan
Tyler Scullen, Drexel University, Global Neurosciences Institute, USA
Vrushali D Fangal, Harvard Medical School, USA
Yongxin Guo, Virginia Tech-Wake Forest University, USA
Masatoshi Kondo, Kyushu University, Japan
Haruki Fukuda,Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Lukas Lambert, Motol and Homolka University Hospital, Czech Republic
Daisuke Miura, Fukuoka Tokushukai Hospital, Japan
Yonghyun Yoon, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Vicent Hurtado-Oliver, University of Valencia, Spain
Marga Kaiser, Clemenshospital Münster, Germany
Takeshi Miyata, Kokura Memorial Hospital, Japan
Yifan Zheng, Siemens Healthineers, USA
Brahim Mehadji, University of California Davis, USA
Eitaro Umehara, Tsukazaki Hospital, Japan
José Mário Prati, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Brazil
Alin M. Iacob, University of Oviedo, Spain
Dinesh Nyavanandi, Cerevel Therapeut, USA
Kosuke Muto, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan
Manuela Ludovisi, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Alexandre Faure, Sorbonne University, France
Amanda M. Jackson, Washington University, USA
Carlo A. Mallio, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Italy
Eléonore Vermeulen, Paris Brain Institute, France
Gavin P. Winston, Queen’s University, Canada
Manatomo Toyono, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Russell Gardner Witt, University of Virginia, USA
Sidhartha G. Senapati, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, USA
Stephanie Yuka Matwijszyn Nagano, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Brazil
Subramanian Subramanian, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, USA
Vidhi Patel, Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, USA
Ryota Horiguchi, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Takeshi Uno, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Japan
Xuqian Li, University of Queensland, Australia
Piotr Grad, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Poland
Huili Yang
Dr. Huili Yang is an Application Engineer at United Imaging Research. She earned her PhD in Biomedical Engineering from Northwestern University, where she conducted research on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) under the supervision of Dr. Daniel Kim and Dr. Michael Markl. Her work focuses on using a variety of tools—including AI, pulse sequence development, and reconstruction algorithms—to improve the clinical use of CMR. Dr. Yang is a former predoctoral fellow of the American Heart Association and has been selected for the Shanghai Baiyulan Talent Plan (Pujiang Project). Currently, she is working on RF design for ultra-high field MRI to further advance the capabilities of cardiac imaging.
Dr. Yang thinks that a healthy peer-review system serves two essential purposes: acting as a quality gatekeeper and a collaborative partner for improvement. First, it ensures that the research shared with the community is technically rigorous, from methodology to final conclusions. This requires editors to select reviewers with relevant expertise and strong scientific integrity. Second, it supports authors in refining and elevating their work. In an effective system, reviewers and editors act as constructive partners rather than adversaries. Authors and reviewers alike should view the process as a collaborative effort to make research as clear, robust, and useful as possible for the broader field.
According to Dr. Yang, an objective review means judging the research independently of the institution, background, or presentation quality. Things like language or how "pretty" the figures can be improved later; they don't change the actual research content. She makes sure she stays objective by focusing purely on the manuscript. Even if she knows where the work is coming from, she reminds herself that good researchers can come from any background. She indeed knows some excellent researchers who come from environments where research support or resources are scarce, and their work deserves the same fair judgment as anyone else's. Her process is to identify the main research problem, the soundness of the methods, and the logic of the conclusions. If the presentation is poor, she tries to tell if it is just a language/aesthetic issue, or if it was done on purpose to make certain points ambiguous to hide a lack of scientific soundness.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Bruno Donegá Constantin
Bruno Donegá Constantin, MD, PhD, is a vascular and endovascular surgeon from Brazil, with academic and clinical appointments at major tertiary hospitals and postgraduate medical education programs. He earned his medical degree from the State University of Maringá, completed residency training in General and Vascular Surgery at the University of São Paulo (USP), and obtained his PhD in vascular biomechanics from USP with international collaboration. His research interests include vascular imaging, Doppler ultrasound applications, arterial disease, and aortic biomechanics. He is actively engaged in medical education as a professor and preceptor in postgraduate training programs in vascular ultrasound. His recent work emphasizes improving diagnostic accuracy, evidence‑based clinical decision‑making, and integrating advanced imaging techniques into daily vascular practice. He also serves as a peer reviewer for international scientific journals in vascular surgery and related fields.
Dr. Constantin reckons that peer review is both a privilege and a responsibility. It offers the opportunity for experts to carefully examine a work, invest time in understanding it, and genuinely help improve it. A strong review does not diminish the author’s effort; it adds value, strengthens the science, and elevates the final contribution. In this way, peer review remains one of the most important mechanisms for upholding scientific rigor and credibility.
According to Dr. Constantin, an objective review begins with understanding the core research question and purpose of the study. The reviewer must critically assess whether the methodology is appropriate to address that question and identify flaws that materially affect the study’s validity. He personally focuses on issues that impact the main objective, avoiding unnecessary criticism of secondary details that do not alter the scientific message. Objectivity comes from respecting the study’s original aim while offering realistic, scientifically meaningful improvements.
“Peer review is often invisible work, but its impact is profound. Every careful review helps shape better science, guides authors, and protects the integrity of the literature. Even when demanding, this role contributes directly to the collective progress of our field. Remaining fair, constructive, and committed makes a real difference — and science advances because of this shared responsibility,” says Dr. Constantin.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gabriele Cordoni
Gabriele Cordoni, MD, is a cardiologist and clinical researcher at Arnaud de Villeneuve University Hospital in Montpellier, France. His primary research interests focus on multimodality cardiac imaging, with a particular emphasis on valvular heart disease and cardiomyopathies. He developed strong expertise in these fields during his training and research in Padua, Italy, and Bordeaux, France. More recently, his work has expanded to the application of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine, specifically the development of machine learning models for diagnostic support and outcome prediction using clinical and imaging data. Through the integration of advanced imaging techniques and data‑driven approaches, his goal is to enable more accurate risk stratification and personalized management for cardiovascular patients. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Cordoni, the peer‑review system is indispensable for upholding scientific standards, yet it is constrained by subjectivity, inconsistent reviewer expertise, time pressures, and insufficient formal recognition for reviewers. Potential improvements include the selective implementation of open or collaborative peer review and the integration of AI‑based tools for preliminary assessments, which can enhance efficiency while preserving the essential role of human judgment.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. Dr. Cordoni minimizes bias by focusing exclusively on the methodology and scientific relevance of the work, regardless of the authors’ reputation, institutional affiliation, or alignment with his own perspectives. In cases of uncertainty, he maintains transparency in his comments and clearly distinguishes between major methodological concerns and subjective recommendations.
In Dr. Cordoni’s opinion, disclosing conflicts of interest is fundamental to ensuring transparency and maintaining trust in scientific research. Transparent disclosure allows reviewers and readers to critically assess findings within their proper context and preserves the credibility of the scientific process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Julio J. Contreras
Dr. Julio J. Contreras is an orthopedic surgeon specializing in shoulder and elbow surgery, affiliated with UC CHRISTUS Health Network and the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, where he is actively engaged in clinical practice, research, and postgraduate education. His academic work focuses on musculoskeletal imaging, bone quality assessment, and the integration of advanced imaging into surgical decision‑making, particularly for complex shoulder pathologies. He has participated in and led projects combining CT, MRI, 3D reconstruction, and simulation models for surgical planning and education. He is also involved in the development of cadaveric and synthetic simulators for advanced surgical training and serves regularly as a peer reviewer for international journals in orthopedic surgery and medical imaging. His current interests include quantitative imaging, reproducibility of imaging‑based measurements, and the clinical translation of imaging biomarkers. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Contreras: Peer review is essential to ensure scientific rigor, credibility, and transparency. It serves as a quality control mechanism that helps identify methodological flaws, biases, and overinterpretation of results prior to publication. Beyond gatekeeping, peer review improves manuscripts by strengthening study design, clarifying data interpretation, and enhancing reproducibility. In rapidly evolving fields such as medical imaging, peer review is especially critical to prevent premature clinical adoption of insufficiently validated techniques.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Contreras: An objective review focuses on scientific content rather than the authors, their institutions, or the perceived impact of the work. I evaluate methodology, data quality, statistical analysis, and clinical relevance using standardized criteria. To maintain objectivity, I consciously separate personal preferences from evidence‑based critique, rely on established reporting guidelines where applicable, and clearly distinguish between major methodological concerns and minor editorial suggestions. Transparency in comments and consistency across similar manuscripts are key.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Contreras: Yes, COI disclosure is fundamental to transparency and trust in scientific research. A conflict of interest does not inherently invalidate a study, but undisclosed COIs can severely undermine the credibility of results and interpretations. Financial, academic, or intellectual conflicts may subtly influence study design, data analysis, or reporting. Full disclosure allows editors, reviewers, and readers to critically assess findings within their proper context.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Konstantin Klambauer
Dr. Konstantin Klambauer is a Radiologist at University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. He previously trained at LMU Munich and completed his doctoral degree at the Technical University of Munich. His main research focus is cardiovascular imaging, particularly coronary CT angiography and photon-counting detector CT. He is especially interested in how technical advances, such as spectral CT and AI, can translate into clinically meaningful improvements. He serves as a reviewer for several imaging journals, including QIMS.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Klambauer: A good reviewer should be rigorous, fair, and constructive. The role is not to “win” an argument or to demonstrate expertise, but to help improve a manuscript. That requires a careful examination of methodology, statistics, and clinical relevance. I think tone matters as much as content. Critical feedback is necessary, but it should be specific and respectful. Most authors have invested significant effort into their work, and the review process should feel like a professional dialogue rather than a barrier. Reliability is also important, as submitting reviews on time is part of academic responsibility.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Klambauer: Yes, disclosure of COI is essential. It does not imply wrongdoing, but it provides context. Especially in imaging research, collaboration with industry is common and often necessary to evaluate new technologies. A disclosed COI does not automatically undermine a study, but undisclosed relationships can raise concerns about credibility. Transparent reporting allows readers and reviewers to assess the work with full information.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Dr. Klambauer: QIMS focuses strongly on quantitative and technical aspects of imaging, which closely aligns with my own research interests. Many submissions deal with emerging technologies that are currently shaping the field of radiology. Reviewing for QIMS allows me to stay engaged with new developments while contributing to maintaining scientific standards. It is also a way of giving back to the community, as my own work has benefited greatly from thoughtful and thorough peer review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani
Dr. Mohd Fazrin Mohd Rohani is a Nuclear Medicine Physician at Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL), Malaysia. He has a strong interest in advanced molecular imaging techniques, quantitative PET and SPECT/CT analysis, radionuclide therapy, and standardized response assessment using established methods. Dr. Fazrin is actively involved in institutional, national, and international collaborative research—including registry-based and multicentre studies—and has contributed to peer-reviewed publications across a broad spectrum of nuclear medicine applications. His academic work focuses on improving diagnostic accuracy, harmonizing image interpretation, and translating advances in molecular imaging into clinically meaningful decision-making. In addition to his clinical and research roles, he serves as a reviewer for multiple international imaging and nuclear medicine journals and is committed to upholding high standards of scientific rigor, ethics, and evidence-based practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Rohani: I strive to minimize bias by focusing strictly on the scientific merit of the manuscript, rather than the authors, their institutions, or the perceived prestige of the work. I assess the clarity of the research question, methodological rigor, appropriateness of the analysis, and whether the data adequately support the conclusions. The use of established reporting guidelines and objective criteria helps ensure consistency in my evaluations. When uncertainty arises, I re-examine my assumptions and provide constructive, evidence-based feedback aimed at improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
QIMS: Why is it important for research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Rohani: IRB approval is essential to ensure that research involving human subjects is conducted ethically, safely, and in accordance with established regulatory and international standards. It safeguards participants’ rights, confidentiality, and welfare while promoting scientific integrity and accountability. Omitting IRB approval may expose participants to unnecessary risk, violate ethical principles, and undermine public trust. From a scientific standpoint, such research is often rejected by journals, disqualified by institutions, and considered ethically invalid regardless of its results—thereby limiting its impact on clinical practice.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Rohani: I see peer review as a way to contribute to maintaining research quality, integrity, and patient-centered relevance—particularly in medical imaging, where clinical impact is direct. Reviewing also sharpens my own critical thinking, keeps me updated with emerging research, and ultimately improves my own academic writing. The opportunity to support authors, especially early-career researchers, by providing fair and constructive feedback is a strong personal motivation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Monchai Phonlakrai
Dr. Monchai Phonlakrai is a lecturer and researcher at Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand, and a member of the Personalized Radiotherapy and Imaging in Medicine (PRIME) Excellent Research Group. He received his PhD in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine from the University of Newcastle, Australia, where his research focused on developing MRI-based quantitative biomarkers for functional tissue characterization to support radiation treatment planning. His research interests also include artificial intelligence in medical imaging, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy and enhancing clinical decision-making. He currently teaches MRI courses for both radiological technology and medical physics students at the institute. Additionally, he serves as an external reviewer for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Chulabhorn Royal Academy, contributing to the evaluation of research proposals involving human subjects. He is currently leading a research project on the development of an AI-driven platform for stroke diagnosis. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Phonlakrai believes that reviewers should only accept manuscripts that align with their expertise and topics they genuinely find interesting. When reviewers are truly engaged with a subject, they are more likely to provide thoughtful, constructive, and practically useful feedback that can meaningfully enhance a manuscript. He also emphasizes the importance of strictly respecting ethical standards, particularly confidentiality. In addition, feedback should be direct and actionable, offering clear and specific suggestions that authors can realistically implement to improve their work.
Dr. Phonlakrai sees peer review as something that naturally takes time, since it involves careful reading, critical thinking, and thoughtful analysis. When he can, he likes to set aside a full day just to focus on a review without distractions. On busier days, he prefers breaking the manuscript into smaller parts and reading a little each day in a steady, consistent way. This helps him make good use of short time slots while still delivering a thorough and timely review. He also notes that everyone has their own way of managing time, and what works best can differ from person to person.
Additionally, Dr. Phonlakrai thinks that disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is essential and a fundamental principle of research ethics and publication integrity. A conflict of interest arises when personal, financial, or professional relationships may influence, or be perceived to influence, research conduct, analysis, or reporting. Transparent COI disclosure enables editors, reviewers, and readers to evaluate objectivity, identify potential sources of bias, and make informed judgments about the credibility and reliability of research findings.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nienke P. M. Wassenaar
Nienke Wassenaar is a technical physician and postdoctoral researcher at Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands, specializing in quantitative MRI techniques for pancreatic and liver diseases. Her PhD research, conducted in the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, was titled “Quantitative MRI in pancreatic and liver diseases: from technical optimization to clinical application.” In 2024, she received a grant from Cancer Center Amsterdam to continue her research, which now focuses on investigating the clinical potential of quantitative MRI for the non-invasive assessment of liver function in patients with hepatic cancer. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Wassenaar reckons that manuscripts should always be assessed with an unbiased perspective, focusing on their overall scientific quality and novelty within the field. Furthermore, feedback should be provided in a clear, constructive, and respectful manner that helps authors refine and improve their work.
According to Dr. Wassenaar, a healthy peer-review system is transparent and constructive. Manuscripts are evaluated objectively, based on their scientific quality and relevance, free from bias. Respectful communication and timely completion of reviews are essential for a smooth, efficient process. Additionally, incorporating reviewers with diverse backgrounds brings broader perspectives, ultimately enhancing the quality of the scientific work being evaluated.
“I choose to review for QIMS because the topics of the journal match my research interests and experience. I find it valuable to be involved in the review process, as it allows me to contribute to the scientific community and help improve the quality of research. Reviewing for QIMS also gives me the opportunity to learn about new developments and ideas in my field, which is useful for my own work,” says Dr. Wassenaar.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ruzanna A. Shushanyan
Dr. Ruzanna Shushanyan is a Researcher at Yerevan State University, affiliated with the Research Institute of Biology. Her work spans neuroscience, physiology, and histology, with a focus on structural and functional alterations in biological systems under pathological and environmental stress conditions. Using experimental models, histopathological techniques, advanced microscopy, and quantitative image analysis, her research aims to clarify mechanisms underlying neurodegeneration, hypoxia-related disorders, and systemic physiological adaptation. She earned her PhD in Human and Animal Physiology from Yerevan State University. Alongside her research, she is actively engaged in science communication and peer review, contributing to the evaluation and advancement of scholarly work in neuroscience and biomedical sciences. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Shushanyan’s opinion, a transparent and rigorous peer-review process is essential to ensure the robustness, significance, and overall quality of manuscripts. Despite ongoing efforts by publishers and journals, major challenges remain within the system. Reviewers require a more structured and flexible timeline for completing reviews and processing submissions. It is critical to implement strategies that recognize and motivate reviewers, given the high demands placed on them. As active researchers themselves, reviewers must balance their own scholarly output with their contributions to knowledge sharing and communication via peer review. Unfortunately, current procedures and guidelines lack established best practices to support this balance or optimize the review process. Ensuring fairness, rigor, and efficiency in scientific publishing remains essential. Furthermore, the responsible use of digital tools to support reviewer selection and workflow efficiency could reduce delays and burden, facilitating a smoother process for both reviewers and authors.
According to Dr. Shushanyan, manuscript review is a responsible scholarly activity that promotes knowledge exchange and the development of academic expertise. Reviewers should keep several core principles in mind. First, they should critically assess their own expertise, skills, and depth of knowledge before accepting a review invitation. Sufficient familiarity with the research area improves the quality, timeliness, and reliability of the review. Moreover, reviewers must uphold standards of academic ethics, data confidentiality, and conflict-of-interest management to prevent misinterpretation and unethical conduct in scholarly communication. Finally, a reviewer should act as a constructive collaborator, focused on improving manuscript quality and helping authors enhance the impact and value of their work by addressing comments and suggestions thoughtfully. This approach—paired with ethical awareness and effective time management—promotes clearer communication among reviewers, editors, and authors.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gary Ka Wai Chan
Dr. Gary Ka Wai Chan is a nuclear medicine physician working at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong, with a focus on enhancing diagnostic precision through advanced imaging techniques and automation. He hopes to bridge the gap between clinical radiology and computational efficiency, aiming to standardize complex visual data. Dr. Chan recently published on the semiautomatic quantification of 99mTc-TRODAT-1 SPECT images, providing a more objective framework for evaluating patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease. Besides neuroimaging, Dr. Chan is actively engaged in optimizing DXA imaging protocols for patients with hyperparathyroidism to better assess bone mineral density and fracture risk.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Chan: The current system often suffers from reviewer fatigue and unconscious bias. Since reviewing is usually an unpaid, voluntary task, experts are overstretched, which can lead to delayed feedback or superficial critiques. We should also consider “crediting” reviewers through platforms like ORCID or Web of Science, treating peer review as a formal scholarly contribution that counts toward tenure or promotion.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Chan: Reviewers should adopt the mindset of mentors rather than gatekeepers, recognising the primary goal is to improve the quality of scientific literature. This begins with a deep dive into methodological integrity. The reviewers should check whether the study design is sound. It is also vital to maintain strict objectivity, separating the quality of study design and data from whether the findings align with the reviewer’s own personal hypotheses or interests. Furthermore, reviewers should strive to provide constructive and actionable feedback, guiding the authors toward improvement. Instead of just highlighting a flaw to justify a rejection, a thoughtful reviewer should try to provide specific suggestions and advice for remediation. This could ensure that the peer-review process remains a collaborative effort to advance the field instead of a hurdle for researchers to overcome.
QIMS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Chan: Rather than reflecting on the process as a reviewer, I believe my most insightful experience comes from the perspective of an author navigating the challenges of publication. During the review of one of my work, I received a set of comments that initially being quite discouraging; a reviewer heavily challenged the specific details on the algorithm I had implemented for the automation process. Later on, I found the critique actually prompted me to step back and dig deeper into details of the automation programme. Ultimately, what started as a difficult critique transformed my paper into much more robust research, teaching me that the peer-review process is most successful when authors view the reviewer as a collaborator rather than an adversary.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Aviad Rabinowich
Dr. Aviad Rabinowich is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and currently an Interventional Radiology fellow at Tel Aviv Medical Center, Israel. During his residency, Dr. Rabinowich undertook dedicated research training and completed a PhD at Tel Aviv University under the supervision of Prof. Dafna Ben Bashat. His doctoral work focused on quantitative fetal MRI, using advanced imaging and machine-learning-based methods to characterize fetal body composition in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction (FGR/IUGR) and to improve prognostication of perinatal outcomes. Dr. Rabinowich’s broader research interests lie in quantitative imaging, fetal and pediatric MRI, pediatric interventional imaging, automated image analysis, and the clinical translation of advanced MRI biomarkers. Clinically, he aspires to specialize in pediatric interventional radiology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Rabinowich’s opinion, a constructive review is rigorous yet fair, focused on improving the scientific quality, clarity, and impact of a manuscript. Specifically, it should ensure that the Methods are conducted in a sensible way and provide enough information. A good review should also suggest specific and actionable suggestions, but should avoid unnecessary comments that would not improve the manuscript. A destructive review, by contrast, is dismissive, vague, or overly adversarial, offering criticism without guidance, focusing on tone rather than substance, or imposing unreasonable demands that fall outside the scope of the study.
Dr. Rabinowich points out that peer review is a cornerstone of scientific integrity. It ensures methodological rigor, guards against bias and overinterpretation, and helps refine ideas before they enter the scientific record. Equally important, peer review fosters scientific dialogue, strengthens reproducibility, and ultimately helps translate research findings into reliable clinical and technological advances.
When it comes to the reason for choosing to review for QIMS, Dr. Rabinowich said that QIMS occupies a unique niche at the interface of quantitative methodology, imaging science, and clinical translation. Thus, reviewing for QIMS allows him to contribute to advancing high-quality, methodologically sound research that bridges technical innovation with clinical relevance. This area closely aligns with his background in quantitative MRI, machine learning, and translational imaging research.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Christopher Gasparis
Dr. Christopher Gasparis is a first-year cardiothoracic surgery resident at Northwell Health in New York. He graduated from the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell and is originally from New Jersey. His research interests include atrial fibrillation ablation, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and aortic arch disease. Dr. Gasparis has published multiple abstracts and manuscripts relating to these fields of cardiology and cardiac surgery. Connect with Dr. Gasparis on LinkedIn and X.
Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Gasparis believes that these include journal response time and accountability of reviewers and editors. While some journals have implemented methods to dramatically reduce initial response time, many journals continue to have long delays in returning edits to authors. Dr. Gasparis thinks widespread adoption of artificial intelligence to aid in manuscript screening, as well as journals screening for reliable reviewers who will provide quick feedback, are two ways to help shorten this delay.
Reviewers inevitably carry both conscious and unconscious biases. While it is impossible to fully eliminate bias, Dr. Gasparis thinks journals should hold reviewers more accountable in an attempt to help limit conscious biases and inconsistency between reviews. He suggests that one way to accomplish this is by mandating reviewers to keep an online profile of the manuscripts they review.
Dr. Gasparis thinks conflicts of interest are critical for authors to disclose. The best research is conducted with minimal bias. Consequently, conflicts of interest should be disclosed and addressed. While not all conflicts of interest have a major impact, they do have the potential to dictate the authors’ interpretation of the results, and therefore the conclusions of the manuscript.
“It is extremely difficult to balance research, clinical duties, and peer review. I believe the key to finding time for peer review is to take advantage of the small breaks in the day. While I may not have a single two-hour block to devote to peer review, if I work on aspects of the review during 15-minute breaks in my day, I’m able to finish reviews in a more timely fashion,” saysDr. Gasparis.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Eduardo Messias Hirano Padrao
Dr. Eduardo Messias Hirano Padrao, MD, is a Harvard-trained physician-scientist in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School. His research focuses on pragmatic randomized trials, respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, and evidence synthesis through high-impact meta-analyses. He has led and contributed to studies that have directly informed international clinical guidelines, including work cited by the American Diabetes Association, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, National Institutes of Health, and UpToDate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he led practice-changing research on awake prone positioning and co-authored a widely disseminated clinical management guide adopted across multiple health systems. Dr. Padrao currently leads the implementation of a novel pragmatic randomized trial platform within Harvard-affiliated hospitals and conducts cutting-edge research in mechanical ventilation and bedside respiratory physiology. He also serves as an editor and peer reviewer for multiple international medical journals and is recognized for excellence in clinical teaching and mentorship.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Padrao: In my opinion, the peer-review system remains essential to keep the scientific rigor, but it has several well-recognized limitations. As a peer reviewer and editor, I would highlight reviewer fatigue, variability in the quality and depth of reviews, delays in the review process, and potential bias related to institutional prestige, geography, or prior beliefs. In addition, it is very important to acknowledge that reviewers often receive little formal training in peer review during medical school and residency. It is not uncommon to have poor-quality reviews that are not educational or focused on manuscript improvement. Another point that should be brought up is the limited recognition for their work, which can affect consistency.
Improvements could include better reviewer training and mentorship, clearer guidance from journals on review expectations, and greater transparency in the review process. Providing recognition or academic credit for high-quality reviews, using structured review templates, and adopting editorial triage to reduce unnecessary review burden may also enhance efficiency and quality. Ultimately, peer review works best when it is viewed as a collaborative scholarly process rather than a gatekeeping exercise. Also, it would include protected time for peer review, since physicians are often busy with clinical activities.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Padrao: I believe that reviewers should focus on assessing whether the study is methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and clearly reported, rather than whether the results are “positive” or align with their own views. It is important to separate major scientific concerns from minor editorial issues and to provide feedback that is specific, constructive, and respectful. In my experience, many peer reviews are usually not educational or constructive, which makes it harder for authors to improve their manuscripts.
Reviewers should also be mindful of their own potential biases and avoid overinterpreting limitations that are inherent to the study design, particularly in observational or exploratory research. The goal of peer review should be to help authors improve the clarity, transparency, and scientific value of their work, even when the recommendation is not acceptance.
QIMS: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Padrao: I find it particularly interesting how a high-quality peer-review process can either substantially strengthen a manuscript or, conversely, uncover critical limitations that may ultimately jeopardize its publication. In several instances, I have reviewed manuscripts that initially had important methodological or conceptual weaknesses but improved dramatically after thoughtful reviewer feedback. Conversely, I have also encountered manuscripts that appeared methodologically sound at first glance, yet during the review process were unable to adequately address fundamental issues, revealing underlying problems that were not initially apparent.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Lexiaozi Fan
Lexiaozi Fan, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Radiology at Northwestern University. Her research centers on the development of advanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technologies for the evaluation of heart disease, including novel pulse sequence design, advanced image reconstruction, and deep learning-based automated image analysis. Her current work focuses on quantitative perfusion CMR, with the goal of improving the diagnosis and risk stratification of coronary artery disease by translating advanced CMR methods into routine clinical practice.
Dr. Fan believes that peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific process and is essential for maintaining the rigor, credibility, and integrity of the scientific literature. It serves as an independent quality-control process that evaluates the validity, originality, and significance of research findings prior to publication. Through this process, peer review helps identify methodological limitations, improves clarity and transparency, and ensures that conclusions are appropriately supported by data.
When reviewing papers, Dr. Fan points out that reviewers need to evaluate manuscripts objectively, ethically, and constructively. Their primary focus should be on the scientific merit of the work, including the importance of the research question, the appropriateness of the methodology, and the strength of the evidence supporting the conclusions. Moreover, reviewers must remain aware of potential biases and conflicts of interest, respect confidentiality, and provide feedback that is clear, professional, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
“Time management is definitely a challenge, but I view peer review as an essential part of being a member of the scientific community. I am selective about which review requests I accept, prioritizing those that closely match my expertise so that I can be efficient and provide meaningful input. When I do agree to review, I set aside focused time to complete it thoughtfully rather than rushing. At the same time, I am mindful of my workload and would decline reviews when necessary, because maintaining review quality is more important than taking on too much,” saysDr. Fan.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Luca Costanzo
Dr. Luca Costanzo is an Angiologist at the “G. Rodolico-San Marco” University Hospital in Catania, Italy. He serves as a National Councilor for the Italian Society of Vascular Diagnostics (SIDV). Dr. Costanzo’s academic contributions include faculty roles in second-level Master’s programs at the University of Catania, Sapienza University of Rome, and San Raffaele University of Rome. Since graduating with honors in 2008 and specializing in Cardiovascular Diseases in 2014, he has authored numerous international publications. His recent research focuses on superficial vein thrombosis (SVT) and operative procedures for the ultrasound assessment of extracranial artery disease. Additionally, Dr. Costanzo is frequently invited as a speaker and scientific director at international conferences; his expertise spans across deep vein thrombosis (DVT), anticoagulant therapy, Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT), and microcirculation.
According to Dr. Costanzo, a reviewer must have a profound understanding of the specific field and the ability to identify if the research adds original value or merely replicates known data.
Dr. Costanzo chose to review for QIMS as he holds the journal in high regard for its professional integrity, rigorous peer-review process, and the overall quality of its scientific contributions.
Dr. Costanzo believes it is critical for authors to disclose any conflicts of interest (COIs), as science is predicated on the assumption that findings are driven by objective data rather than financial or personal gain. While many researchers influenced by a COI may not act with malice, such conflicts can unconsciously bias research, leading to a potential misrepresentation of results.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Taichiro Tokura
Dr. Taichiro Tokura, MD, MBA, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Hematology at Nippon Medical School Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. His research focuses on hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dr. Tokura received the Best Poster Award at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Hematology. He also holds an MBA from the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Recently, while performing numerous hematopoietic stem cell transplantations and publishing peer-reviewed articles, he has also contributed to the development of AI-driven healthcare infrastructure through industry collaborations. He is engaged in innovative initiatives, such as developing an AI application that enables patients to capture images of their blood test results, which are automatically analyzed to provide interpretive insights, and integrating AI into hospital electronic health record (EHR) systems to support clinical decision-making and improve workflow efficiency.
QIMS: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Tokura: A constructive review involves accurately understanding the significance of the study, then critically evaluating the methodology, results, and interpretation, and finally providing practical, actionable suggestions for improvement. Every study can be improved in some way, so I try to point out issues in a clear, understandable manner whenever necessary. When additional analyses are difficult—for example, because of sample issues or other constraints—I encourage the authors to state those constraints transparently as limitations. By contrast, a destructive review happens when the reviewer lacks sufficient understanding of the study’s significance or lacks the necessary background knowledge to evaluate it fairly. Research connects to universal phenomena through the accumulation of very small pieces of evidence, so reviewers should not undertake review requests outside their expertise. I believe this alone could prevent many destructive reviews from occurring in the first place.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for TCR?
Dr. Tokura: When I receive a request for peer review, I try to accept it whenever possible, if the manuscript falls within my expertise. Researchers contribute to scientific progress through their research, but reviewers also undoubtedly contribute in the same way by properly scrutinizing that research. In some ways, reviewers arguably have an even greater responsibility, because it is absolutely unacceptable to inadvertently aid the advancement of flawed science by supporting inappropriate research. Connecting to what I mentioned earlier, I believe it is best not to accept peer review requests for fields outside one’s expertise.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?
Dr. Tokura: COI disclosure is essential. While I believe COI should not exist in scientific research, many studies are only possible through industry-academia collaboration and corporate funding. The larger the funding allocated to a study, the more extensive the research can be, but it can increase the potential for psychological or unconscious bias to influence the research. Therefore, in addition to disclosing COI, research should be made robust through measures like blinding, independent statistical analyses, and external validation.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Tetsuya Shimizu
Dr. Tetsuya Shimizu is a Professor in the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery at Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, Japan. He also serves as the Director of the Division of Diagnostic Oncology at the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Nippon Medical School Hospital. Dr. Shimizu specializes in hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HBP) surgery, with a particular research focus on the pathophysiology and surgical treatment of portal hypertension. He is actively involved in multidisciplinary cancer care management and medical education for residents. Recently, Dr. Shimizu has served as a committee member for the revision of clinical guidelines for portal circulatory disorders in Japan. He is dedicated to advancing surgical techniques and fostering the next generation of surgeons.
Dr. Shimizubelieves that a careful and meticulous peer review based on specialized expertise is essential for maintaining scientific quality. However, specialized and cutting-edge research often involves exploring unknown territories. Therefore, it is equally important for a reviewer to maintain flexibility and an open mind, without being biased by existing knowledge, to properly evaluate novel concepts.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. Dr. Shimizu points out that when reviewing, he carefully considers the context of the authors’ background and critically assesses the differences between their findings and existing evidence. While consistency with past data is important, true scientific progress often requires research that challenges or overturns established evidence. Therefore, even if the results differ from current dogmas, Dr. Shimizu strives to minimize bias by accepting them flexibly to ensure fairness, while exercising rigorous judgment based on scientific validity.
“I have deep respect for authors who complete their manuscripts while juggling the demanding schedules of daily clinical practice, education, and research. Let us approach each review with this respect in mind, striving to elevate the quality of research and collectively contribute to scientific progress,” saysDr. Shimizu.
(by Isabelle Wang, Masaki Lo)
Tyler Scullen
Dr. Tyler Scullen grew up in Massachusetts before going to college at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, and beginning research at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston in the Center for Multiple Myeloma. He later attended medical school at Tulane University in New Orleans while continuing research at both NIH NIDDK, studying the effects of EPO inhibition on HPA signaling and obesity, as well as HPA signaling in chronic stress at Tulane University Neurosciences. Dr. Scullen went on to complete a residency in neurological surgery at Tulane University and a fellowship in endovascular and open cerebrovascular surgery at SUNY Buffalo in Buffalo, New York, prior to joining Global Neurosciences Institute in Pennington, NJ, as a cerebrovascular neurosurgeon and Drexel University as an assistant professor of neurosurgery. His research interests include translational and clinical applications to cerebrovascular pathology and management, as well as neuro-oncology and endovascular functional neurosurgery. Connect with him on X @ScullenTyler.
Dr. Scullen believes that peer review keeps scientific inquiry grounded and honest, as well as helps to limit publications to those with academic impact rather than stating the obvious in order to list a publication to the author’s name.
According to Dr. Scullen, reviewers should have the responsibility to stay as objective as possible, to divorce themselves as much as possible from internal biases, and to remain critical yet open-minded.
“Peer review is an essential part of academic progress; it is often difficult to navigate the explosion of reports in the modern literature, and it is critical that reports that make it to publication are deemed objectively valid as well as impactful by consensus of peers,” says Dr. Scullen.
(by Isabelle Wang, Brad Li)
Vrushali D. Fangal
Vrushali D. Fangal is an independent research scientist affiliated with the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Harvard Medical School (Boston, MA). She brings over eight years of cross-sector experience, most recently serving as a Computational Scientist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. She integrates artificial intelligence, genomics, and respiratory immunology to characterize molecular endotypes of chronic lung diseases—particularly asthma and COPD—and to uncover immune plasticity mechanisms that drive disease progression and treatment resistance. Leveraging cohort-scale datasets such as COPDGene and VDAART, her recent research advances molecular phenotyping by refining transcriptomic signatures of Asthma—COPD Overlap (ACO) and dissecting vitamin D—linked Th2 immunometabolic programs associated with heterogeneous disease trajectories. Her broader goal is to develop predictive, generalizable frameworks that uncover fundamental principles of immune plasticity across chronic inflammatory disease and autoimmunity. Learn more about her here.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Fangal: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific self-correction. At its best, it serves two complementary roles: quality control and community mentorship. Reviewers help validate whether the central claims are supported by the evidence, whether the methods and analyses are appropriate, and whether limitations are described honestly. Just as importantly, peer review improves the communication of science—clarifying assumptions, strengthening experimental or computational design, and ensuring that other researchers can reproduce and build on the work. In fast-moving fields, reviewers also help editors assess novelty and scope while keeping standards consistent. While peer review is not perfect, constructive and rigorous reviews meaningfully raise the reliability and usability of what enters the scientific record. It should be complemented by post-publication discussion and replication, but careful review reduces avoidable errors and increases the overall reliability of the scientific literature.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Fangal: A strong reviewer combines technical competence with intellectual humility and a genuinely constructive mindset. Key qualities include: (1) scientific integrity and confidentiality; (2) clarity—writing specific, actionable comments rather than vague critiques; (3) good judgment about what matters most, separating major issues (validity of claims, missing controls, reproducibility) from minor ones (presentation and style); and (4) candor about the limits of one’s expertise. Reviewers should also be mindful of bias—favoring evidence over reputation, being inclusive of diverse approaches, and calibrating demands to what is feasible and proportional to the paper’s claims. Reliability also matters: timely reviews and respectful tone help the process work for authors, editors, and the broader community. Finally, reviewers should protect confidentiality, and encourage transparency through data/code availability, clear reporting, and appropriate statistical practices.
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. Fangal: Peer review is often invisible labor, but its impact is tangible: thoughtful reviews shape what becomes trusted knowledge and can meaningfully improve a manuscript—and sometimes a research direction. Even when a paper is not ready for publication, a respectful, structured review can give authors a roadmap for stronger science. I’d encourage reviewers to remember that the goal is not to "win" an argument, but to help align claims with evidence and to increase reproducibility and clarity for future readers. Small habits make a big difference: summarize the main contribution, list a few high-priority points, and suggest concrete ways to address them.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Yongxin Guo
Yongxin Guo is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in the Virginia Tech-Wake Forest University Biomedical Engineering (BME) program. In 2024, he earned his master’s degree in Biomedical Engineering from Chongqing Medical University, where his research focused on developing deep learning algorithms for the automatic segmentation of lesions in breast ultrasound images. His research interests include medical image computing, deep learning, and their applications in radiological and pathological images. He is dedicated to translating his research into clinical practice to enhance diagnostic accuracy, improve efficiency, and reduce patient suffering. Learn more about him here.
From Dr. Guo’s perspective, peer review serves as the primary gatekeeper of quality and integrity within the scientific community. It provides a rigorous filter where independent experts evaluate a study’s methodology, data validity, and ethical compliance before publication. In his field of medical AI, he notes that this process is particularly vital for catching overfit models that perform well in a lab but would fail, or even harm patients, in a real-world clinic.
According to Dr. Guo, a high-quality reviewer must possess deep technical expertise in the specific subject matter to identify subtle errors that a generalist might miss. Beyond knowledge, he emphasizes that they need a strong sense of objectivity and professionalism to provide constructive, unbiased feedback. Since medicine is constantly evolving, a good reviewer is also someone who stays current with the latest clinical guidelines and algorithmic standards.
Dr. Guo stresses that disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) is essential because transparency is the bedrock of public and professional trust in medical research. A COI can significantly influence research by subtly nudging investigators to ignore negative data, select favorable metrics, or overstate the clinical benefits of a new technology. When these financial or personal ties are hidden, it becomes nearly impossible for the scientific community to accurately assess whether a study’s conclusions are truly objective or driven by outside interests.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Masatoshi Kondo
Masatoshi Kondo, PhD, is a researcher in computed tomography (CT) physics at the Faculty of Health Sciences, Kyushu University, Japan. His research focuses on quantitative CT imaging, particularly dual-energy and spectral CT physics. His recent work investigates the impact of beam hardening on virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI) and its implications for quantitative accuracy. In addition, he is developing methods to reduce data storage requirements through CT data restoration approaches. He is also working on the generation of CT images using Monte Carlo simulation, aiming to improve the physical understanding of image formation and support the development of next-generation CT technologies. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Kondo regards peer review as essential for ensuring the quality and clarity of scientific communication. He sees the reviewer's role as helping authors strengthen their work from a future reader's perspective, checking whether the key findings are clearly presented, suggesting ways to improve readability, and identifying any missing information or statements that could cause misunderstanding. In this sense, he views peer review as both evaluation and collaboration to improve how science is communicated.
Recognizing that bias in peer review can never be eliminated, Dr. Kondo tries to ground his reviews in physical principles and clear evidence. In CT research, he has developed a habit of "thinking like the scanner," asking what the CT system would be expected to "say" under the reported acquisition and reconstruction conditions. If the results are consistent with that expectation, they are likely reasonable. At the same time, he checks whether the conclusions are supported by the data and remains open to alternative interpretations.
Dr. Kondo chooses to review for QIMS because physics leads to quantification. He explains that QIMS focuses on quantitative imaging, and he believes that physics-based understanding is fundamental for making imaging results reliable and clinically meaningful.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Haruki Fukuda
Dr. Haruki Fukuda is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Legal Medicine at Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. He obtained his medical license in 2020 and received his Ph.D. in Medical Science in 2023. Since September 2025, he has been an Academic Guest at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland. This institute is known as a pioneering center for postmortem imaging research, represented by the virtual autopsy (Virtopsy) project. His primary research interests include postmortem imaging and the development of advanced 3D visualization techniques. In particular, he focuses on analytical approaches for forensic death investigation that integrate postmortem CT, 3D surface documentation methods such as photogrammetry, and virtual reality. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Fukuda: Peer review plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and reliability of scientific research. Through evaluation by experts in the same field, the validity, originality, and methodological rigor of a study can be carefully assessed before publication. At the same time, peer review also provides valuable feedback to authors, helping them improve and refine their work. Constructive comments from reviewers often strengthen the clarity and robustness of a manuscript. In this way, peer review functions not only as a quality control mechanism but also as a collaborative process that supports the continuous improvement of research and contributes to the advancement of science as a whole.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Fukuda: To minimize potential biases, I try to remain aware of my own assumptions and ensure that personal preferences for specific methods do not influence my evaluation. Instead, I focus on the significance of the research question, the soundness of the methodology, and whether the data adequately support the conclusions. By concentrating on these aspects, I aim to provide feedback that is constructive, fair, and transparent, and ultimately helpful for the authors in improving their work.
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. Fukuda: Yes, I believe data sharing is very important in scientific research. Sharing data improves transparency and allows other researchers to verify and reproduce the results. Furthermore, in recent years, data-driven research and AI-based analyses have increased rapidly, making access to high-quality datasets even more important. Data sharing also promotes collaboration and enables researchers to build upon existing work.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Lukas Lambert
Lukáš Lambert, MD, PhD, is a Czech radiologist and Head of the Department of Imaging Methods at the Motol and Homolka University Hospital in Prague, affiliated with the Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University. His work focuses on advanced medical imaging, particularly MRI interpretation, imaging workflow optimization, and quantitative imaging analysis. Prof. Lambert is actively involved in clinical research and education, with interests spanning artificial intelligence in radiology, oncologic imaging, and musculoskeletal imaging. He contributes to international collaborative projects using multimodal imaging and interdisciplinary methodologies. In addition to research, he teaches medical students and radiologists and contributes to professional training in advanced imaging interpretation. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Prof. Lambert: A healthy peer-review system should be timely, fair, balanced, rigorous, and well supervised. Timeliness is essential so that scientific findings can be evaluated and disseminated without unnecessary delays that hinder progress. Fairness and balance are fundamental principles. Reviewers should assess submissions objectively, avoid personal or institutional bias, and provide constructive feedback that supports scientific improvement rather than discouraging authors. Rigor is equally critical, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated for methodological soundness, statistical validity, and clinical or scientific relevance. Finally, the process must be properly supervised by editors, who are responsible for maintaining quality, resolving conflicting reviews, ensuring ethical standards, and preventing misuse of the review process. Together, these elements create a system that protects scientific integrity while promoting efficient and constructive scholarly communication.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Prof. Lambert: Reviewers should bear in mind that they carry a significant responsibility in shaping the scientific body of evidence. Their evaluations determine which findings become part of the scientific literature and therefore influence future research, clinical practice, and health policy. Consequently, the review process must be approached with a strong sense of responsibility toward scientific integrity and methodological quality. Reviewers should remain highly attentive to inconsistencies in the manuscript. Discrepancies between methods, results, and conclusions; unclear or implausible statistical analyses; incomplete reporting of methods; or selective interpretation of results may indicate methodological weaknesses or potential distortion of scientific reality. Such issues require careful scrutiny to ensure that the published literature maintains high standards of validity and transparency. At the same time, reviewers should be able to swiftly identify manuscripts that clearly fail to meet publication standards—for example due to fundamental methodological flaws, inadequate study design, insufficient data, ethical concerns, or due to abundant errors that indicate haste in its preparation. In such cases, reviewers should not hesitate to recommend prompt rejection, which helps protect the quality of the journal and prevents unnecessary delays for authors and editors. When a manuscript has merit but requires improvement, reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and balanced feedback aimed at strengthening the scientific rigor and clarity of the work.
QIMS: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Prof. Lambert: IRB approval is essential because it ensures that research involving human participants or animals adheres to established ethical standards and regulatory frameworks. The IRB provides independent oversight of study protocols, evaluating whether the proposed research appropriately protects participants’ rights, safety, and well-being, and whether risks are justified by the potential benefits. This process also verifies that informed consent procedures, data protection measures, and methodological safeguards are adequately implemented. Without such oversight, ethical standards may be jeopardized - whether intentionally, due to institutional pressures, simple negligence, or a gradual decline in research culture. The IRB therefore serves as a critical safeguard that helps prevent practices that could compromise human rights, participant safety, or animal welfare. If this process were omitted, the research community could risk ethical failures reminiscent of those that historically led to the establishment of international frameworks such as the Declaration of Helsinki.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Daisuke Miura
Dr. Daisuke Miura is the Section Chief of the Ultrasound Department at Fukuoka Tokushukai Hospital in Japan and a clinical sonographer specializing in abdominal ultrasonography. He graduated from Yamaguchi University in 2008 and received his PhD in 2025. His clinical work focuses on high-volume ultrasound practice, performing more than 3,500 examinations annually. He has particular expertise in ultrasonography in gastroenterology and hepatology, with a focus on the imaging evaluation of acute abdominal conditions. His research focuses on improving diagnostic strategies for abdominal diseases using ultrasound and exploring imaging biomarkers for noninvasive disease assessment. He has also been involved in clinical studies evaluating the role of advanced ultrasound techniques in routine clinical practice. Through integrating clinical experience with research, Dr. Miura aims to enhance the diagnostic accuracy and practical utility of ultrasound in everyday patient care. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Miura: Peer review can be considered a “quality control” process that takes place before a scientific manuscript is published. In my view, a healthy peer-review system is built on transparency, fairness, constructive feedback, and an appropriate balance between review speed and review quality. Another important aspect is recognition for reviewers. Although my experience as a reviewer is still relatively limited, I believe initiatives that highlight reviewers’ contributions—such as this project by the journal—are excellent and can serve as a strong source of motivation. Ultimately, a healthy peer-review system is one in which authors feel that their work has been rigorously evaluated and improved through the review process, while reviewers can take pride in contributing to the advancement of science.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Miura: An objective review, in my opinion, is one in which the reviewer’s personal biases do not interfere with the evaluation of the manuscript. When I receive a request to review a paper, I try to independently review the background of the topic and relevant literature so that I can assess the study based on the current evidence rather than my own assumptions. I also believe it is important not to approach a manuscript with a negative attitude from the outset. Instead, I try to evaluate the work fairly and focus on how the study can be improved through constructive feedback.
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. Miura: I believe that data sharing is very important in scientific research. Authors may consider their analysis to be the most appropriate for their study, but the same data may allow for different interpretations or analyses from other perspectives. In that sense, making research data available as a shared resource can contribute significantly to the advancement of medical science. Science progresses through openness and broad discussion, and data sharing can facilitate that process. At the same time, I believe that careful consideration is necessary regarding how research data should be managed and shared, particularly in terms of ethical and practical issues.
(by Isabelle Wang, Brad Li)
Yonghyun Yoon
Yonghyun Yoon is an orthopedic surgeon whose work focuses on precision musculoskeletal medicine, regenerative medicine, and healthy aging. He completed his internship, orthopedic residency, and fellowship in shoulder and elbow surgery at Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital. His academic and clinical interests center on non-surgical and minimally invasive treatments, with particular emphasis on musculoskeletal ultrasound, biomechanics, osteopathic manual therapy, and functional medicine. He is actively involved in research on ultrasound-guided interventions and regenerative therapies, including prolotherapy, hydrodissection, platelet-rich plasma, and stem cell-based treatments. In addition, he studies systemic musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoporosis and sarcopenia, with a broader interest in anti-aging and metabolic health. His current work is dedicated to integrating ultrasound-based precision medicine with regenerative and functional approaches to improve musculoskeletal care and long-term patient outcomes. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Yoon believes that a healthy peer-review system should be fair, objective, and free from unnecessary bias. Ideally, manuscripts should be evaluated in a blinded manner so that the reviewer can focus on the quality of the science rather than the author’s name, institution, or reputation. He also thinks reviewers’ identities should remain undisclosed in many cases, because anonymity can help them provide more honest and rigorous feedback. In addition, a healthy system must be free from conflicts of interest and undue commercial influence. Peer review should serve science, not personal relationships, academic politics, or industry-driven agendas.
According to Dr. Yoon, when reviewing papers, reviewers should consider whether a paper is methodologically sound, clinically or scientifically meaningful, and capable of offering useful insight or inspiration to readers. It is important to evaluate not only whether the results are interesting, but also whether the methods are appropriate, the analysis is reasonable, and the conclusions are supported by the data. Reviewers should also think about whether the manuscript is written in a way that allows other researchers and clinicians to interpret it properly. In the end, good peer review should help ensure that published work is reliable, understandable, and genuinely valuable to the field.
“What motivates me to review is closely related to why peer review matters in the first place. I believe reviewing is one way to help valuable research reach the scientific community in a more accurate and meaningful form. At the same time, the review process is also educational for me. By critically evaluating new studies, I can learn from emerging ideas, gain inspiration for my own research, and continue to improve as a clinician and researcher. In that sense, peer review is not simply a responsibility; it is also an opportunity for professional growth and intellectual development,” says Dr. Yoon.
(by Isabelle Wang, Brad Li)
Vicent Hurtado-Oliver
Dr. Vicent Hurtado Oliver, MD, PhD candidate at the Anatomy Department at the University of Valencia, Spain, holds two MSc in Clinical Medical Research and in Healthcare Management. He is a specialist in orthopaedic surgery and traumatology, with a particular focus on the lower limb and foot and ankle pathologies. He is a member of several national and international scientific societies, and author of multiple publications and reviewer for several international journals. He currently combines his teaching and research activities with clinical work at the Francesc de Borja University Hospital in Gandia, where he is a trainer in the residency program.
QIMS: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Hurtado Oliver: I regard a constructive review in a medical publication as one that rigorously evaluates scientific validity while remaining grounded in clinical relevance and patient impact. It assesses whether the study design, methodology, and analyses appropriately support the conclusions, with particular attention to bias, confounding, safety outcomes, and ethical considerations. Importantly, it acknowledges the study’s strengths and recognizes practical constraints inherent to clinical research, with the aim of improving the manuscript and advancing evidence that can meaningfully inform patient care. In contrast, a destructive review prioritizes criticism over improvement. It may be dismissive in tone, vague or overly general in its comments, or focused on idealized methodological demands that are unrealistic in clinical settings. Such reviews often fail to differentiate critical flaws from minor limitations and provide little guidance on how concerns could be addressed. This is particularly unhelpful, as it can delay the dissemination of clinically relevant findings and discourage thoughtful, ethically conducted research that adds value to the evidence base and ultimately to patient care.
QIMS: Why do you choose to review for QIMS?
Dr. Hurtado Oliver: I have chosen QIMS to review for because of its strong reputation as well as its commitment to publishing high-quality, methodologically sound research. The journal consistently features well-designed studies with clear clinical relevance, which reflects its rigorous editorial standards. In addition, QIMS demonstrates transparency in its peer-review process and maintains high ethical and scientific standards. Its interdisciplinary scope and international authorship also contribute to meaningful academic exchange. These qualities make QIMS a valuable platform for advancing research and clinical practice and motivate me to contribute as a reviewer.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Hurtado Oliver: Yes, it is very important for authors to declare their COIs. Transparency helps readers and editors evaluate the research objectively and strengthens trust in scientific publications. A COI may influence study design, data interpretation, or the presentation of results, whether consciously or unconsciously. Clear disclosure allows these potential influences to be properly assessed and helps maintain research integrity.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Marga Kaiser
Dr. Marga Kaiser studied medicine at the University of Münster, Germany, and began her training at an academic teaching hospital, where she developed an early keen interest in diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology. As a board-certified neuroradiologist she focused primarily on stroke thrombectomy while also conducting research in interdisciplinary fields, mainly in cooperation with experts in neurosurgery. She is currently working as a consultant in the Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology at the Clemenshospital Münster, where she is involved in research projects focusing on neurooncology and neurovascular diseases. She notes that working in multidisciplinary teams has greatly enhanced mutual understanding of pathology and treatment, thereby improving clinical practice.
Dr. Kaiser emphasizes that the purpose of medical research is to improve knowledge and patient care, so the standards must be as high as possible. In her view, feedback is vital for improvement in scientific research and writing as in every other aspect of life, and peer review is a crucial process for this demanding task, providing structured feedback on scientific work. Carried out by experts in the same or related fields, peer review aims to enhance both the author’s expertise and the value of future readers. She describes it as a must-have for ensuring correctness, transparency, and trustworthiness.
Dr. Kaiser stresses that reviewers should be strongly aware of the impact their contributions have on the academic world. She notes that personal or professional biases can result in weak points in scientific work being overlooked or misleading criticism being given to the authors. Accordingly, the approach should focus on providing constructive feedback that is objective and fair. Recognizing potential conflicts of interest and rejection of the review, when necessary, can help minimise these biases. She also highlights the importance of selecting a balanced group of reviewers who can contribute different perspectives and professional experience to a scientific article.
Dr. Kaiser offers a few words of encouragement to reviewers who devote themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes. She notes that every reviewer should bear in mind the importance of their contribution. In addition to meaningful participation in the academic community, there is also the chance to enhance future articles, as well as the opportunity to boost the author’s skills and motivation. Furthermore, the process of reviewing is advantageous for one's own critical thinking and analytical working skills.
(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)
Takeshi Miyata
Takeshi Miyata, MD, PhD, is Vice-Director of the Department of Neurosurgery at Kokura Memorial Hospital (Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan). He received his medical degree from Wakayama Medical University in 2009 and completed neurosurgical training at Kyoto University and affiliated hospitals, including a period at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. He earned his PhD at Kyoto University, where he conducted translational research on intracranial aneurysm pathophysiology and progression. Dr. Miyata is board-certified in neurosurgery and neuroendovascular therapy and serves as an instructor for major Japanese neurosurgical societies. His clinical practice focuses on cerebrovascular surgery and endovascular interventions, including acute stroke thrombectomy, aneurysm treatment (including flow diversion), and neuroendoscopic procedures. His recent work includes intracranial aneurysm vascular biology, and advanced vessel wall and black-blood MRI and imaging-based outcome prediction after flow-diverter deployment. Visit Dr. Miyata’s ORCID or ResearchGate for more information.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Miyata: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific progress. It serves as a quality-control process that helps verify the soundness of methods and analyses, improves clarity and transparency, and filters out work that does not meet ethical or scientific standards. Beyond gatekeeping, thoughtful reviews help authors strengthen their papers and help readers trust that published findings have been critically assessed by experts.
QIMS: What reviewers should bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Miyata: Reviewers should remain objective, fair, and constructive. It is important to focus on the scientific merit (study design, methodology, statistics, reproducibility, and clinical relevance), rather than the authors or institutions. Reviewers should declare conflicts of interest, respect confidentiality, and provide actionable suggestions that improve the work while maintaining a professional tone.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Miyata: I am motivated by a sense of responsibility to the field and by the belief that careful peer review ultimately improves patient care. Reviewing also keeps me up to date with new ideas and techniques, and it is an opportunity to help authors present their work more clearly and rigorously. I have benefited from reviewers' comments throughout my career, so contributing as a reviewer feels like giving back to the scientific community.
(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)
Yifan Zheng
Dr. Yifan Zheng is a research scientist at Siemens Healthineers specializing in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and quantitative medical image reconstruction. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, San Francisco, where her research focused on single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging, radiation dosimetry, and targeted alpha therapy (TAT). Her current research centers on advancing PET/CT and SPECT/CT imaging technologies, with an emphasis on fast and quantitative reconstruction methods, deep learning-based image reconstruction, motion correction, and positron range correction. Her work aims to improve image quality, quantitative accuracy, and computational efficiency in clinical nuclear medicine imaging systems, developing next-generation medical imaging technologies that enhance diagnostic accuracy and support precision medicine.Learn more about her here.
In Dr. Zheng’s view, peer review helps ensure the rigor, validity, and transparency of published work. She emphasizes that independent experts evaluate the methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results, helping to identify potential weaknesses, improve clarity, and verify that conclusions are supported by evidence.
Dr. Zheng expresses that her main motivation for peer reviewing is contributing to the scientific community that supports her research field. She notes that as researchers, we all benefit from the peer review system when our own work is evaluated and improved by thoughtful reviewers, and participating in peer review is a way to give back to that community. She also sees peer reviewing as an opportunity to stay informed about emerging research and new ideas in the field, stating that reviewing manuscripts allows her to engage critically with current developments, which can inspire new perspectives for her own research.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Zheng emphasizes that obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval is essential for research involving human subjects because it ensures that studies are conducted ethically and that participants’ rights, safety, and privacy are protected. She explains that the IRB reviews research protocols to confirm that risks are minimized, informed consent procedures are appropriate, and the study complies with ethical and regulatory standards. She stresses that if IRB approval is omitted when required, the research may violate ethical guidelines and institutional regulations, which can have serious consequences, including rejection of the study for publication, invalidation of the research data, and potential legal or institutional penalties.
(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)
Brahim Mehadji
Dr. Mehadji is a medical physicist at University of California Davis, specializing in nuclear medicine, radiotheranostics, and hybrid imaging technologies. He manages clinical quality control and dosimetry for PET, SPECT, and Y90 radioembolization, and advances quantitative methods that support individualized therapy. Dr. Mehadji’s research focuses on advancing quantitative imaging and precision dosimetry in nuclear medicine and radiation therapy. He develops hybrid imaging systems and computational models to enhance radiopharmaceutical therapy planning and intraoperative guidance. His recent work explores high magnetic field — guided radiation delivery and total-body PET imaging to improve treatment accuracy, biological modeling, and clinical translation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Mehadji: A healthy peer-review system is rigorous, fair, and constructive in intent. Reviewers must be matched to the manuscript's specific expertise. Feedback should be specific, actionable, and delivered within a reasonable timeframe. I favor a double-blind review to minimize institutional and reputational bias. Finally, the system must allow for post-publication dialogue, treating science as an evolving conversation rather than a closed verdict.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Mehadji: An objective review evaluates a manuscript solely on the merit of its methodology, rigor, and scientific contribution — not on the authors’ reputation or affiliation. I distinguish carefully between a genuine flaw and a personal methodological preference; if I would have chosen a different approach, that is my bias, not their error. Before finalizing a review, I verify that every critique is anchored to a specific element of the manuscript or the published literature. I recuse myself whenever a conflict of interest exists, whether competitive, financial, or personal. The standard I apply is simple: would I stand behind every comment if the review were fully transparent?
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. Mehadji: Data sharing is, in my view, a scientific and ethical responsibility, not merely a courtesy. Reproducibility is the foundation of credible science. Shared datasets also accelerate discovery by enabling secondary analyses, meta-analyses, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven research that individual labs could never conduct alone. I recognize that legitimate concerns around patient privacy, proprietary methods, and data misuse must be addressed through proper anonymization and licensing frameworks. But these are solvable problems — they are reasons to share carefully, not reasons to withhold.
(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)
Eitaro Umehara
Dr. Eitaro Umehara is a cardiologist at Tsukazaki Hospital, Japan, specializing in interventional cardiology. After graduating from medical school, he initially trained in cardiovascular surgery and was involved in surgical practice for five years. He later transitioned to coronary interventional cardiology and currently works as a specialist in percutaneous coronary intervention. His clinical expertise also includes endovascular interventions, intensive care management, cardiac rehabilitation, and the treatment of congestive heart failure. With a broad clinical background spanning surgery, catheter-based therapy, and critical care, his work focuses on improving patient outcomes through comprehensive cardiovascular management. He is also familiar with Japan’s long-term care insurance system and its role in cardiovascular care. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Umehara stresses that the current peer-review system plays a critical role in maintaining scientific quality, but it has several limitations. One major issue is the variability in review quality, which can depend on individual reviewers’ expertise, clinical background, and available time. In addition, the process can sometimes be time-consuming, potentially delaying the dissemination of clinically important findings. To improve the system, greater transparency and standardization would be helpful. Providing clear guidance for reviewers and sharing best practices may improve consistency. Furthermore, recognizing reviewers’ contributions, as in this initiative, is important for encouraging thoughtful and responsible peer review.
Dr. Umehara points out that bias is an inherent challenge in peer review, but it can be minimized through conscious effort. In his reviews, he tries to focus on the scientific and clinical relevance of the manuscript, including study design, methodology, and applicability to real-world practice, rather than the authors’ affiliations or reputations. He also makes an effort to be aware of his own clinical preferences and experiences, which could influence his judgment. By maintaining a structured and objective evaluation approach, he aims to ensure a fair and balanced review.
From Dr. Umehara’s perspective, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is essential for maintaining transparency and trust in scientific research. Even well-conducted studies may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by financial or professional interests. While a COI does not necessarily invalidate the results, it should always be clearly disclosed so that readers and reviewers can interpret the findings appropriately. In clinical research, where results may directly affect patient care, transparency is particularly important.
(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)
José Mário Prati
Dr. José Mário Prati is a physiotherapist specialized in Neurological Physiotherapy for Adults and the Elderly. He holds both a Master’s and a PhD in Physiotherapy from the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Brazil. His research focuses on the non-motor functions of the cerebellum, specifically its influence on other brain structures involved in emotional and pain processing. Currently, he does not hold a formal institutional affiliation; however, he maintains active scientific production within his research line and serves as a reviewer for international journals. Furthermore, he maintains a clinical practice providing physiotherapeutic treatment for individuals with neurological injuries and chronic pain.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Prati: Among the primary limitations of the peer review system are the reviewers' actual expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript they are assigned. Upon receiving an invitation from a journal, a reviewer must be honest with themselves regarding their intellectual capacity to conduct a review with high technical and scientific rigor. Furthermore, the reviewer must possess advanced prior knowledge of epidemiology to ensure that the proposed study design aligns with the research objectives. These reviewer attributes contribute to publications of high methodological quality, leading to profound advancements in knowledge across various fields and facilitating clinical practice in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Therefore, a researcher aiming to act as a reviewer must increasingly prepare himself/herself intellectually to rigorously evaluate the manuscripts he/she is invited to review.
QIMS: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Prati: Beyond the reviewer’s expertise in the subject matter and their prior knowledge of epidemiology, impartiality is one of the most critical elements in reducing potential biases during the review process. The reviewer’s focus must be based on the relevance of the research and the quality of the methodological criteria adopted in a study to answer its research question. In science, any kind of prejudices are entirely unacceptable; therefore, a reviewer needs to ensure that they possess the necessary characteristics to conduct a quality review while mitigating any potential source of bias.
QIMS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Prati: It is essential that authors declare their COIs. For instance, financial conflicts have long been shown to exert influence over research. We observe the adoption of inadequate methodological criteria, flawed data analysis, overinterpretation of results, and even manipulations aimed at promoting a particular resource that could potentially lead to exponential financial gains. Other types of COIs, such as personal and institutional conflicts, can significantly harm scientific production and the interpretation of findings, which can lead to a major impact that is often difficult to reverse. Therefore, honesty must also prevail in the declaration of COIs to ensure explicit transparency regarding the motivations involved in the design and execution of a given study.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Alin M. Iacob
Alin M. Iacob, DDS, PhD, is an orthodontist affiliated with the University of Oviedo (Spain) and the Asturian Dentistry Institute. His work focuses on digital orthodontics, particularly the application of artificial intelligence in CBCT imaging and the study of orthodontic biomechanics. He has authored systematic reviews on AI-based image analysis and is currently working to develop and deepen the understanding of tooth movement and treatment predictability. Alongside his research, he is engaged in postgraduate teaching and clinical practice. His current interests are focused on integrating advanced digital technologies into clinical orthodontics from an international perspective. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Iacob: Peer review is a cornerstone of maintaining scientific reliability and consistency. It serves not only as a publication filter but also as a process that elevates research quality. A well-executed review can help refine methodology, clarify concepts, and strengthen conclusions. In clinical disciplines like orthodontics, this role becomes even more critical, as published evidence directly influences clinical treatment decisions. In this regard, peer review is closely tied to both scientific rigor and clinical responsibility.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Iacob: Reviewers should strive to be objective, balanced, and constructive. The goal is not merely to identify limitations, but to actively help authors improve their manuscript. It is essential to assess methodological quality, data interpretation, and the relevance of findings—especially from a clinical standpoint. At the same time, being mindful of personal biases is crucial to ensuring a fair evaluation. Finally, maintaining a respectful tone is imperative, as every manuscript represents a significant investment of time and effort by the authors.
QIMS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Iacob: My main motivation is contributing to the scientific community. Peer review allows me to stay updated with current research and to continuously develop a critical perspective, which also benefits my own work. At the same time, it is a way of giving back, as my research also relies on the input of other reviewers. Despite being a largely invisible task, it plays an essential role in maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific publications, particularly in fields with direct clinical implications.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Dinesh Nyavanandi
Dinesh Nyavanandi is a formulation scientist (AbbVie) working in small-molecule drug development, with a primary interest in translational pharmaceutics—especially the design of formulations that can bridge early discovery, clinical development, and eventual commercialization. His work has focused on challenges such as solubility enhancement, bioavailability improvement, dosage form design, excipient selection, and manufacturing approaches for oral drug products. He is particularly interested in how formulation strategies can be used not only to solve technical problems, but also to accelerate development timelines and improve the likelihood of clinical and commercial success. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Nyavanandi reckons that peer review is essential for maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific publishing. It acts as an expert evaluation to identify methodological weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, missing controls, and interpretive gaps before findings are published. It protects the scientific community and the public by enhancing research reliability, while also helping authors strengthen manuscripts through constructive feedback. Though imperfect, it is a key mechanism to ensure published research is rigorous, meaningful, and relevant to field advancement.
According to Dr. Nyavanandi, reviewers should evaluate science fairly, objectively, and constructively, focusing on work quality rather than personal preferences or harsh criticism. They should assess the importance of the research question, soundness of methods, data support for conclusions, and the manuscript’s value to the field. Distinguishing major scientific concerns from minor editorial issues is critical. Above all, comments should be respectful, specific, and helpful to enable meaningful manuscript improvement.
“Peer review requires time and focus, so I approach it structurally. Before accepting, I check if the manuscript aligns with my expertise and if I can meet the timeline. Once accepted, I set dedicated time slots, breaking the review into stages: initial read for understanding, detailed scientific evaluation, and final pass to organize comments. I view peer review as a professional responsibility, treating it as an important commitment rather than an optional task,” says Dr. Nyavanandi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kosuke Muto
Dr. Kosuke Muto, MD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Cardiology at Saitama Medical University International Medical Center. He is currently on secondment to the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. His research focuses on advanced heart failure, heart transplantation, and implantable left ventricular assist device.
QIMS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Muto: A constructive review involves first accurately understanding the significance of the study, then critically evaluating its methodology, results, and interpretation, and finally offering practical and actionable suggestions for improvement. As every study has room for refinement, I aim to highlight issues clearly and present them in an accessible and understandable manner for the authors.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Muto: I make it a principle to review manuscripts within my field of expertise. Reviews outside one’s specialty should be avoided, as they may not allow for an appropriate and fair evaluation. In conducting a review, I take time to understand the existing literature and carefully assess the novelty of the study, as well as the validity of its design and interpretation of the data.
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. Muto: When I first began writing scientific papers, I often felt frustrated when receiving critical reviews. However, after becoming a reviewer myself, I have come to appreciate both the difficulty and the importance of the peer-review process. Peer review is largely invisible work that requires substantial time and effort. It plays a vital role in evaluating the validity of research, refining manuscripts, and ultimately advancing medical science. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all reviewers for their invaluable contributions.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Manuela Ludovisi
Prof. Manuela Ludovisi is an Associate Professor at the University of L’Aquila. She obtained her medical degree, specialization in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and PhD at the Catholic University Hospital Policlinico Gemelli in Rome. Her expertise spans gynecology, gynecological oncology, the role of ultrasound in preoperative evaluation of patients with gynecological pathology, follow-up of gynecological malignancies, obstetrics, and reproductive medicine. Beyond clinical practice, her research interests focus on discovering new diseases and advancing diagnostic methodologies in ultrasound. She strongly believes in a multidisciplinary approach, collaborating with oncologists, radiologists, gynecologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians to provide personalized, patient-centered care. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
According to Prof. Ludovisi, through the peer-review process, initial research work undergoes refinement, allowing findings to be better integrated into existing scientific literature and contributing to the growth of scientific knowledge. This benefits the scientific community overall and provides young researchers with opportunities to explore new advancements. Additionally, reviewing the work of international colleagues expands one’s knowledge and cultural understanding.
“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,” says Prof. Ludovisi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Alexandre Faure
Alexandre Faure is a French radiologist at Tenon Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris. His clinical practice focuses on head and neck, chest, and gynecological imaging, with a strong research interest in artificial intelligence. He is currently completing his PhD, applying deep learning models to the study of chronic lung diseases using CT scans. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Faure believes that peer review fulfills three core functions in science. First, it ensures quality assurance, using specialized peer expertise to identify methodological flaws and strengthen the scientific rigor of published work. Second, it safeguards scientific integrity by acting as a critical gatekeeper, preventing the spread of false science, fraudulent data, or flawed reasoning. Third, it enables knowledge exchange, allowing reviewers to stay at the forefront of their field and sustaining a continuous cycle of learning.
To minimize bias in peer review, Dr. Faure applies a standardized, systematic evaluation process to every manuscript to maintain consistency. Following strict objective criteria and a rigorous personal checklist helps him reduce subconscious favoritism, especially when reviewing work closely related to his own research areas.
“Like many clinician‑scientists, I have no dedicated time for peer review in my hospital schedule. I therefore integrate clear deadlines for each review into my professional calendar, prioritizing assignments by urgency and submission timelines. This approach ensures peer review remains a structured, intentional part of my academic duties rather than an afterthought,” says Dr. Faure.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Amanda M. Jackson
Amanda Jackson is a Clinical Medical Physicist in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, USA. She has been in clinical practice since 2006 and obtained board certification in Therapeutic Radiological Physics from the American Board of Radiology in 2010. She is currently completing her PhD at the University of Florida, with an expected graduation this year. Her research interests include mixed reality applications in radiation oncology, patient surface mapping to enhance treatment planning and alignment, educational tool development for professionals and patients, and the advancement of radiation oncology and medical physics in global health. She is currently developing a radiation oncology patient education application for the Microsoft HoloLens 2. She feels honored and grateful to be recognized as a reviewer early in her academic career. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Jackson thinks that a major limitation of current peer-review systems is the challenge of recruiting and assigning reviewers. Academic professionals frequently decline review requests due to limited incentives and heavy workloads, leading to process delays and inconsistent review quality. Initiatives such as QIMS’s Reviewer of the Month recognition are highly valuable, as they highlight the often-overlooked yet essential contributions of faculty and clinicians, and effectively encourage continued engagement in peer review.
In Dr. Jackson’s opinion, a strong reviewer must demonstrate substantive expertise in the manuscript topic to rigorously evaluate research methodology and the significance of findings. They must maintain impartiality while delivering critical yet constructive feedback on the accuracy and clarity of the work. Ensuring published research is accessible and understandable to a broad readership is also essential for the widespread dissemination of scientific knowledge.
A well-chosen reviewer will be more inclined to accept review of a compelling abstract regarding a specific topic of interest to them. This is the biggest draw for me personally. In my own publication experience I have received excellent feedback from reviewers and recognize how valuable that is for authors. It is rewarding to be able to provide that kind of constructive feedback in return to help improve a manuscript. Reviewers also greatly appreciate courteous editors and author responses that acknowledge their time and thoughtful efforts. Participating in peer review helps one become more familiar with the full publication process and even become a better writer. I am happy to contribute to this process,” says Dr. Jackson.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Carlo A. Mallio
Carlo Augusto Mallio is an Associate Professor of Radiology at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio‑Medico and the Campus Bio‑Medico University of Rome. He completed a Master’s Degree in Diagnostic Neuroradiology at Sapienza University of Rome and holds a PhD in Medical Sciences from the University of Antwerp. His research focuses on advanced neuroimaging, including neurodegenerative diseases, cerebrovascular disorders, contrast agent safety, artificial intelligence applications in radiology, spinal and musculoskeletal imaging, as well as oncologic and hematologic diseases. He is actively involved in several national and international research projects and has authored more than 180 peer‑reviewed publications. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Mallio: Peer review is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific research through the critical evaluation of methods, results, and conclusions prior to publication. It helps refine manuscripts, identify errors or biases, and uphold the integrity of the scientific literature.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Mallio: An objective review is an unbiased, fair, and evidence‑based assessment of a manuscript centered on its scientific quality, methodology, and relevance, independent of personal opinions or the authors’ identity. I maintain objectivity by following clear evaluation criteria, systematically assessing strengths and weaknesses, avoiding unfounded assumptions, and supporting all comments with specific, constructive arguments.
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. Mallio: Peer review often remains unseen, yet it is fundamental to scientific progress. The time and expertise that reviewers dedicate enhance the quality, rigor, and credibility of research. Their contributions are invaluable, and their commitment is pivotal to advancing knowledge for the entire scientific community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Eléonore Vermeulen
Eléonore Vermeulen completed her PhD at the NMR laboratory of the Institute of Myology in Paris, where she focused on muscle MRI biomarkers for neuromuscular diseases and searched for early markers of these conditions. She is now conducting postdoctoral research at the Paris Brain Institute, where she is continuing her work on identifying brain markers for neuromuscular diseases.
Dr. Vermeulen acknowledges that while the current peer-review system is essential for ensuring scientific quality, it is not without limitations. She points out that researchers are not sufficiently reminded that peer review is a core professional responsibility—though doctoral training in France emphasizes open science and research ethics, post-graduation encouragement for active reviewer engagement is lacking, and she suggests academic conferences could include sessions for early-career researchers to highlight the importance and practice of peer review. Another major challenge, she notes, is the growing number of manuscripts to review, driven in part by the rise of AI-assisted writing, which could significantly increase reviewers’ workload, especially in highly specialized fields with few experts, though this is not an issue for QIMS.
Dr. Vermeulen indicates that a reviewer’s primary role is to help improve the manuscript, noting that most researchers’ own papers are stronger in their final form than initial submissions. She argues that reviewers should provide constructive, detailed, and thoughtful feedback to strengthen authors’ work rather than merely judge it, adding that a good review requires reading the manuscript multiple times—first to grasp the overall impression and then carefully to assess each section in detail. She stresses the importance of constructive criticism that focuses on the authors’ approach rather than evaluating the work based on how the reviewer would have done it differently.
“We often find a few spare hours here and there that can be dedicated to peer review. However, this can also highlight another limitation of the system. While early-career researchers may have slightly more time, senior researchers often have less. However, their input would arguably be even more valuable,” says Dr. Vermeulen.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gavin P. Winston
Dr. Gavin Winston is a Professor of Medicine cross-appointed to the School of Computing at Queen’s University, Canada, and affiliated with the Centre for Neuroscience Studies. He completed his medical training at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, neurology residency in London, and earned his PhD in Neuroimaging of Epilepsy from University College London. His clinical work focuses on rapid assessment and management of first seizure, and he played a key role in establishing Kingston Health Sciences Centre as an epilepsy surgery center. His research centers on computational neuroimaging and machine learning to enhance diagnosis and outcomes in refractory focal epilepsy and associated cognitive impairments. A recipient of prestigious honors including the Sir Peter Mansfield Prize and the American Epilepsy Society Young Investigator Award, he has authored over 130 peer-reviewed publications and is an active contributor to the epilepsy and neuroimaging communities. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Winston reckons that peer review is a critical component of the scientific publication process, in which independent domain experts evaluate submitted work for validity, significance, originality, and methodological rigor. Its core purposes are to judge whether a study merits publication, to filter out seriously flawed research, and to deliver constructive feedback to strengthen the work. As such, it represents an essential safeguard for upholding the quality and standards of scientific literature.
Dr. Winston minimizes bias by focusing squarely on the science itself, rather than the authors’ identities or institutional affiliations. Double-blinded review is highly valuable in this respect, even if it remains relatively uncommon in practice. When offering necessary critical comments, he frames them as objective limitations of the science—fairly presented, yet oriented toward improvement. He also reviews grants for multiple national funding agencies, which provide formal training on bias mitigation, further supporting consistent, impartial evaluation.
“There are several factors that motivate me to do peer review. In my early career, I received a lot of helpful feedback from anonymous peer-reviewers to help improve the quality of my own work and I would like to give back the same. Second, it allows me to keep updated on new ideas and advances in my areas of research. These could potentially be incorporated into my own research. Finally, science relies on collaboration between large numbers of people, and involvement in peer review helps contribute to this collaboration,” says Dr. Winston.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Manatomo Toyono
Dr. Manatomo Toyono is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. He specializes in pediatric cardiology, with a particular focus on congenital heart disease, Kawasaki disease, and long-term outcomes of patients with complex cardiac conditions. His research interests include multimodality cardiac imaging, perioperative management, and the transition of congenital heart disease patients to adult care. He is actively involved in clinical practice, medical education, and collaborative research, contributing to the advancement of pediatric cardiovascular medicine. He also serves as a peer reviewer for several international journals, supporting the dissemination of high-quality scientific evidence. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Toyono, peer review is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific research. It serves as a quality control mechanism that ensures the validity, originality, and clinical relevance of published work. Through critical evaluation by experts in the field, peer review helps to identify methodological limitations, enhance clarity, and strengthen the interpretation of results. Additionally, it fosters constructive academic dialogue and supports the advancement of evidence-based medicine. Ultimately, peer review builds trust within the scientific community and among the public.
Dr. Toyono believes that a constructive review is objective, respectful, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. It provides specific and actionable suggestions, highlights both strengths and weaknesses, and guides authors on how to enhance their work. Even when recommending rejection, constructive feedback can help authors refine their research for future submissions. In contrast, a destructive review is often vague, overly critical, or dismissive, offering little guidance for improvement. Such reviews may focus on minor issues, including unprofessional language, or reflect personal bias rather than scientific reasoning. Destructive feedback can discourage researchers and hinder scientific progress.
“My primary motivation for peer reviewing is a sense of professional responsibility to contribute to the advancement of science and clinical medicine. As a researcher and clinician, I have benefited greatly from the peer review process, and serving as a reviewer allows me to give back to the academic community. It also provides an opportunity to stay up to date with the latest developments in pediatric cardiology and to refine my own critical appraisal skills. Furthermore, supporting the dissemination of high-quality research ultimately benefits patient care, which is the most rewarding aspect of this role,” says Dr. Toyono.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Russell Gardner Witt
Dr. Russell Gardner Witt is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Virginia, specializing in the clinical management of melanoma and soft tissue sarcoma. He earned his medical degree from the University of California Davis, completed his general surgery residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and pursued a surgical oncology fellowship at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. His research centers on the mechanisms underlying therapeutic resistance in melanoma, especially how obesity, metabolic stress and hormonal signaling affect drug-tolerant persister cell populations. His current work combines preclinical models with translational studies to identify strategies for overcoming targeted therapy resistance. He leads a translational research program at UVA dedicated to improving outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. Learn more about him here.
QIMS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Witt: Reviewers should first evaluate whether a manuscript addresses a meaningful scientific or clinical question, whether it advances current literature, and whether it fits the journal’s scope. If a manuscript is clearly deficient in these aspects, reviewers should assess whether it can be realistically revised to meet standards; if not, recommending rejection is more constructive than subjecting authors to futile rounds of revisions. For manuscripts that tackle important questions and contribute to the field, peer review should aim to refine and strengthen the work, rather than impose excessive or unnecessary critiques that add no scientific value. Reviewers should also consider the feasibility of revisions based on available data, ensuring comments are both rigorous and practical.
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. Witt: I believe data sharing is absolutely crucial. Fundamentally, it enables validation and reproduction of findings, which is essential to scientific integrity. Furthermore, it allows other researchers to build on existing work, explore new questions, and avoid redundant efforts, thereby accelerating overall scientific progress.
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. Witt: Peer review is time-consuming and challenging, yet it is a core responsibility of scientists. Being thoughtful and, importantly, timely with reviews really matters. We’ve all been on the other side waiting for feedback that takes months and delays our work. A good review can genuinely help move a project forward, while delays or superficial critiques just slow everything down. It’s also work that often goes unrecognized and doesn’t come with much direct reward, which is probably why it’s easy to deprioritize. But the system depends on people taking it seriously. Even though we can feel like competitors within fields at times, we’re all working toward the same goal: advancing science and improving our collective understanding.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sidhartha G. Senapati
Dr. Sidhartha G. Senapati is a resident in Internal Medicine at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in El Paso. Academically, his major areas of interest include Cardiovascular Medicine, specifically Interventional Cardiology, Heart Failure, and Structural Heart Disease. He has been involved in several papers, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses using national databases such as the National Inpatient Sample. The focus of his recent research has been outcomes in high-risk patient groups with heart disease and the use of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular diagnostics. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Senapati views peer review as both a gatekeeping process and a collaborative effort to enhance the quality of scientific literature. In his reviews, he first assesses the study’s scientific validity, including its rationale and clinical relevance. He then carefully evaluates the methodology, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and statistical analyses. He also checks the manuscript’s internal consistency—ensuring conclusions are supported by the results—as well as its originality and contribution to the field. Additionally, he emphasizes clarity and structure, which can affect overall quality even in scientifically sound studies. Ethical considerations, such as proper referencing, transparent reporting, and potential biases, are also examined. He strives to provide constructive, balanced feedback while maintaining confidentiality and timeliness.
As there are potential biases in peer review—an inevitable challenge—Dr. Senapati explains that he is fully aware of subconscious biases that may affect decision-making and actively works to counteract their negative effects. For example, he focuses solely on the content of the manuscript rather than the authors' identities, affiliations, or nationalities, basing his decisions entirely on the scientific significance and quality of the study.
“Maintaining balance between the demands of a physician-scientist job is never easy, especially given the time required to review manuscripts. Nonetheless, I believe peer review to be a crucial component of my professional activities that requires the same dedication as any other responsibility. Effective time management and scheduling are vital to accomplishing this goal. Of course, experience is one's ally in becoming efficient. I have learned how to perform a quick assessment of the manuscript without neglecting its main ideas. It is equally vital to keep in mind that efficient does not mean hasty. Thoughtful, high-quality feedback is what scientific publishing needs. The importance of peer review lies not only in its contribution to the field of science but also in the development of my own skills and knowledge,” says Dr. Senapati.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Stephanie Yuka Matwijszyn Nagano
Stephanie Yuka Matwijszyn Nagano is a radiologist specializing in neuroradiology and head and neck imaging at A.C. Camargo Cancer Center and Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. Her clinical and research interests focus on oncologic imaging of the head and neck, particularly standardized reporting systems, treatment response assessment, and advanced MRI techniques. She is currently working on projects to validate and implement the NI-RADS lexicon at her institution. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Nagano: Peer review is important because it allows other experts to evaluate a study before publication, helping identify errors and reduce bias. Constructive feedback and a second opinion can significantly strengthen a manuscript, highlighting revisions that enhance its clarity, robustness, and overall scientific quality.
QIMS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Nagano: An objective review maintains neutrality and centers on scientific merit and established criteria, rather than personal or professional opinions. Adhering to standardized reporting guidelines also helps ensure objectivity and consistency, while minimizing the impact of personal bias.
QIMS: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Nagano: Following such guidelines is critical, as they strengthen the scientific rigor of both the study and the manuscript by providing a structured framework for research design and transparent result presentation. Especially for early-career authors, these guidelines offer a tangible foundation to avoid subjective opinions and bias, enabling clear, systematic organization of findings.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Subramanian Subramanian
Subramanian Subramanian obtained his medical degree from Stanley Medical College in 1999 and completed an internship at Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, India. He received radiology training and residency at AIIMS, New Delhi (2002-2004), followed by a senior residency there (2005-2008). He also completed a one-year training in pediatric radiology and neuroradiology at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin. Currently, he is Assistant Professor of Pediatric Radiology at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, providing clinical, research, and teaching services. He developed MRI protocols for the Pittsburgh Craniofacial Center and oversaw its implementation across UPMC institutions. His research focuses on maxillofacial MRI for defining disease extent and assessing treatment response, as well as pediatric neuroimaging, trauma, and rapid MRI protocols to reduce radiation exposure. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Subramanian thinks that peer review helps to maintain the quality of published studies and identify methodological errors, ensure the correct use of statistics, and verify that conclusions drawn from statistics are appropriate. It also ensures that studies include a sufficient number of patients to achieve the statistical power needed to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Peer review filters out substandard and duplicate studies, which would otherwise occupy limited journal space, thereby improving the quality of studies submitted to the journal. Additionally, it ensures that all ethical principles are followed and that all regulatory approvals were obtained before publication.
In Dr. Subramanian’s opinion, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is mandatory to protect the rights and welfare of patients and subjects participating in research. It ensures that consent is obtained for the study and that all vulnerable populations are properly included. The privacy of participants is also safeguarded. IRB approval also regulates how data is collected, stored, and handled. If unexpected or adverse outcomes occur, the study may be terminated, thereby minimizing risks to participants. Before IRB approval, the study is reviewed by field experts. IRB approval also sets standards for rigorous and ethical research and ensures compliance with all regulatory requirements such as HIPAA, FDA, and the Department of Health and Human Services. If IRB approval is omitted, mandatory guidelines may not be followed, and the welfare of subjects and patients in the study may not be protected. Researchers may lose funding, and the validity of the data may be questionable. There may also be legal liability, and researchers and institutions could be sued if research is conducted without regulatory approval.
“I have been greatly benefited by peer-review process of my published articles, and I feel it is my academic duty to provide honest, trustworthy, non-judgemental and timely review of the studies submitted for my review. I always focus on the positive aspects of studies and try to improve on work that has been submitted. I look at the validity of methodology, whether enough number of patients were included and whether study proved or disproved a given hypothesis. I also assess if there are any new discovery or new findings or new imaging parameters reported in the study. Peer review also helps me to stay current with the developments in my field pediatric radiology and pediatric neuroradiology and develop networks,” says Dr. Subramanian.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tuhin Roy
Tuhin Roy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering at IIT Bombay. He obtained his B.E. in Civil Engineering from BESU Shibpur (now IIEST Shibpur) and M.Tech in Structural Engineering from IIT Kharagpur. After working for two years at the Indian Register of Shipping, he earned his M.S. in Applied Mathematics and Ph.D. in Structural Engineering and Mechanics from North Carolina State University (NCSU), USA. His postdoctoral research at NCSU and the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) focused on guided wave inversion and shear wave elastography for arterial stiffness estimation. He later joined Columbia University as a Postdoctoral Research Scientist, advancing ultrasound elastography techniques for assessing tissue stiffness in vascular, breast, and cervical applications. His research integrates finite element modeling, inverse problems, and physics-informed machine learning toward non-invasive tissue characterization and computational biomechanics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Roy believes that peer review is fundamental to maintaining the integrity, rigor, and credibility of scientific research. It ensures that published work meets high methodological and ethical standards and contributes meaningfully to the field. Beyond evaluation, peer review fosters scientific dialogue; it allows experts to refine and validate ideas, often improving the clarity and impact of a manuscript. For researchers, it is both a gatekeeping and learning process that collectively elevates the quality of scientific literature.
Dr. Roy indicates that the current peer-review system faces challenges such as reviewer fatigue, delays, and occasional bias—especially in interdisciplinary research. He also points out a lack of recognition for reviewers’ contributions, despite their essential role in the scientific process. To improve the system, he suggests encouraging more open or collaborative review models, which may enhance fairness, accountability, and engagement among reviewers.
“Reviewers are the unsung custodians of scientific progress. Each thoughtful critique or constructive suggestion helps shape the direction of research and strengthens our collective pursuit of knowledge. While reviewing often feels invisible, its impact is immense. It sustains the quality and credibility of science. I believe every review, done with diligence and fairness, is an investment in the integrity of our disciplines. To fellow reviewers: your efforts truly matter, and the scientific community deeply values your commitment,” says Dr. Roy.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Vidhi Patel
Vidhi Patel is currently in her final year of Internal Medicine residency at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center in Queens, New York. Her research interests include preventive cardiology, women’s cardiovascular health, and advanced cardiac imaging. She is particularly focused on integrating modalities such as cardiac CT angiography and cardiac MRI to improve the diagnosis and management of conditions more prevalent in women, including myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and stable coronary artery disease. She is actively engaged in academic cardiology through presenting abstracts at national conferences—including the American College of Cardiology (ACC)—and publishing retrospective studies and meta-analyses. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Vidhi reckons that peer review is essential for ensuring the integrity and quality of scientific research. It provides a structured process to evaluate the soundness of methodology, the accuracy and clarity of data presentation, and the appropriateness of its interpretation. By involving experts in the field, peer review offers valuable, constructive feedback that helps refine analyses, strengthen conclusions, and enhance the overall quality and reliability of a publication.
In Vidhi’s opinion, constructive criticism focuses on improving the quality of a manuscript through honest, thoughtful, and rigorous evaluation. Its goal is to help authors strengthen their work so that the findings meaningfully advance knowledge within the scope of the journal. This includes offering clear, specific, and actionable feedback that enhances the study’s methodology, interpretation, and overall clarity. Destructive criticism, on the other hand, is unproductive and may hinder the review process. Such feedback may arise when the reviewer lacks sufficient familiarity with the subject matter, leading to critiques that do not effectively support the development or advancement of the manuscript.
“I chose to review for QIMS because it is a highly regarded journal known for its rigorous peer-review process and commitment to publishing high-quality, innovative scientific research,” says Vidhi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ryota Horiguchi
Dr. Ryota Horiguchi, MD, PhD, is a radiologist and interventional radiologist in the Department of Radiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. His clinical practice focuses on a broad range of interventional radiology procedures, particularly endovascular and image-guided treatments in the abdominal and peripheral vascular fields. He is also involved in diagnostic imaging and academic research. His doctoral research focused on 4D flow MRI and hemodynamic energy loss in aortic disease, especially before and after endovascular aortic repair. His current academic interests include general interventional radiology and imaging-based evaluation of aortic hemodynamics. He values close interdisciplinary collaboration and believes that radiology contributes not only to diagnosis, but also directly to patient care through minimally invasive treatment.
Dr. Horiguchi reckons that peer review is essential for maintaining the quality, reliability, and clinical relevance of scientific research. He notes that in medicine, published studies may directly influence clinical decision-making and patient care, so manuscripts should be carefully evaluated before publication. Peer review, he explains, helps identify methodological weaknesses, unsupported interpretations, and areas that need clearer explanation. It also improves manuscripts by encouraging balanced discussion and more transparent reporting. In his view, peer review is not only a process of quality control, but also a collaborative effort to refine research so that it becomes more meaningful and useful for readers, clinicians, and future investigators.
Dr. Horiguchi believes an objective review is one that evaluates a manuscript based on its scientific merit rather than the authors, institutions, or whether the findings match the reviewer’s expectations. He tries to focus on several key points: the importance of the research question, the appropriateness of the methods, the validity of the analysis, the clarity of the presentation, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the data. He also tries to distinguish major concerns from minor comments and provide constructive suggestions rather than personal criticism. If a manuscript is outside his expertise or if there is a potential conflict of interest, he would decline the review as appropriate.
According to Dr. Horiguchi, reporting guidelines are very important. He states that they help authors present their work in a transparent, complete, and reproducible manner. In clinical and imaging research, he adds, even a well-designed study may lose value if essential methodological details are missing. Guidelines such as STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and CARE, he explains, provide a practical framework that improves clarity and allows reviewers and readers to assess a study more accurately. From a reviewer’s perspective, adherence to these guidelines also makes the review process more efficient and fairer, because the manuscript can be evaluated in a more systematic way.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
Takeshi Uno
Dr. Takeshi Uno, MD, PhD, is a neurosurgeon at Teikyo University School of Medicine in Japan. His clinical work covers both open and endovascular neurosurgery, with particular interests in cerebrovascular disease, skull base tumors, endoscopic skull base surgery, and radiosurgery. In recent years, he has been involved in several research projects aimed at improving the safety and accuracy of neurosurgical treatment, including imaging-based support for neuroendovascular procedures, hybrid treatment strategies for complex carotid occlusive disease, and simulation-based assessment of catheter manipulation and tactile resistance. He is also interested in practical ways to better understand complex surgical anatomy and to translate technical advances into safer and more reliable patient care.
Dr. Uno points out that peer review is important because it helps maintain the quality and reliability of scientific publications. Before a paper is published, having it examined by field experts allows for judgment of whether the methods are appropriate, conclusions are supported by data, and the message is clear. He notes that peer review also helps improve the paper itself by identifying points needing clarification or revision. For clinical research, this is especially critical, as published work may influence daily practice and patient care—making peer review not only an evaluation process, but also a key step in enhancing the accuracy and usefulness of scientific communication.
According to Dr. Uno, a constructive review is fair, specific, and helpful: it clearly points out key weaknesses or concerns, explains their importance, and where possible, suggests ways to improve the manuscript. He adds that even when a reviewer has major concerns or recommends rejection, comments should remain professional, respectful, and focused on separating major issues from minor ones to uphold the paper’s scientific value. In contrast, a destructive review is unnecessarily harsh, vague, or dismissive—featuring emotional, sarcastic, or unsupported comments that offer no meaningful value to the authors or editors.
“I choose to review for QIMS because the journal publishes a wide range of work related to medical imaging and its clinical applications. As a neurosurgeon, I rely heavily on imaging not only for diagnosis, but also for surgical planning, intraoperative decision-making, and evaluation of treatment results. For that reason, I find the scope of QIMS closely related to my own clinical and academic interests. I also appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the field by helping assess whether submitted work is scientifically sound, clearly presented, and meaningful to readers. Reviewing for QIMS is like a natural extension of both my clinical practice and my research activities,” says Dr. Uno.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
Xuqian Li
Xuqian Li is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Clinical Neuroimaging at the Centre for Advanced Imaging, University of Queensland (UQ), working under the mentorship of Dr. Lena Oestreich. She completed her PhD at UQ in 2024, with training in cognitive neuroscience and multimodal neuroimaging. Her current research focuses on the neural mechanisms underlying resilience after trauma, including the shared and distinct neural correlates of PTSD and complex PTSD. She is also contributing to large-scale population research mapping neuroimaging-derived biomarkers to mental health outcomes using UK Biobank data—work recognized with a Merit Award at the OHBM Annual Meeting 2025. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
QIMS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Li: The most important qualities for a reviewer in peer review are rigour, a genuine respect for scientific standards, and a constructive mindset. A good reviewer engages carefully with a manuscript’s methodology and interpretation, approaching the work with intellectual honesty. The spirit of feedback is equally important: the goal should always be to help authors strengthen their work, so constructive suggestions are just as valuable as identifying areas of concern. At its core, she notes, peer review is a form of service to the scientific community, and this framing guides what effective reviewing looks like in practice.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Li: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, and like any system that has evolved over time, there are ongoing conversations about how it can be further strengthened. One area that has received attention is how reviewer contributions are recognised. Reviewing requires a meaningful investment of time and expertise; and finding better ways to acknowledge that within academic culture seems worthwhile. Transparency is another area where there is room for growth. It seems that the open peer review models, where reviews are made available alongside published articles, have shown promise in improving accountability and also serve a useful educational function, particularly for those earlier in their careers who are learning the craft of reviewing.
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. Li: I do think it is important, and I would say the value of these guidelines extends well beyond manuscript preparation. They reflect a community consensus on what transparent and rigorous reporting looks like for a given study design, and engaging with them thoughtfully often reinforces good research practice from the very beginning of a project. From a reviewer’s perspective, they also provide a helpful shared reference point, making it easier to assess the completeness and consistency of what has been reported. There is something to be said, too, for the signal that careful reporting sends about a researcher’s overall approach to their work. In a field where reproducibility is an ongoing conversation, transparency in how findings are communicated carries real weight.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Piotr Grad
Piotr Grad, D.D.S., graduated from Jagiellonian University Medical College in Kraków. He obtained his specialty in dental surgery following advanced training at the Oral Surgery Clinic of the University Dental Clinic and the Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic of Ludwik Rydygier Specialist Hospital in Kraków. His daily clinical practice focuses on dental surgery and implantology. He also engages in research and teaching at the Department of Integrated Dentistry, Jagiellonian University Medical College. His teaching portfolio includes dental anatomy, dental surgery, and restorative dentistry, while his research interests cover medical image segmentation, 3D printing, augmented reality, as well as dental and maxillofacial surgery.
QIMS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Grad: Peer review ensures that only high-quality scientific papers are selected for publication. Beyond screening qualified manuscripts, reviewers carry a more meaningful responsibility: helping authors refine and bring out the best in their work. The process can be likened to polishing rough diamonds into brilliant gemstones, where reviewers guide authors along the right academic path and provide valuable insights to improve their research.
QIMS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Grad: Double-blind review serves as the fundamental foundation of peer evaluation. The core limitation of the current system lies in the human factor. Editors, reviewers, and authors alike are required to demonstrate solid expertise, sincere commitment, and critical thinking. Optimal review outcomes can only be achieved when all involved professionals fully exert their academic potential.
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. Grad: Every contribution to scientific work is important. Sometimes even the smallest contribution is worth its weight in gold, and the simplest research can prove groundbreaking.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
