In 2025, CDT 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.
Valdano Manuel, Jean Piaget University, Angola
Jonathan Xinguo Fang, National Heart Centre, Singapore
Maneeth Mylavarapu, Adelphi University, USA
Cheuk Bong Ho, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China
Dongwon Yi, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Korea
Stefan Bittmann, Ped Mind Institute, Germany
Tomonori Takahashi, Tokushima University Hospital, Japan
Hidetoshi Yanagi, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Japan
Mitchell McManis, Ohio Valley Heart, USA
Neel N. Patel, University of Tennessee, USA
Siluleko A. Mkhize, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Zhonghua Sun, Curtin University, Australia
James W S Jahng, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, USA
Matylda Mazur, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
Valdano Manuel
Prof. Dr. Valdano Manuel is a cardiovascular surgeon and researcher in cardiovascular sciences in Angola. He is an Associate Professor at the School of Medicine, Jean Piaget University, Angola. Trained in cardiac surgery in Brazil, he participated in over 1,000 procedures and has since performed more than 800 surgeries in Angola, contributing significantly to cardiac surgery development in the region. He currently leads the Cardiovascular and Thoracic Service at the Complexo Hospitalar de Doenças Cardiopulmonares Cardeal Dom Alexandre do Nascimento. He is the founder of the Núcleo de Pesquisa Cardiovascular Angolano (NPCA) and the Conclave (ACORHD), an international conference on rheumatic heart disease. With over 60 scientific publications and more than 100 peer-reviewed articles indexed by Web of Science, he is a prominent researcher. He serves on the governance boards of the African Society and the World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery. His research focuses on congenital and rheumatic heart diseases and healthcare challenges in sub-Saharan Africa, aiming to enhance cardiac care access and outcomes.
Prof. Dr. Manuel believes that peer review is essential for maintaining the integrity, quality, and reliability of scientific research. It serves as a mechanism for evaluating the validity, methodology, and significance of a study before publication, helping to prevent the dissemination of flawed or misleading information. In medicine, where decisions impact lives, peer review ensures that only robust, evidence-based findings shape clinical practice. It also fosters academic dialogue, allowing experts to refine and improve research before it reaches a wider audience. Ultimately, it safeguards the credibility of scientific literature and reinforces trust in research findings.
However, Prof. Dr. Manuel indicates that the current peer-review system faces several limitations. First, it is time-consuming, delaying the dissemination of critical findings. Second, the process is susceptible to bias—whether related to institutional reputation, geographical location, or personal academic networks. Third, the anonymity of peer review can sometimes lead to harsh or unconstructive criticism without accountability. Additionally, with the growing number of scientific publications, there is a shortage of qualified reviewers, leading to an uneven review quality.
To improve peer review, journals could implement structured review guidelines to ensure consistency and fairness. Increasing transparency, such as open peer review or disclosing reviewer identities post-publication, could enhance accountability. Incorporating AI tools for initial screening of methodology and data integrity could streamline the process. Moreover, better incentives—such as academic recognition or CME credits—could encourage more experts to participate actively in reviewing.
“My motivation for peer reviewing comes from a commitment to scientific integrity and the advancement of cardiovascular research, particularly in underrepresented regions. Peer review is a way of giving back to the scientific community, ensuring that high-quality research is disseminated while helping to filter out poorly conducted studies. It also provides an opportunity for continuous learning, exposing me to new methodologies, emerging trends, and diverse perspectives in my field. Additionally, contributing to peer review strengthens global collaboration and improves the standards of research in areas like sub-Saharan Africa, where quality control in scientific publications is crucial for evidence-based policy and practice,” says Prof. Dr. Manuel.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jonathan Xinguo Fang
Jonathan Xinguo Fang, MBBS, FACC, FSCAI, is an interventional cardiologist specializing in structural heart disease, complex coronary interventions, and mechanical circulatory support. He trained at Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong before completing an interventional cardiology fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and a structural heart disease fellowship at Henry Ford Hospital, USA. Currently, he is an Associate Consultant at the National Heart Centre Singapore and its affiliated hospitals. His clinical and research interests include innovative techniques, reproducibility, minimalism, and alternative access in interventional cardiology. He has authored over 40 peer-reviewed articles and currently serves as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (JSCAI) and a reviewer for journals such as JACC: Case Reports and the Journal of Invasive Cardiology. He is currently pursuing a Master of Public Health at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.
CDT: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Fang: When reviewing manuscripts, maintaining impartiality, consistency, and objectivity is crucial. Peer reviewers uphold the quality of scientific literature. To ensure fairness, I avoid reviewing manuscripts from close collaborators to prevent conflicts of interest. A thorough review requires evaluating research objectives, methodology, and the relevance of findings to clinical practice. If a manuscript is only marginally in one's expertise, conducting a literature search is essential to assess its novelty. Organizations like the American College of Cardiology (ACC) use systematic frameworks—priority, originality, methodology, presentation, and medical relevance—to ensure a comprehensive and consistent review process. Peer reviewing improves with experience. A good review identifies weaknesses and offers constructive feedback to strengthen the study. Derogatory comments should be avoided, even for unsuitable manuscripts. If a study is flawed, the reviewer should provide guidance for improvement or resubmission elsewhere. Effective time management is also critical; if timely completion isn't possible, declining the review invitation is more appropriate than submitting late reviews.
CDT: Would you like to say a few words to other reviewers?
Dr. Fang: Balancing clinical work and science is tough, but they're intertwined. Innovations and feasibility studies, like epidemiological research and clinical trials, need strict review. In fields like interventional cardiology and surgery, technology can quickly make advanced techniques outdated. Active peer review is key to keeping new research reliable and relevant. Reading literature and peers' work keeps us informed and humble. It's never too late to start. Early in my career, few clinicians did research, limiting my chances. Training in the US changed that, showing how important it is to balance clinical skills with scientific work. I encourage young clinicians to review two to three times more than they submit. This promotes reciprocity and raises the quality of peer-reviewed research. Beginning with case reports helps build evaluation skills before moving on to review larger studies in respected journals.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Maneeth Mylavarapu
Dr. Maneeth Mylavarapu, MBBS, MPH, is a physician with a Master of Public Health (MPH) and an early career researcher focusing on outcomes research. He has authored or co-authored numerous publications and presentations in various medical fields, including cardiology, public health, and emergency medicine. He has a particular interest in heart failure, specifically cardiotoxic heart failure, and is actively involved in research and collaboration in this area.
Dr. Mylavarapu reckons that the current peer-review system often feels like a black box, “You submit your work and wait, sometimes receiving brilliant feedback, other times less so. The process can be slow, and the quality can vary significantly.” To improve it, he points out that we should move towards more transparency. Open peer review, where reviews are published alongside the paper, could be beneficial. Better training for reviewers, standardized templates, and post-publication reviews to foster ongoing discussion are needed. The technology could also help identify reviewers and detect biases. Importantly, he points out that we should consider registered reports to eliminate publication bias, and also need to find ways to incentivize reviewers and show them that their work is valued.
“Honestly, it's about contributing to the field, isn't it? When you're working on a manuscript, you know how much you rely on the feedback of others. So, when it's your turn to review, it feels like a professional responsibility. It's a way of ensuring that the research we publish is as rigorous as possible. Plus, it's a great way to stay up-to-date with the latest developments in your area. You get to see cutting-edge research before publication, which is invaluable. And let’s be honest: it hones your critical thinking skills. It forces you to really engage with the material and analyze it from all angles,” says Dr. Mylavarapu.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Cheuk Bong Ho
Dr. Cheuk Bong Ho is currently the service-in-charge for adult congenital heart disease in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong China. After graduation from The University of Hong Kong, he joined the Department of Medicine in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong and obtained double fellowship in cardiology and advance internal medicine. He further underwent overseas training on interventional congenital heart disease at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark for 1 year. His main research interest is on catheter-based intervention of adult congenital and structural heart disease as well as intra-cardiac echocardiogram. He has reported multiple innovative interventional techniques, often first-in-human, in tackling different cardiovascular conditions. He is a regular reviewer of various cardiovascular journals, and has published extensively on a variety of topics, including congenital, structural and coronary interventions, cardiogenic shock and percutaneous left ventricular support device. He is frequently invited as a speaker for local as well as international conferences. Connect with him on X @RonnieCB_Ho.
CDT: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Ho: The importance of peer review cannot be understated. It is a safe guard to maintain quality and credibility of a journal and ensure articles are ready to be published. The most important role of peer review is to enhance the quality of the manuscript. There are often “blind spots” in a manuscript that the authors are not aware of. It could be a potential limitation on methodology, or some interesting discussion points that warrants further elaboration. By critically appraising the manuscript from a neutral standpoint, it stimulates deeper scientific thinking. Not only does it help to improve the manuscript, but also provides insights for the future direction of research.
CDT: What do you regard as a destructive review?
Dr. Ho: As an author as well as reviewer of multiple manuscripts myself, I have encountered both constructive and destructive reviewers. While constructive feedbacks help improving the quality of a manuscript, destructive reviews are frequently biased without concrete suggestions of areas for improvement. For instance, while constructive reviewers would point out the limitation of a novel technique or scientific finding, destructive reviewers would simply disregard it with negative comments, based on personal opinions. This makes correction or future re-submission of the article difficult.
CDT: Why do you choose to review for CDT?
Dr. Ho: Personally, I think all scientific manuscripts warrant publication. It is only a matter of where the article should be published. CDT accepts manuscripts reporting on novel findings in cardiovascular diagnosis and therapeutics. Reviewing for CDT broadens my exposure to various up-to-date topics in cardiovascular medicine. Through the reviewing process and thorough literature review, I am able to refresh and renew my knowledge. I always learn a lot as a reviewer.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Dongwon Yi
Dongwon Yi is an endocrinologist and Associate Professor in the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital in the Republic of Korea. As a researcher, his main focus lies in clinical data analysis, with the goal of identifying new biomarkers for diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Recently, he has expanded his research to include experimental studies using mice, exploring the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on the central nervous system. Through this research, he aims to uncover potential neurological benefits and the underlying mechanisms.
According to Dr. Yi, peer review is fundamental to scientific integrity. It acts as a crucial checkpoint that safeguards the quality, validity, and originality of scientific work before it is disseminated to the broader scientific community. He views peer review not just as a judgment-making process but as a collaborative one. It provides authors with valuable feedback that helps them enhance their work. This process often sparks important scientific discussions, which can lead to further advancements in the field. In clinical research fields like endocrinology, rigorous peer review is especially important. It helps uphold the high standards of evidence-based medicine, which in turn directly contributes to improved patient care by ensuring that only reliable and well-validated research influences clinical practice.
Dr. Yi defines an objective review as one that is fair, constructive, and free from personal biases. When he undertakes the task of reviewing, he makes a conscious effort to focus solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript, rather than being influenced by factors such as the authors' identities or their affiliations. To ensure a comprehensive and accurate assessment, he reads the manuscript multiple times. He then compares various aspects of the study, including the methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions, with the existing body of literature in the field. He also engages in self-reflection to identify and mitigate any potential biases, particularly when the research topic is closely related to his own areas of study. Another key approach he takes to maintain objectivity is to provide specific, evidence-based comments. By avoiding vague criticism and basing his feedback on solid evidence, he helps to ensure that the review is as objective as possible and truly beneficial to the authors in improving their work.
“I consider peer review a professional responsibility and a way to give back to the scientific community. Just as others have generously reviewed and improved my work, I want to contribute in the same spirit. Moreover, reviewing helps me stay up-to-date with recent developments and enhances my critical thinking skills. It’s also intellectually rewarding. I learn a great deal from engaging with diverse approaches and perspectives in my field. Finally, contributing to the integrity of scientific literature is personally meaningful to me,” says Dr. Yi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Stefan Bittmann
Stefan Bittmann has an extensive and diverse educational background. He studied human medicine at the University of Münster, University of Vienna and the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, where he developed a great interest in pediatrics. He is a graduate of the Master's program in Complementary Medicine-Cultural Sciences-Healing (2010-2013) at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), where he earned a Master of Arts (M.A.). He also completed a University Degree Course in Sleep Medicine and Sleep Culture at Apollon University of Applied Sciences in Bremen (2018-2019). After many years of pediatric surgical education, he continued his education with specializations and research in the field of pediatric diseases, focusing on rare genetic diseases and therapeutic innovations. He was appointed in September 2022 as Visiting Professor at the School of Medicine, Shangluo Vocational and Technical College, University in China, where he holds a teaching position. His groundbreaking research covers a wide range of pediatric diseases and innovative treatments. Learn more about him here.
Speaking of a healthy peer-review system, he says “Each individuum has the same health insurance”. It could potentially imply an equal-opportunity and unbiased system where all research is evaluated fairly, regardless of the background of the researchers.
Dr. Bittmann is motivated to engage in peer review as it allows him to distinguish between good and bad research. He values the role of a reviewer in determining which manuscripts, with varying levels of impact, should be published, thereby contributing to the quality of the academic output.
Dr. Bittmann strongly emphasizes the importance of authors disclosing Conflict of Interest (COI). According to him, a COI can have a significant influence on research information. As a reviewer, he believes one must exercise great caution when deciding whether to recommend the publication of work with potential COIs, as these conflicts can undermine the objectivity and reliability of the research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tomonori Takahashi
Tomonori Takahashi is a cardiologist at Tokushima University Hospital, specializing in interventional cardiology and echocardiography. Since 2019, he has been deeply engaged in both clinical work and research at Tokushima University. His current research interests center on the echocardiographic assessment of cardiac function, interventional cardiology, and disaster medicine.
When it comes to the qualities of a reviewer, Dr. Takahashi emphasizes that a good reviewer should have a strong sense of responsibility, fairness, and integrity. Using their professional expertise, they are tasked with rigorously evaluating the scientific validity, logical coherence, and originality of a study. Throughout this process, maintaining a respectful and supportive attitude is crucial. The ultimate aim is to offer constructive feedback that helps steer the research in a more promising direction. Additionally, timely communication and strict confidentiality are essential aspects of a reviewer's role, as they are vital for upholding the quality and credibility of academic publishing.
Regarding the disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI), Dr. Takahashi firmly believes that authors must reveal any potential COIs. Transparency in this regard is key to maintaining trust in the scientific process and safeguarding the integrity of published research. Undisclosed COIs can lead to biased interpretations or selective reporting of results, either consciously or unconsciously, which can severely damage the credibility of the research findings.
As for why he chose to review for CDT, Dr. Takahashi explains that he found the papers in question highly interesting. He also felt confident that he could make a meaningful contribution by leveraging his own extensive experience and specialized knowledge in the field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hidetoshi Yanagi
Dr. Hidetoshi Yanagi, PT, MSc, PhD, is a distinguished cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) specialist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan. His area of expertise lies in cardiovascular rehabilitation for heart failure patients who have cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy. He earned his PhD in Disability Science from Tohoku University while actively engaged in clinical practice. His recent endeavors include leading a JSPS KAKENHI Grant–funded project aimed at promoting CIED CR on a nationwide scale. His contributions to the field have been recognized through awards from the Japanese Heart Failure Society (JHFS) and the Japanese Circulation Society. In his professional journey, he has played a pivotal role in leading the launch and management of a CR team and system. He serves as a Delegate of JHFS and holds multiple credentials, including those as a Registered Instructor of CR, a Certified Diabetes Educator, and a Certified Respiratory Therapist. Since 2024, he has demonstrated remarkable efficiency and quality in academic reviewing by completing 17 peer reviews, mainly consisting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, all within 24 hours of acceptance. Learn more about him here.
To Dr. Yanagi, reviewers need clarity, consistent judgment, and fairness. They have to check manuscripts against guidelines, focusing on the introduction's logic, methodology's suitability, result-method consistency, and balanced conclusions. He sees reviewing as a learning opportunity.
Dr. Yanagi notes the peer-review system's inconsistencies, with some reviews overly critical or missing flaws, due to time limits or lack of training. To improve it, he suggests journals provide tailored checklists integrated with manuscript downloads, editors give feedback on reviews' impact, and foster a culture that values peer review as a scholarly contribution.
“I typically dedicate up to three hours to complete each peer review. This time frame allows me to assess the manuscript thoroughly without compromising my clinical and research responsibilities. To maintain quality and focus, I limit reviews to those that can be completed within this window. If a manuscript requires more time, often due to structural issues such as unclear objectives, inconsistent methods, or flawed data presentation, I consider it fundamentally problematic and recommend major revision or rejection. I always aim to complete my reviews within 24 hours of accepting the invitation. This discipline helps me stay focused and ensures timely feedback for authors and editors. Of course, review quality always takes priority. The three-hour window is not a shortcut but a practical boundary I set to ensure depth, consistency, and efficiency within my academic workflow,” says Dr. Yanagi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mitchell McManis
Mitchell McManis, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, is a nurse practitioner specializing in general and interventional cardiology. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati, prior to completing his Master of Science and Doctoral studies at The Ohio State University. He asks his patients to call him “Mitch” to allay any confusion about his role as a nurse practitioner in the clinical setting. Currently, his primary position is at Ohio Valley Heart in rural, central Appalachia. He also provides care in emergency and urgent care settings. He has been engaged by Northern Kentucky University and Western Governors University for his clinical expertise, and by several academic journals as a reviewer. He considers his primary research interests to include electronic and mobile health technology, particularly as they pertain to improving outcomes for cardiology patients, and underserved populations. His clinical interests include coronary artery disease, microvascular angina, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
CDT: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Mitchell: In a time in which the compendium of medical knowledge rapidly advances, peer review bolsters academic integrity, and ensures that quality information reaches clinicians and other academics. Peer review is intended to improve the integrity, validity, and reproducibility of research. Peer review, as performed by expert volunteers, can be instrumental in clarifying and reinforcing manuscripts. By the time a manuscript is written, researchers may have spent months or even years forming an opinion of their work. Having impartial peer reviewers to offer recommendations on your work ensures that other valid viewpoints are not lost. Finally, as academics, we must keep in mind the importance of bringing good ideas out of lecture halls and into patient examination rooms. Peer review is an invaluable step in the process of developing, disseminating, and implementing evidence-based practice.
CDT: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Mitchell: Peer reviewers must take care to remember that researchers come from a multitude of fields, with different backgrounds, experiences, inferences, and preferences. A peer reviewer will often focus much of their attention on a specific aspect of a manuscript. As peer reviewers, we must remind ourselves that we are responsible for providing an impartial view of the manuscript with a holistic approach. If we miss the forest for the trees, or vice versa, we are doing a disservice to the original researchers, and to end users who may benefit from the research. Personally, it has served me well in the past to read a manuscript on several different occasions with a different focus or intention in each session. Seldom has reading a manuscript again on a different day not yielded new insights, comments, or questions as I review.
CDT: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. McManis: Data sharing has been a point of contention with regards to research in healthcare. Clinician scientists must take care to protect the information of the patients they serve, while also disseminating information to help other clinicians, researchers, and patients. By sharing data, statistical analysis can be performed to verify the validity of studies. The scientific standard of reproducibility is also easier to evaluate if the data is available. Many institutions have felt that deidentified patient data is a reasonable compromise which protects participants, and allows health researchers to hasten the pace at which discoveries are made.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Neel N. Patel
Dr. Neel N. Patel is currently a cardiology fellow at the University of Tennessee in Nashville. His research interests lie at the intersection of cardiovascular outcomes, digital health, and health equity. He has published extensively, and is passionate about innovation in cardiology and regularly mentors early-career researchers and medical trainees, including at national healthcare hackathons. He remains actively involved in academic peer review, serves on multiple professional committees, and aspires to combine clinical excellence with technological insight to advance heart care delivery. Learn more about him here.
CDT: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Patel: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity. It ensures that research is scrutinized rigorously and objectively before being shared with the wider community. Beyond simply validating data or methodology, the peer-review process fosters critical dialogue, strengthens scientific conclusions, and promotes transparency. As a reviewer, I see it as a vital responsibility, not only to uphold quality, but also to help authors refine their work so that it can make the greatest impact.
CDT: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Patel: A good reviewer is curious, fair, and constructive. Scientific curiosity helps you appreciate the nuances of the research, while fairness ensures an unbiased evaluation. Most importantly, being constructive allows you to support the authors in improving their work
CDT: 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. Patel: Peer reviewers are the unsung heroes of science. Their time, expertise, and commitment to rigor keep the academic engine running. While the work is often behind the scenes and unrecognized, it plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of medicine and research. I encourage fellow reviewers to take pride in the invisible impact they make. Every thoughtful comment or suggestion contributes to advancing knowledge and improving care for patients worldwide.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Siluleko A. Mkhize
Dr. Siluleko Mkhize, an Early Career Researcher and Academic Support Officer in the School of Biomedical Sciences, Department of Physiology at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, is an active member of the Integrated Molecular Physiology Research Initiative (IMPRI). He has an impressive educational background, having earned a BSc, a BHSc with honours in Applied & Experimental Physiology, and an MSc in Medicine (Family Medicine & Primary Care) from the same institution. His research primarily focuses on the therapeutic area of experimental cardiology. Specifically, he delves into elucidating the functional roles of novel biomarkers in different forms of hypertension-induced heart failure. In his recent projects, he has been exploring the mechanisms of non-coding RNAs with the aim of offering targeted therapeutic interventions. Beyond his research, Dr. Mkhize is passionate about science communication. He has served as an ASAPbio Fellow, where he advocates for Open Science and the translation of laboratory research into clinical practice. Connect with him on X @luleko_s.
According to Dr. Mkhize, peer review is a fundamental aspect of academic citizenship that helps build a collaborative and trustworthy scientific community. It plays a crucial role in quality control. By having experts assess research for accuracy, validity, and originality before publication, it enhances the credibility of scientific literature. Peer-reviewed work is generally considered more reliable and respected. Additionally, the feedback provided during peer review is invaluable. It helps authors identify areas for improvement in their studies and refine their methodologies. Moreover, peer review acts as a defense against fraud and plagiarism, safeguarding the integrity of academic work. Overall, it is a process that drives the advancement of knowledge and supports the dissemination of high-quality research.
Dr. Mkhize defines a constructive review as one that offers specific and actionable feedback. Such reviews highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the work, accompanied by clear suggestions on how to address any identified issues. They are respectful and supportive, focusing on the research content rather than attacking the author personally. Constructive reviews encourage further development and refinement of the research. In contrast, a destructive review is characterized by vagueness, excessive criticism, or a dismissive attitude without offering useful guidance. These reviews may resort to personal attacks or focus on irrelevant details. They undermine the author's confidence and fail to contribute to the improvement of the research, often demoralizing the author and hindering the progress of the work due to the lack of constructive solutions.
“Peer reviewing, despite being anonymous and non-profitable, is driven by several intrinsic motivations. Firstly, it is a vital aspect of academic citizenship, contributing to the advancement and integrity of scientific knowledge. By participating in peer review, researchers help maintain high standards in their field, ensuring that only robust and credible studies are published. Additionally, peer reviewing allows researchers to stay updated with the latest developments and methodologies, enhancing their own expertise. It also provides an opportunity for professional growth and recognition within the academic community. Lastly, the collaborative nature of peer review fosters a sense of community and mutual support among researchers, which can be highly rewarding,” says Dr. Mkhize.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Zhonghua Sun
Prof. Zhonghua Sun is a John Curtin Distinguished Professor and Head of Discipline of Medical Radiation Science at Curtin University, Australia. He gained his MD and PhD degrees in clinical medicine and medical imaging, respectively, from Harbin Medical University in China and University of Ulster in UK. His research interests include diagnostic imaging, 3D medical image visualization of cardiovascular disease, 3D printing, virtual reality and mixed reality in cardiovascular disease, as well as AI in medical applications. He has published 5 books, 14 book chapters, and over 390 refereed journal papers in medical/medical imaging journals. He is a Fellow of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. He serves as an associate editor/academic editor for 6 journals and editorial board member for more than 30 international imaging/medical journals. His recent research focuses on the use of AI technology in quantitative assessment of coronary artery disease. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Prof. Sun, a reviewer should have a solid and in-depth knowledge of the research area under review. Along with this, there is a commitment to conducting a thorough and proper review, which involves offering detailed and fair comments or feedback to the authors. Once a reviewer agrees to assess a manuscript, timely completion of the review is crucial, as is the quality of the evaluation. Whether a manuscript is ultimately accepted or rejected after the peer review process, the reviewer is expected to provide constructive feedback that can help the authors improve their work.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Prof. Sun strongly emphasizes that obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is a vital aspect of any research study. Without such approval, the entire research becomes suspectful, as it calls into question the validity of data collection and the reliability of study results. He firmly states that this process cannot be simply skipped or overlooked.
“It is getting very challenging nowadays to find a reviewer due to being busy with clinical work or other commitments. I will use my spare time or weekends to do the review if I cannot find time during the working hours. Once committed to the review, I will stick to my own rule that a proper review will be provided to authors, with fair and reasonable comments on this submission. We need to respect the author’s research by providing a quality review,” says Prof. Sun.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
James W S Jahng
James Won Suk Jahng serves as an Instructor at the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute. His research is centered on deciphering the mechanisms of cancer therapy-related cardiotoxicity. He aims to develop protective strategies by leveraging stem cell-based platforms. With a particular focus on radiation-induced cardiac injury, he is leading a project to identify radioprotective countermeasures against the cardiotoxic effects of radiotherapy. By integrating cardiovascular biology, stem cell modeling, and therapeutic screening, his work bridges oncology and cardiology to enhance long-term outcomes for cancer survivors.
Dr. Jahng believes that in the face of increasingly multidisciplinary and complex scientific research, peer review plays a crucial role. It serves to ensure the rigor, relevance, and accuracy of research. By bringing together diverse expertise, it allows for a critical and constructive evaluation of findings, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific progress.
According to Dr. Jahng, a proficient reviewer should have a clear comprehension of the journal's scope. Deep knowledge of the subject area is essential, along with the ability to think critically. Additionally, offering constructive feedback, maintaining fairness, and possessing a collaborative mindset are fundamental qualities for a reviewer.
“Reviewing is a meaningful way to contribute to the scientific community. It not only helps maintain research quality but also offers a unique opportunity to stay engaged with new ideas and approaches. I often find reviewing intellectually refreshing and inspiring,” says Dr. Jahng.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matylda Mazur
Matylda Mazur, MD, is a highly regarded specialist in Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology trained at the renowned Cleveland Clinic. She completed her internal medicine training at Yale University and Wake Forest University, followed by a cardiovascular disease fellowship at Penn State University. Her clinical and research pursuits center on heart transplantation, mechanical circulatory support, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and cardio-oncology. A prolific contributor to the field, Dr. Mazur has authored numerous peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. She serves as a reviewer for leading journals, including The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation (JHLT), JACC, JACC: Case Reports, JACC: Heart Failure, and Clinical Transplantation. Currently, she is pursuing a PhD at the Medical University of Warsaw (Poland), with her thesis focusing on advanced heart failure therapies for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Dr. Mazur reckons that the peer-review system, while fundamental to academic publishing, faces significant challenges. Chief among these is the variability in review quality, which can range from deeply constructive and thorough to superficial or overly critical. This inconsistency often arises from lack of formal reviewer training, time constraints, and inadequate recognition for reviewers’ contributions. Additionally, the process is vulnerable to conscious or unconscious bias, particularly regarding author identity, institutional affiliation, or research topic. She provides some suggestions for improvements:
- Structured training & guidelines: implement standardized training programs and clear evaluation criteria to ensure consistent, high-quality reviews.
- Blinded review models: expand the use of double-blind or triple-blind review to mitigate bias, adapting approaches to suit different disciplines.
- Recognition & incentives: acknowledge reviewers through formal credits, academic metrics, or awards to enhance accountability and motivation.
- Technological integration: leverage AI tools for plagiarism detection, statistical validation, and initial manuscript screening, enabling reviewers to focus on scientific merit and interpretation.
In Dr. Mazur’s opinion, an objective review evaluates a manuscript exclusively on its scientific merit, methodological rigor, clarity, and relevance, independent of authors’ identities, institutional backgrounds, or the reviewer’s personal opinions. It prioritizes evidence-based analysis over assumptions and emphasizes constructive critique to strengthen the work, rather than mere criticism. She employs a systematic framework to ensure objectivity:
- Structured evaluation: assesses whether the research question is well-defined, methods are reproducible, data support conclusions, and the work advances the field.
- Bias mitigation: actively identifies and addresses cognitive biases (e.g., familiarity with a topic) or professional conflicts of interest, recusing herself when necessary.
- Separation of form and substance: distinguishes between writing quality and scientific validity, offering feedback to improve clarity without dismissing sound research.
- Fair and respectful tone: focuses on enhancing the manuscript through transparent reasoning and respectful communication, avoiding judgment of authors.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
