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, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, USA
Eric T.A. Lim, Wellington Hospital, New Zealand
Rafael Gomes, University of Pernambuco, Brazil
Reindolf Anokye, Trinity College Dublin, Kingdom of Ireland
Karen B. Abeln, Saarland University Hospital, Germany
Sathish Krishnan, Community Health Network, USA
Matthias F Scriba, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Yuji Nagatomo, National Defense Medical College, Japan
Colin K. Drummond, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Sun Moon Kim, Reid Heart Center, USA
Miguel Ruiz-Canela, University of Navarra, Spain
Maciej Tysarowski, Yale School of Medicine, USA
Mei-Xin Li, Houston Methodist Research Institute, USA
Edouard Gerbaud, Bordeaux University Hospital, France
Nivedita Naresh, University of Virginia, USA
Jien Saito, Hokkaido University Hospital, Japan
Yoshitsugu Nogimori, University of Tokyo Hospital, Japan
Gregorio Bernabé, University of Murcia, Spain
Herrick Wun, Weill Cornell Medical College, USA
Alfio Luca Costa, Italy’s University Hospital of Padova, Italy
Masoud Mohammadnezhad, Birmingham City University, UK
Neiberg de Alcantara Lima, Hartford HealthCare, USA
Tetsumin Lee, Japanese Red Cross Musashino Hospital, Japan
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)
Eric T.A. Lim
Eric T.A. Lim, a Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Trainee with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), is based at Wellington Hospital, New Zealand. Specializing in aortic pathologies, carotid disease, and renal transplantation, he has authored numerous research publications and presented at national/international vascular surgery conferences. His recent work focuses on acute aortic dissection, including a Master’s thesis exploring neuroendocrine hormones in hypertensive acute aortic dissection and their role in guiding medical management. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
To Eric, a robust peer-review system requires evaluation by researchers within the same field, emphasizing constructive feedback and unbiased objectivity. In vascular surgery research—such as studies on aortic dissection—reviewers must assess methodological rigor without personal prejudice, prioritizing improvements that enhance clinical relevance and scientific validity.
An objective review is rooted in clinical evidence, free from emotional or experiential bias. Eric underscores the need to approach reviews non-judgmentally, focusing on data rather than personal opinions. For example, when evaluating carotid disease studies, reviewers should base critiques on published standards and trial outcomes, not individual surgical preferences. This evidence-driven approach ensures reviews advance medical knowledge and patient care.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Eric highlights that data sharing is a cornerstone of modern research, noting its role in building robust datasets—like those from registry-based studies. Sharing vascular surgery data (e.g., on aortic pathology outcomes) enables objective, collaborative analysis, provided ethical guidelines (e.g., patient privacy) are upheld. This transparency fosters cumulative knowledge, allowing researchers to validate findings and refine clinical approaches collectively.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rafael Gomes
Rafael Gomes, MD, MSc, PhD, FESC, FACC, is a cardiologist and interventional cardiology fellow at the Pronto-Socorro Cardiológico de Pernambuco (PROCAPE), University of Pernambuco, Brazil. Board-certified in cardiology, echocardiography, ergometry, and cardio-oncology, he earned his master’s degree in maternal cardiovascular health and PhD in post-infarction autonomic dysfunction, focusing on heart rate variability and turbulence. His clinical and research interests include coronary artery disease, invasive coronary physiology, structural heart interventions, cardio-oncology, and exercise cardiology. Dr. Gomes has authored and reviewed manuscripts for journals like Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy, praised for his meticulous and constructive reviews. A Fellow of the European Society of Cardiology (FESC) and American College of Cardiology (FACC), he also serves as a Fellow-in-Training at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Gomes thinks that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity, ensuring research validity, originality, and relevance through critical appraisal by field experts. It elevates published work quality, prevents flawed conclusions from spreading, and upholds evidence-based medicine standards—safeguarding trust within the scientific community and the public.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Gomes thinks that following guidelines like STROBE, CONSORT, and PRISMA is crucial. These frameworks enhance clarity, transparency, and reproducibility by ensuring no critical methodological details are missed, enabling fair and thorough reviews. Adherence reflects authors’ commitment to rigor, boosting their findings’ credibility and impact. Standardization is key for reviewers to provide objective evaluations.
“To my fellow reviewers: your work, though often invisible, is invaluable. Every comment you make, every inconsistency you highlight, contributes to the evolution of science. It is a privilege to be part of this collective effort, shaping the future of medicine. Peer reviewing is both a responsibility and an honor — a silent, yet essential, pillar of scientific progress,” says Dr. Gomes.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Reindolf Anokye
Dr. Reindolf Anokye is a behavioral scientist specializing in mental health, behavioral medicine, social determinants of health, patient experiences, and quality of life. Currently, he is a Research Fellow at Trinity College Dublin, working on sustainable healthcare projects. Previously, he contributed to outcome measurement research at University College Cork and cardiovascular disease prevention interventions during his PhD at Edith Cowan University, Australia. His academic accolades include a Career Development Fellowship and multiple travel awards from the Gerontological Society of America and the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, with his doctoral studies supported by an Australian Government Research Training Programme Scholarship. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Anokye, peer review acts as a critical quality-control mechanism in science, ensuring independent experts rigorously evaluate research for validity, originality, and significance before publication. It maintains scientific standards, identifies errors or biases, and guides improvements, thereby enhancing the credibility and reliability of scholarly literature.
Dr. Anokye believes that reviewers must assess a manuscript’s scientific validity, methodological rigor, originality, and field relevance while upholding objectivity and confidentiality. They should provide constructive feedback, disclose conflicts of interest, and avoid personal biases to ensure a fair, ethical review process that strengthens scientific integrity.
“Time for peer review is typically carved out by prioritizing it as part of professional service to the field, often scheduled during less intensive work periods. I have limited the number of reviews I accept recently, focusing on manuscripts closely aligned with my expertise to ensure efficiency and impact,” says Dr. Anokye.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Karen B. Abeln
Born in Germany, Karen B. Abeln spent years abroad and initially trained as a lawyer before transitioning to medicine. She is currently a cardiothoracic surgery resident at Saarland University Hospital, Germany, under the guidance of Prof. Hans-Joachim Schäfers. In 2025, she was appointed Head of Research and Teaching and is set to complete her PhD this year. While focused on clinical and surgical training, her research centers on autologous treatment approaches for diverse aortic valve morphologies, particularly aortic valve repair and the Ross procedure. Her work in aortic valve repair examines both valve-sparing root replacement and isolated valve repair, with a current focus on improving repair strategies for unicuspidal and bicuspid valve morphologies. Additionally, she investigates methods to enhance the long-term durability of autografts in the Ross procedure, alternatives to homograft use, and repair options for procedural failures.
CDT: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Karen: The peer-review system has proven to be very effective thus far but is not immune to shortcomings. Authors can encounter overly critical reviewers who focus on trivial matters, leading to confusing manuscript changes. They may discourage ideas based on their own preferences and may not be impartial towards the authors. Conversely, some authors face less thorough reviews, leading to quick approval without constructive contributions. The academic integrity, expertise, and scientific competence of reviewers are key components of this system. They should strive to improve manuscripts that make important contributions to contemporary literature and science. While suggestions have been made that a reward system for reviewers could incentivize a more responsible approach, it can also lead to reviewers accepting more manuscripts to review and thus reduce its quality.
CDT: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Karen: Bias can occur both towards the topic and the authors. Currently, most journals do not reveal the authors until the review is accepted. One could go as far as making it entirely anonymous until the review is submitted in order to exclude bias towards the authors. Bias towards expertise is hard to eliminate; the reviewers should have a certain expertise in the field and further mandatory questions concerning their own expertise could at least highlight if a bias is more or less possible.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sathish Krishnan
Dr. Sathish Krishnan, MD, FCCP, is a pulmonary and critical care physician currently practicing at Community Health Network in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. His expertise lies in pulmonary hypertension and interstitial lung disease, and he played a pivotal role in establishing a dedicated pulmonary hypertension program at his institution in 2021. He pursued his residency at Presence Saint Francis Hospital/University of Illinois at Chicago, followed by a fellowship in pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, a PHA-accredited Center for Comprehensive Care for Pulmonary Hypertension. He is an active researcher, co-investigating clinical trials on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and contributes to academia as an associate editor and peer reviewer for medical journals.
CDT: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Krishnan: The current peer-review system faces several challenges, including potential biases, variability in reviewer expertise, delays in turnaround time, and inconsistencies in evaluation standards. The high volume of submissions can overwhelm reviewers, leading to delayed responses and uneven feedback. Additionally, peer review often emphasizes procedural checks over constructive engagement, sometimes resulting in arbitrary rejections. To enhance the process, integrating real-time, interactive platforms for transparent reviewer-author dialogue and encouraging post-publication peer review could promote accountability, improve feedback quality, and reduce redundancy.
CDT: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Krishnan: To minimize bias, I concentrate solely on the manuscript’s scientific content, methodology, and relevance, deliberately setting aside the authors' identities, institutional affiliations, and geographic locations. Blinded review conditions support this impartial approach, as do structured review templates that promote objective and consistent critique. I also engage in ongoing self-reflection to recognize and mitigate any implicit biases that might influence my assessment, ensuring that my evaluations remain fair and evidence-based.
CDT: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Krishnan: Yes, COI disclosure is critical to maintain transparency and uphold trust in scientific research. Undisclosed COIs can lead to perceived or actual bias, potentially undermining public confidence and damaging institutional credibility. While a COI does not inherently invalidate research findings, it may subtly influence aspects such as study design, data interpretation, or conclusions. Full disclosure empowers readers and reviewers to evaluate the work within the appropriate context, supporting informed and objective assessment.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matthias F Scriba
Dr. Matthias Scriba is a consultant sub-specialist in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery at Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Specializing in oesophago-gastric malignancies and benign diseases—such as complicated peptic ulcer disease, hiatus hernias, corrosive ingestion injuries, and oesophageal dysmotilities like achalasia—he directs the oesophageal motility unit, focusing on diagnosing dysmotility and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The unit also serves as a training hub for medical students and surgical/gastroenterology trainees.
Dr. Scriba thinks that a competent reviewer needs deep theoretical and clinical knowledge of the study’s topic, strong communication skills, meticulous attention to detail, and punctuality in meeting journal deadlines. These traits ensure rigorous evaluation and smooth publication workflows.
In Dr. Scriba’s opinion, reviewers must recognize the effort behind each manuscript and consider the authors’ background, as it influences the study’s context and interpretation. This perspective fosters fair critique and avoids overlooking context-specific insights.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yuji Nagatomo
Dr. Yuji Nagatomo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Cardiology at the National Defense Medical College in Saitama, Japan. With a clinical career spanning Keio University and the Sakakibara Heart Institute since 2000, he also developed as a physician-scientist at Keio University and the Cleveland Clinic, USA. His research focuses on heart failure pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy, including clinical studies on gut microbiota’s role and anti-cardiac autoantibodies in heart failure/cardiomyopathies. Committed to clinical practice, he works in cardiology wards, outpatient clinics, and catheterization labs, and is active in cardio-oncology for chemotherapy patients. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Nagatomo thinks that a constructive review prioritizes objectivity, critical analysis, and solutions: it identifies flaws while offering actionable suggestions to strengthen research, avoiding personal biases or preferences. Regardless of the final decision (acceptance or rejection), it demands thoughtful effort to improve the work. In contrast, destructive reviews impose subjective judgments without productive guidance, undermining the collaborative spirit of scientific inquiry.
In Dr. Nagatomo’s opinion, a key limitation is reviewer matching: identifying experts aligned with a manuscript’s niche remains challenging, even as editors strive to address it. He envisions AI as a game-changer here: by leveraging vast, updated medical research data and researcher profiles, AI can optimize reviewer assignments, ensuring expertise alignment and enhancing the rigor of peer review in an era of rapidly evolving scientific disciplines.
“Peer review is often a time-consuming and challenging task, sometimes without a clear sense of reward. Reviewers themselves may go through several rounds of reflection and revision before they are satisfied with the comments they provide. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for those who dedicate their valuable time to support fellow researchers—without direct compensation—while managing their demanding clinical, research, and teaching responsibilities. Their contribution is essential to the integrity and advancement of science,” says Dr. Nagatomo.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Colin K. Drummond
Dr. Colin K. Drummond is a Professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Case Western Reserve University, specializing in undergraduate education innovations—particularly in expanding experiential design courses and professional practice preparation. His research focuses on simulation and applied informatics with strong translational emphasis, leading to collaborations and secondary appointments at the School of Medicine and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center. Recent projects include assessing human performance via wearable technology for cardiovascular health, using voice analytics for pathology detection, and developing "Moot Court" cases to emphasize standards in medical device design. He previously directed the Coulter-Case Translational Research Partnership and held a faculty role in the School of Nursing. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Drummond thinks that a healthy peer-review system thrives on transparency, constructiveness, fairness, and timeliness. It ensures rigorous evaluation by international experts, promotes respectful dialogue, and prioritizes improving research quality over mere gatekeeping. Timeliness, accountability, and diverse perspectives are crucial to fostering trust in science—aligning the process with its core goal of advancing knowledge through collaborative critique.
According to Dr. Drummond, reviewers must approach manuscripts with objectivity, confidentiality, and a focus on constructive feedback. Their role demands assessing scientific rigor, originality, and clarity while setting aside personal biases. Providing actionable suggestions to strengthen the work—and respecting the authors’ time and effort—are essential. By upholding these standards, reviewers preserve the integrity of the scientific enterprise and support its mission to drive evidence-based innovation.
“As a research scientist passionate about emerging cardiovascular technologies, I review for CDT because it reflects my commitment to advancing the field through rigorous, high-quality research. The journal’s dedication to innovation, open access, and scientific integrity makes it a valuable platform for impactful contributions and supports the broader cardiovascular research community,” says Dr. Drummond.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sun Moon Kim
Sun Moon Kim is an interventional and structural cardiologist. He serves as the Vice Chair of Cardiology, Director of the Structural Heart Disease Program, and Interim Director of the Heart Failure Clinic for the Reid Heart Center at FirstHealth of the Carolinas in Pinehurst, NC. He completed his residency and fellowship training at the University of Kentucky, followed by a Structural Heart Disease fellowship at UNC Chapel Hill. He continues to hold the position of adjunct associate professor in the Department of Cardiology at UNC Chapel Hill. In addition to coronary and pulmonary interventions, his area of expertise encompasses complex structural heart disease, including valvular replacements or repairs. He has authored multiple publications and remains actively involved in cardiovascular education through his participation in the American College of Cardiology. Over the past 5 years, he has served as a co-author for the ACC Cardiac Catheterization & Interventional Cardiology Self-Assessment Program (CathSAP) and regularly takes part in the ACCEL Lite Podcast. He has a personal interest in echocardiography and takes pleasure in playing an integral role in patient and provider education. Connect with him on X @SunMoonKimMD.
Dr. Kim believes that peer review ensures each study or research is conducted in line with the scientific community’s standards. This process promotes transparency and verifies the integrity of findings through careful review of methodology and data, functioning like quality control. As an author, he recognizes that constructive feedback from peer review widens knowledge, reveals unforeseen biases, and advocates for meaningful scientific contributions. Peer review, given its potential clinical impact on the field, helps foster reliability and credibility.
“Personally, the greatest motivation to participate in peer-review originates from the study’s potential clinical and consequently impact on daily patient care. As a scientist, it serves as an educational opportunity to generate hypotheses and promote self-learning. As a practicing clinician, I recognize that each study I review has the capability of changing how I treat and manage my own patients. For these same reasons, it is imperative that the peer-review process remains anonymous and non-profitable to prevent introduction of biases or secondary gain,” says Dr. Kim.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Miguel Ruiz-Canela
Miguel Ruiz-Canela is a professor and Chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health at the University of Navarra’s School of Medicine, and a researcher at CIBERObn (Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition). His work centers on unraveling how lifestyle factors and their biological mechanisms contribute to preventing chronic diseases, with a particular focus on cardiovascular disease and diabetes. A key current endeavor is his leadership of the PREDIMAR trial, which examines the Mediterranean diet’s role in the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation—the most prevalent tachyarrhythmia worldwide. This project leverages multiple omics approaches, including genomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and epigenetics, to investigate the mechanisms driving atrial fibrillation recurrence after ablation and how a high-quality diet may enhance patient outcomes. Through his research, he bridges lifestyle medicine and precision science, aiming to translate insights into actionable strategies for chronic disease prevention and management. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
CDT: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Prof. Ruiz-Canela: I believe there is currently a lack of incentive for researchers to engage in peer review. With limited time and increasing pressure to conduct their own research and publish results, many researchers decline review invitations, leading to significant delays in the publication process. These delays not only harm authors—who may wait months or even years to publish their findings—but also damage the reputation of journals and the scientific enterprise as a whole.
The rise of pay-to-publish journals has also fueled the perception that the peer-review system is undervalued. Researchers often don’t see reviewing as a priority. That is why initiatives that recognize and highlight reviewers' contributions—like this interview series for CDT—are so important. Evaluation agencies should value not only publications but also researchers’ involvement in peer review. Invitations to review for reputable journals acknowledge expertise, and tools that publicly recognize this contribution are needed. Ultimately, reviewing is a reciprocal and essential act of academic service.
CDT: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Prof. Ruiz-Canela: Reviewing a manuscript is a serious responsibility. If you don’t have enough time to conduct a thorough review, it’s better to decline. A careful, active reading is essential—approaching the paper as if in conversation with the authors. The first step should focus on fundamental aspects of the study, especially design and methodology, which determine the manuscript’s overall validity. If the study lacks sufficient quality, this should be clearly and respectfully explained.
If the study meets basic standards, the review should address major issues in more depth. Some concerns may relate to content already included, but others arise from missing information—which can be harder to spot. That’s where active reading and empathy come in: ask yourself, “What would I have done if I were the author?” or “How would I respond to this question?” Constructive and respectful comments are key. Finally, minor issues like typos should be listed separately, as they are easier to fix but less critical.
CDT: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Prof. Ruiz-Canela: I would like to share the feeling I get every time I receive a rejection from a journal—especially when it's the first submission of a young researcher. It can be very frustrating, particularly after a long wait and when no clear reason is given. It’s even harder when the reviewers’ comments aren’t overly critical, yet the manuscript is still rejected without a clear justification. Despite these negative emotions, it’s important to see rejection as part of the learning process. Receiving detailed, constructive feedback is especially valuable—even if it’s tough to address—because authors are the ones who best understand the limitations of their work. I believe there should always be a "reflection period" after a rejection, to assess whether improvements can be made. I try to remind myself that another researcher has taken the time to anonymously read my work, and that their input—even indirectly—has helped me grow as a scientist.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Maciej Tysarowski
Maciej Tysarowski is a distinguished Advanced Cardiac Imaging and Cardio-Oncology Fellow at Yale School of Medicine, where his work revolves around advancing multimodality cardiac imaging in both clinical practice and research. With a sharp focus on integrating cutting-edge technology into cardiovascular care, his recent projects exemplify this commitment: utilizing cardiac MRI to predict mortality in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, employing advanced imaging techniques to better characterize myocarditis linked to immune checkpoint inhibitors, and developing machine learning decision trees to enhance outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). These endeavors highlight his dedication to merging clinical precision with innovative research to improve patient care. Beyond his clinical and research pursuits, he is deeply passionate about medical education and global health equity. He has spearheaded healthcare initiatives in Iraqi refugee camps and underserved communities in Tanzania, aiming to expand access to quality cardiovascular care in resource-limited settings. By bridging gaps in healthcare delivery, he embodies a holistic approach to medicine—one that prioritizes both scientific advancement and equitable patient outcomes. Connect with him on X @mtysar.
To Tysarowski, an objective review is rooted in impartiality, free from biases tied to authors’ identities or affiliations. To ensure this, he consciously disregards such details, evaluating manuscripts solely on scientific merit—assessing methodology, clarity of presentation, analysis rigor, conclusion validity, and practical significance. His feedback is constructive, aimed at strengthening the work rather than criticizing it, and he avoids narrowing his perspective to his own specialty, adopting a broader, neutral lens.
Tysarowski also brings valuable insights into maintaining rigor in scientific practice, particularly regarding peer review and data transparency. He defines a healthy peer-review system as one that is double-blinded, ensuring neither reviewers nor authors know each other’s identities to eliminate biases related to reputation, institutional prestige, or geography. Additionally, he advocates for requiring access to raw data alongside manuscripts, as this promotes transparency, reproducibility, and credibility. Clear, standardized guidelines for reviewers further enhance consistency, reducing ambiguity and elevating the quality of evaluations.
On data sharing, Tysarowski deems it crucial, calling it foundational to modern scientific communication. It addresses the reproducibility crisis by allowing independent verification of results, bolstering trust in findings. Moreover, open data enables meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and secondary analyses, uncovering new insights and extending the value of original research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mei-Xin Li
Mei-Xin Li is a postdoctoral fellow at Houston Methodist Research Institute, specializing in tumor immunology and cancer metabolism. Her work explores the interplay between metabolic remodeling and immune regulation in the tumor microenvironment, aiming to identify novel therapeutic targets for enhancing anti-tumor immunity. She earned her M.S. and Ph.D. from Wuhan University, China, where her research focused on extracellular vesicles, cholesterol metabolism, and metabolic reprogramming in cancer—fostering her interest in how metabolic pathways shape the tumor microenvironment and immune responses. She has published multiple high-impact papers as first or co-first author in journals like Nature Communications, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, and Cell Death & Disease. She also contributes as a peer reviewer for several academic journals, actively engaging with the scientific community to advance cancer immunometabolism and its clinical applications.
Dr. Li thinks that a healthy peer-review system is analogous to universal healthcare: impartial and accessible, ensuring every submission receives fair, expert evaluation based solely on scientific merit, not researchers’ backgrounds or institutional affiliations. This rigor, she believes, drives collective knowledge forward.
As a reviewer, Dr. Li emphasizes the need to objectively assess scientific rigor and originality, providing specific, constructive feedback free of personal bias. Professionalism and timeliness are key, as these practices strengthen both individual manuscripts and the broader research field.
“To be honest, peer review is one of the most crucial parts of scientific research. Though it's anonymous and unpaid, it gives me early access to cutting-edge developments, sharpens my critical thinking, and connects me with outstanding colleagues. More importantly, it's how we give back to the academic community—after all, our own papers get published thanks to other reviewers' efforts. At the end of the day, only when everyone takes reviewing seriously can we maintain high-quality standards across our field,” says Dr. Li.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Edouard Gerbaud
As an interventional cardiologist and intensivist, Dr. Edouard Gerbaud works in the cardio-thoracic emergency unit and in the intensive cardiology care unit of Bordeaux University Hospital. His research interests focus on the development and clinical validation of non-invasive and invasive high-resolution optical imaging methods for human cardiac disease diagnosis (particularly, coronary artery disease). His areas of expertise are acute coronary syndrome, non-invasive cardiac imaging (CT-scan and cardiac MRI) and intravascular imaging (IVUS and OCT). He authored over 100 papers in peer-reviewed scientific international journals. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Gerbaud 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. He considers an objective review as one that is fair, constructive, and free from personal biases.
As an author of multiple manuscripts, Dr. Gerbaud has encountered both constructive and destructive reviewers. While constructive feedback helps improve the quality of a manuscript, destructive reviews are frequently biased without concrete suggestions of areas for improvement. Furthermore, the current peer-review system often feels like a black box. To improve it, he points out that the reviewers and the editorial office of each journal should move towards more transparency. Open peer review, where reviews are published alongside the paper, may be beneficial. The Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors must also carefully verify that the review is fair. In case of major discrepancies between 2 or more reviewers regarding a manuscript, the editors should not hesitate to ask for other independent reviewers.
According to Dr. Gerbaud, peer reviewing is the opportunity to discover new concept, management, treatment in each person’s areas of expertise. Participating in peer reviewing may also help to prevent the dissemination of flawed or misleading information. It is usually a recognition and an honor to be able to participate in this process, and thus it is not necessarily profitable.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nivedita Naresh
Nivedita K. Naresh is a distinguished expert in translational cardiac MRI, with affiliations at the University of Virginia, ISMRM, and ACRP. Her research spans heart failure, chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity, obesity, and pediatric imaging. She earned her Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Virginia, focusing on preclinical cardiac perfusion MRI methods, followed by post-doctoral work at Northwestern University on preclinical and clinical cardiac imaging. As an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Colorado, she developed accelerated MRI techniques for pediatric and fetal imaging. Transitioning to industry, she served as an MRI Applications Scientist at Bruker and later as an imaging research specialist at Calyx, overseeing quality control and processing for clinical trial imaging data. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Naresh emphasizes that reviewers must possess expertise in the subject area, thoroughness, and attention to detail. Her approach involves deep engagement with manuscripts—reading them thoroughly and consulting related articles to contextualize the work within recent advancements. She aims to provide actionable suggestions, from refining the study’s overall focus to ensuring data completeness, result clarity, and alignment between conclusions and goals, often recommending additional analyses or experiments to strengthen the work.
In Dr. Naresh’s opinion, reviewers should recognize that most manuscripts can be improved through additional data, analyses, or experiments. Unless a study has major flaws, feedback should focus on constructive ways to enhance it. Critical to this is evaluating the work’s contribution to the field: Does it offer new insights compared to prior research? If similar studies exist, authors must justify their work’s added value. This balance of rigor and empathy ensures reviews foster progress rather than hinder it.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Naresh highlights the importance of adhering to guidelines like STROBE and PRISMA, as journals often mandate them. These frameworks provide structure, ensuring comprehensive reporting of methods, results, and conclusions. They act as checklists to verify all essential information is included, facilitating fair comparisons between studies and enhancing reproducibility—key to upholding scientific integrity in imaging research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jien Saito
Jien Saito is a physician and surgeon in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan. His research is closely integrated with clinical practice, focusing on cardiovascular surgery, biostatistics, and biomaterial engineering. To deepen his expertise, he is currently a PhD candidate in Cardiovascular Surgery and completed a Master of Public Health in Biostatistics in March 2024. He earned his MD from Hamamatsu University School of Medicine in 2015, followed by residency and clinical experience at institutions including Nagoya City East Medical Center in Japan. He joined Hokkaido University Hospital in 2023. He is an active member of professional organizations such as The Japanese Society for Cardiovascular Surgery and the Japan Surgical Society. Learn more about him here.
CDT: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Saito: Research today is often highly focused, which means we see more studies that connect different fields. This makes peer review a tough job because it’s uncommon for a single reviewer to be an expert in all topics covered in a paper. This can easily create a conflict of interest. For instance, someone might be more likely to approve a paper from a potential collaborator, but more likely to reject one from a competitor. To handle this, I have a personal rule: I only agree to review work that's squarely in my area of expertise. I feel it's the most objective way to begin. It's also important, I think, to push back against publication bias, since studies with negative findings often get passed over. Now that meta-analysis is so important, there’s real value in getting novel but negative results published. I try to judge these papers based on how well the science was done, not on the outcome. Even so, following these rules can be easier said than done. The reality is that so many papers are incredibly complex, and it's just not possible for one person to know everything. Every time I review a paper alone, I'm reminded of the real limitations of having just one point of view.
CDT: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Saito: Devoting substantial effort to research can sometimes make investigators overly focused, even dogmatic. Thus, obtaining oversight from an external perspective is crucial—not just during peer review, but from the outset. The IRB’s primary role is, of course, to protect study participants by ensuring ethical research. Yet, it also serves a key purpose that directly benefits researchers. When applying for IRB approval, one must explain a complex study plan in simple, clear terms to a committee with diverse backgrounds. This “translation” process is highly valuable: it compels researchers to organize their thoughts and re-evaluate plans from an outsider’s viewpoint. Defending methods to non-specialists helps avoid tunnel vision that could undermine the study. Skipping this step would most obviously risk harm to human subjects. Beyond that, research would lose a critical safeguard for its integrity. Without needing to justify plans to an external board, researchers would be more susceptible to their own biases, damaging the scientific and ethical quality of their work from the start.
CDT: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Saito: My main approach is to take on reviews within my area of expertise, but I also have strong personal motivations. Honestly, I see this process as a key learning opportunity. Delving into a new paper, understanding its methodology, and examining its endpoints helps me stay at the forefront of my field. Moreover, fully grasping a new study often sparks fresh ideas and directions for my own work. At its core, my drive stems from a deep passion for science and the chance to make meaningful contributions.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yoshitsugu Nogimori
Yoshitsugu Nogimori, MD, PhD, is a Japanese pediatric cardiologist practicing at NTT Medical Center Tokyo and conducting research at the University of Tokyo Hospital. His work centers on applying artificial intelligence (AI) to clinical data, uncovering hidden physiological and biochemical signals—for example, using electrocardiograms (ECGs) to predict cardiovascular events in children with congenital heart disease. These ECGs often contain subtle changes undetectable by conventional methods but reflective of key neurohormonal activities. Grounded in physiology, anatomy, biochemistry, and genetics, his research aims to enhance the clinical value of medical data. His focus areas include heart failure, congenital heart disease, Kawasaki disease, Marfan syndrome, and preventive screenings.
Dr. Nogimori indicates that peer review is a foundational tool for upholding scientific rigor, but must adapt to the evolving pace of research and dissemination. A major challenge is balancing speed with quality: online platforms spread new findings rapidly, but peer review can lag, risking the timeliness of published work. He proposes optimizing the process through incremental, “chat-style” reviews—where reviewers provide feedback on specific issues one at a time, allowing authors to respond while further evaluations proceed. This real-time interaction fosters deeper discussions without compromising rigor.
According to Dr. Nogimori, the most important quality a reviewer should possess is a deep respect for science and ethical standards. With a fair and objective mindset, a reviewer can assess the accuracy of data and the soundness of the study’s logic. Another essential quality is a collaborative attitude—the willingness to help improve the study alongside the authors. Reviewer comments should go beyond simple criticism; they should offer constructive suggestions that make the research more valuable and impactful.
To minimize potential bias, Dr. Nogimori usually creates a summary chart of the paper and focus on the data and logic themselves, rather than being influenced by the language or writing style. Language can sometimes unintentionally reveal details such as the author’s linguistic background or writing proficiency, which are not relevant to the scientific content. He also lists any concerns he has on the first reading and revisit them later with a fresh perspective. If there are some objective and constructive comments, he will include them in the final review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gregorio Bernabé
Gregorio Bernabé obtained his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from the University of Murcia (Spain) in 1997 and 2004, respectively. In 1998, he joined the Computer Engineering Department of the University of Murcia and became an Associate Professor in May 2004. He has developed several courses on Computer Structure and Computer Architecture. Currently, he is focused on two main research lines: Heterogeneous computing using CMP architectures, GPUs, and accelerators (XPUs), and deep neural network learning process using HPC techniques to enhance the performance of medical applications. He has published over 50 refereed papers in various journals and conferences, including JCR journals such as Journal of Supercomputing, Journal of Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, Journal of Scientific Programming, International Journal of Parallel Programming, and Journal of Computational Science.
Dr. Bernabé believes that a reviewer should exhibit fairness, clarity, and solid domain knowledge. It is crucial to evaluate submissions without bias and justify decisions with well-founded arguments. Reviews should aim to guide authors with constructive criticism, helping them refine and strengthen their research, even if the recommendation is not favorable. Familiarity with the state of the art is essential to identify both the strengths and limitations of a work. Additionally, discretion, commitment to deadlines, and integrity are key components of responsible peer review.
Dr. Bernabé indicates that his motivation to peer review comes from a sense of responsibility toward the academic community. Participating in peer review allows him to support the research ecosystem from which he also benefits. It is a mutually reinforcing process—by reviewing others' work, he contributes to the advancement of knowledge while broadening his own perspective and staying updated with emerging trends. Furthermore, he considers peer reviewing an important part of his professional development and a way to help uphold the standards of quality in scientific publications.
“I choose to collaborate with CDT because its scope and focus areas are highly relevant to my research interests. The venue consistently publishes work that pushes the boundaries of the discipline, and I value the opportunity to contribute to that effort. Participating as a reviewer allows me to engage with innovative research, connect with the scholarly dialogue in my field, and play an active role in ensuring that published studies meet the rigorous standards of scientific validity and clarity that readers and researchers expect from CDT,” says Dr. Bernabé.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Herrick Wun
Dr. Herrick Wun is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College, alongside roles as Attending Physician at NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center and Site Chief of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery at NYP Lower Manhattan Hospital. Board-certified in Vascular Surgery, he has deep expertise in treating vascular disease with advanced minimally invasive techniques, specializing in endovascular procedures for arterial and venous conditions. His academic journey includes a Bachelor of Science from Yale University, an MD from NYU School of Medicine, and completion of internship, residency, and fellowship at NYU. He is also a Registered Vascular Technologist. He has contributed extensively to his field: he has published numerous peer-reviewed articles, authored a book chapter, and held memberships in the Society for Vascular Surgery and New York Vascular Society. His research focuses on vascular surgery, with a special interest in dialysis access. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Wun thinks that peer review is critical to uphold research integrity—it verifies the accuracy of findings and ensures results hold meaning for the field, while also providing authors with feedback to refine their work.
However, the existing system has key limitations, most notably bias and subjectivity, which can skew evaluations. To address this, Dr. Wun reckons that improving the system could involve adopting structured review criteria to reduce arbitrary judgments, diversifying reviewer pools to minimize narrow perspectives, and implementing double-blind review processes to limit unconscious or intentional bias. These steps would enhance the objectivity of peer review and strengthen its role in advancing reliable research.
“The review panel at CDT is multispecialty, allowing for a wider range of opinions and views,” says Dr. Wun.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Alfio Luca Costa
Alfio Luca Costa, MD, PhD, is a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at the Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit of Italy’s University Hospital of Padova. He earned his PhD in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Ferrara, focusing on regenerative approaches using adipose-derived stem cells and exosomes. His research spans advanced burn care, reconstructive microsurgery, hand surgery, and lymphatic surgery. He has published clinical and translational studies on adipose-derived stem cells, enzymatic therapies, nerve transfers, collagenase treatments, and tissue engineering—plus clinical outcome analyses in hand trauma and burns. Actively involved in multicenter projects on innovative therapies for severe burns and rare diseases, he integrates regenerative medicine with surgical practice, aiming to translate experimental findings into novel reconstructive solutions that prioritize functional outcomes for burn and hand patients. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Costa believes that a good reviewer needs deep knowledge of methodology and statistics, paired with an understanding of the study’s clinical context and real-world impact. Precision and attention to detail matter, but so does empathy for authors (who often invest years in their work). He emphasizes constructive clarity, prioritizing improvements over criticism, and underscores that the review’s value hinges on the reviewer’s honesty and independence.
Dr. Costa deems data sharing fundamental for trust in research: accessible, transparent data let readers verify conclusions. In fields like burns or hand trauma—where sample sizes are small and variability high—shared data enable other teams to confirm/challenge results and build larger datasets. This drives faster progress – it means more collaboration, less duplication, and better patient care. While ethical and privacy limits exist, he thinks that open data is critical for patients who “often cannot wait” for advancements.
“I review because I feel part of a community that has given me a lot. Reading and evaluating manuscripts keep me updated and stimulate me to question my own way of working, whether it is burn care, hand surgery, or regenerative approaches. Sometimes I discover ideas that I later apply or adapt in my daily practice. Reviewing is also a way of giving back: if I want my work to be read and judged fairly, I must do the same for others. The anonymity does not diminish the meaning—if anything, it makes the contribution more genuine,” says Dr. Costa.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Masoud Mohammadnezhad
Dr. Masoud Mohammadnezhad is a public health academic with over 25 years of international teaching and research experience. He holds a BSc in Public Health Nursing, an MSc in Health Promotion, and a PhD in Public Health from Flinders University, Australia. His teaching career spans undergraduate and postgraduate programs across eight countries: Australia, the UK, Cyprus, Thailand, Malaysia, New Zealand, Fiji, and Iran. His research focuses on non-communicable diseases (including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory conditions)—specifically examining their social determinants and developing interventions to reduce health disparities. He has supervised 20 PhD students and 150 master’s students, published over 200 peer-reviewed papers, and presented at more than 60 international conferences. A recipient of multiple honors (including a 2023 Vice-Chancellor’s Outstanding Achiever Award), he serves on editorial boards and has reviewed over 3,000 journal articles. Previously, he was Associate Professor and Professional Lead of Public Health at the University of Bradford; he currently holds the role of Senior Lecturer in Health Research at Birmingham City University in the UK. Learn more about him here. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Mohammadnezhad reckons that peer review is vital to advancing science. It ensures published research meets rigorous standards and contributes meaningfully to the body of knowledge. Reviewers leverage their expertise to critically evaluate manuscripts, guiding authors to enhance the clarity, validity, and impact of their work. When functioning well, peer review helps journals maintain high-quality publications that inform future scientific progress. He notes that the process has challenges—biases and inconsistencies can affect quality and fairness—but highlights a reviewer’s dual role as guide and safeguard: assessing the research question’s significance, method appropriateness, analysis robustness, and ethical considerations. By providing constructive feedback, reviewers not only help authors refine studies but also uphold the integrity and credibility of scientific communication.
According to Dr. Mohammadnezhad, an objective review evaluates a manuscript solely on its scientific merit, free from personal bias, preference, or external influence. To ensure his own reviews are objective, he uses a structured approach rooted in his public health expertise and experience as a researcher and reviewer:
- Assesses if the study addresses a genuine research gap, with well-formulated questions and hypotheses;
- Verifies if methods are rigorous, ethical, and aligned with the research aims;
- Focuses on core scientific elements: study design, participant selection, sampling, data collection tools, and analysis validity;
- Considers the findings’ relevance to the field and potential to inform future research.
By applying established research standards, engaging critically with literature, and aligning reviews with the journal’s scope, he ensures feedback is constructive, fair, and objective.
“I would like to sincerely acknowledge and appreciate the invaluable contributions of reviewers who work tirelessly behind the scenes to uphold the quality and integrity of scientific research. Peer review is often unseen, yet it is central to advancing knowledge and guiding future directions in science. By sharing their expertise and providing constructive feedback, reviewers not only support authors but also strengthen the evidence base that informs practice, policy, and further research. Their dedication ensures that science continues to progress in a rigorous, ethical, and impactful way,” says Dr. Mohammadnezhad.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Neiberg de Alcantara Lima
Neiberg Lima, MD, FACC, FACP, is a cardiologist at Hartford HealthCare and an Affiliated Associate Professor at the University of Connecticut. He holds board certifications in multiple key areas: cardiovascular medicine, internal medicine, echocardiography, nuclear cardiology, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac devices. His medical education and training span Brazil and the United States. He earned his medical degree from the Federal University of Ceará in Brazil, then completed an internal medicine residency at Fortaleza General Hospital and a cardiovascular fellowship at Messejana Heart Hospital—both in Brazil. After relocating to the U.S., he pursued additional training: an internal medicine residency at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a cardiovascular fellowship at Wayne State University School of Medicine. His clinical practice focuses on the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Beyond patient care, his research interests center on four key areas: global health, Chagas disease, cardiac devices, and heart failure.
CDT: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Lima: Peer review is essential because it ensures the integrity, clarity, and reliability of scientific work. As a frequent reviewer, I have found that the process not only improves the manuscripts I evaluate but also sharpens my own skills as a clinician and scientist. A constructive review can help authors refine their writing, clarify their message, highlight limitations, and ultimately strengthen the impact of their research. Blinded peer review provides an unbiased and rigorous appraisal that is fundamental to evidence-based medicine. Clear, honest, and thoughtful feedback allows journals to maintain high standards, helps authors stay on track, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge. In this way, peer review is not just a gatekeeping exercise; it is a collaborative effort that elevates the quality of science and benefits the entire community.
CDT: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Lima: I take deliberate steps to minimize them. Whenever possible, I avoid focusing on the authors’ names or institutions, since this information can unconsciously influence judgment. Ideally, such details should not even be available to reviewers. I concentrate on the quality of the science, the clarity of the methods, and the validity of the conclusions. When the topic falls outside my immediate expertise, I take extra care to evaluate the manuscript objectively, focusing on the logic, transparency, and reproducibility of the work rather than relying on assumptions.
CDT: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Lima: Applying for IRB approval is a critical step in research because it safeguards the rights, safety, and well-being of participants while also ensuring ethical and scientific integrity for the investigators. The IRB process helps identify and minimize potential risks before a study begins, ensuring that participants are not exposed to unnecessary harm. If this process is omitted, studies may cause unintended harm to patients, violate ethical standards, and risk losing credibility, funding, or the ability to publish.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tetsumin Lee
Tetsumin Lee, MD, PhD, is a cardiologist at Japanese Red Cross Musashino Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. He holds board certifications in internal medicine, cardiology, and interventional cardiology, and earned his PhD in intravascular imaging (focused on plaque morphology) from Tokyo Medical and Dental University (now Institute of Science Tokyo). As a researcher, his core focus lies in intravascular imaging analysis, with the ultimate goal of improving clinical outcomes for patients with coronary artery disease.
Dr. Lee acknowledges that the peer-review system is essential for upholding the quality and reliability of scientific (including clinical) research, but identifies key limitations affecting both researchers and reviewers: variability in reviewers’ expertise, delayed feedback from reviewers, and inconsistent quality of feedback for researchers; limited time and growing professional pressure for reviewers.
To address these issues, he thinks that enhancing transparency and interactivity in peer-review platforms is necessary—these changes could streamline communication, reduce ambiguity, and create a more collaborative environment for both parties.
Dr. Lee reckons that three critical reasons for institutional review board (IRB) approval are:
- Protection of human subjects: especially vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and cognitively impaired individuals.
- Ethical oversight: ensuring research adheres to core ethical principles and avoids harm to participants.
- Institutional credibility: upholding the trust of the public, funding bodies, and the broader medical community.
Omitting IRB approval, in his opinion, leads to severe consequences:
- Ethical violations: participants may be harmed or misled—echoing historical failures like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
- Institutional damage: loss of public trust, potential sanctions from oversight bodies, and funding cuts.
“As a researcher, peer reviewing expands my viewpoint and promotes self-learning. As a physician, I recognize this peer-review system provides an opportunity for professional growth and updating my perspective,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
