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

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)