In 2023, TLCR 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.

January, 2023
In-Jae Oh, Chonnam National University Medical School, Korea

February, 2023
Esther Visser, University of Technology Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Matthias Lang, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany

March, 2023
Prashanth Ashok Kumar, SUNY Upstate Medical University, USA

April, 2023
Francisco Rodriguez-Panadero, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Spain

May, 2023
Shigeki Nanjo, Kanazawa University Hospital, Japan

June, 2023
Apurva Singh, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Mi‐Hyun Kim, Pusan National University Hospital, South Korea

July, 2023
Mohamed Rahouma, Weill Cornell Medical College USA

September, 2023
Aadel A. Chaudhuri, Washington University, USA

October, 2023
Cleo Goyvaerts, University Hospital Brussel, Belgium

November, 2023
Katsuhiko Naoki, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Diego Kauffmann-Guerrero, University Hospital of Munich, Germany

December, 2023
Jan Trøst Jørgensen, Dx-Rx Institute, Denmark

January, 2023

In-Jae Oh

In-Jae Oh received the M.D., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from Chonnam National University, South Korea. He is currently a professor at the Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, and the director of the Lung Cancer Center at Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital. His research interests include molecular diagnosis and translational research of lung cancer. He also performed many clinical trials, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, as director of the Clinical Trial Center in his hospital. Recently, he started autologous NK cell therapy in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. Learn more about Dr. Oh’s work through ORCID and ResearchGate.

Biases are not avoidable in peer review. In Dr. Oh’s opinion, however, there is a need to minimize bias and improve transparency in peer review. The most important thing is to recognize that every researcher can be a potential peer reviewer. Therefore, as a researcher, one must ethically suggest reviewers, and as a reviewer, one should strive to be fair when criticizing others' work and, if possible, provide alternative solutions.

As a reviewer, Dr. Oh stresses the importance for authors to disclose any potential Conflict of Interest (COI). To him, individual researchers can cause problems with research integrity or pose risks to subjects because of economic and other benefits. In the medical field, COI mostly arises between researchers and pharmaceutical companies, and one of the most common conflicts arises because companies require researchers to exaggerate the effects of drugs or treatments. If the study received corporate funding, the author should officially state that bias was not involved in this study.

“Through peer review, I can identify the latest research trends in the field I am interested in. Also, it can sometimes increase the possibility of future scientific collaboration with promising researchers around the world,” says Dr. Oh.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

February, 2023

Esther Visser

Esther Visser is a PhD student at the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Máxima Medical Center, and the University of Technology Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Her research focuses on the usage of liquid biopsy in diagnosing and treatment response monitoring of lung cancer patients, aiming to evaluate the added value of this minimally-invasive technique in clinical practice by performing data-analysis on a large multi-center cohort. In recent works, they showed the potential benefits of analysis of genetic alterations in circulating tumor DNA, as well as an algorithm combining multiple tumor markers to identify lung cancer and its subtypes NSCLC and SCLC. Learn more about Esther here and connect with her on LinkedIn.

In Esther’s opinion, there are several roles peer review play in science. First of all, it is necessary to assess the credibility of the research, by checking the choices made in research by an independent researcher. Secondly, it is a very important way to make sure that the research is understandable for researchers that were not involved in the project itself. By assigning the presence of gaps in the description of research aim, methods and/or presentation of results, the peer reviewer could help to improve the quality of the paper and thereby improve its usefulness for further research. Lastly, peer reviewing could be important to challenge authors to consider relevant questions regarding their research, initially not answered in the manuscript. The expertise of the peer reviewers will allow to identify what will be important additions to the manuscript.

According to Esther, reviewers should bear in mind that the reviewing should help to improve the quality of the paper for the scientific community. By describing the reasoning for certain questions and providing examples, the feedback will be most useful. In addition, reviewers should consider the scope of the research and the real added value while suggesting certain time-consuming new analyses.

“As a young researcher, one of the motivations for peer review is to gain more experience in critically assessing articles, which will improve the quality of my own research as well. Furthermore, I love to contribute to the scientific field within my specific expertise and broaden my knowledge about ongoing research,” says Esther.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Matthias Lang

Dr. med. Matthias Lang is a Medical Gastroenterologist and Endocrinologist at the University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany. Currently, his research area mainly lies in neuroendocrine neoplasia, receptor-based imaging and thymic diseases. Additionally, he has a growing interest in ultrasonography in times of artificial intelligence. Learn more about Dr. Lang here.

The way Dr. Lang sees it, reviewing manuscripts is an outstanding opportunity for maintaining and enhancing one’s own knowledge. Dealing with other’s scientific output brings much inspiration to one’s own work. To him, it is a very important and inspiring communication to the best of both sides – the author and the reviewer.

Biases are inevitable in peer review. In Dr. Lang’s view, the most important thing to do is to be aware of one’s own bias and shortcomings. Thus, thorough review of current literature is mandatory to get an overview over aspects of the manuscripts that lie outside of one’s own expertise. The trend towards shorter review submission deadlines should be critically questioned.

“If you are an experienced scientist, support the new generation on their way. It is a creative process that can turn a manuscript into an excellent article. And last but not least, other’s ideas broaden your own horizons,” says Dr. Lang.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

March, 2023

Prashanth Ashok Kumar

Prashanth Ashok Kumar grew up in Tamil Nadu, India and completed his medical school at PSG IMS&R, Coimbatore. He is a final year Medical Oncology-Hematology fellow at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA and is the chief fellow for the fellowship program. He completed his Internal Medicine Residency at the same institution in Syracuse. Since his early medical school days, he has had a fascination for clinical research, as it makes him a better physician and improves patient care, ultimately resulting in the betterment of humanity. Prashanth has a special interest in the medical management of breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. His current research involves analyzing neurocognitive changes occurring in post-menopausal hormone positive breast cancer patients receiving aromatase inhibitors. He is also working on identifying bio markers to determine the ideal adjuvant treatment option for non-small cell lung cancer. He also employs databases like the NCDB and meta-analysis strategies to answer clinically relevant research questions. Connect with Prashanth on X and ResearchGate.

A constructive review, in Prashanth’s view, is anything that has an honest opinion and will enable the authors to improve their work. On the contrary, a destructive review would be anything that has a biased opinion.

Seeing the prevalence of data sharing in research decade, Prashanth reckons that it would be ideal for researchers to share research data. To him, this would enable other researchers to use the data in their work as well. However, the choice of whether to share the data publicly should be left to the authors. Researchers should have the freedom to choose how they disclose their data.

“I try to allocate dedicated time for peer review whenever I find time between my clinical practice. I personally feel peer review is an important aspect of clinical education and research as it helps me stay updated and supplements other forms of learning<、em>,” says Prashanth.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

April, 2023

Francisco Rodriguez-Panadero

Dr. Francisco Rodriguez-Panadero worked as a Pulmonologist at the Hospital Virgen del Rocio (Sevilla University, Spain) for more than 30 years, mostly dedicated to lung cancer and pleural diseases, both in clinical and research aspects. Also, he was Associate Professor of Medicine at Sevilla University (1989-2008), and Head of the Respiratory Diseases Lab at the Institute of Biomedicine of Sevilla (IBiS) (2010-2014). He was the Principal Investigator of 14 research projects, the Director of 13 Doctoral theses, and had more than 120 publications, including 66 articles in the Web of Science (H-index:23), and 58 book chapters (16 of them in international books). Since his retirement in 2008, his current positions are: Emeritus of the Unidad Medico-Quirurgica de Enfermedades Respiratorias (UMQER) at the Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, and Honorary Researcher of the Respiratory Diseases Lab at the Institute of Biomedicine of Sevilla (IBiS).

Although it might sometimes be a painful and time-consuming process for both reviewers and authors, peer review, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Panadero, is an essential tool to help in improving the quality of manuscripts that are published every day in the scientific world. It also helps the editors identify poor-quality papers that do not meet the publishing standards, even after one or several revisions from the authors.

In Dr. Rodriguez-Panadero’s view, before accepting the invitation to review, the potential reviewer should adequately answer the following questions: “Does he/she have time to complete the review in due time? Does he/she have professional experience in the field? Does a conflict of interest (COI) exist?” He believes that once in the reviewing process, it is first necessary for the reviewer to understand the content and focus of the manuscript regarding originality and quality. Also, it would be of great help reading the paper as a competitor and identifying the strong and weak points in the study. However, he thinks a constructive approach from the reviewer is highly recommendable: Adopting the perspective of a colleague who wants to improve the quality of the manuscript is always welcome. (Here he recommends reading the article from Brazeau et al, Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Jun 15;72(3):69).

Seeing the prevalence of data sharing, Dr. Rodriguez-Panadero reckons that restricted data sharing (according to legal regulations) would be essential in clinical trials and in large studies that would need external validation, especially those who use big data processing. However, extreme caution should be adopted, in order to protect personal data or prevent improper management. As for research data sharing, he thinks that it would be nice to share with colleagues, and specific mention to the origin of that data should be made and regulated, and the deserved credit should be given to the original authors as well.

To encourage other reviewers, Dr. Rodriguez-Panadero says, “‘Science progresses thanks to WRITTEN reports’: I once learnt this message from a renowned scientist in a meeting, and have never forgotten it at the time of preparing a manuscript for submission, or when getting disappointed by one or several rejections after submission of what I took as a good and promising study. Since both authors and reviewers are in the same ship, I believe that this message should be kept in mind by everyone involved.”

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

May, 2023

Shigeki Nanjo

Dr. Shigeki Nanjo is a Medical Pulmonologist interested in Oncology and Sports Medicine. His PhD research at Kanazawa University focused on lung cancer drug resistance, especially in central nervous system (CNS). He spent 4 years as a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF, working on the RBM10 mutation biology in the mechanism of drug resistance to EGFR-TKIs. Currently, he works at Kanazawa University Hospital, where he provides medical care to respiratory disease patients, including lung cancer and conducts translational research. He is also the team doctor for the Japan national swimming team. Learn more about him on Research Gate.

Peer review is the most important process, according to Dr. Nanjo, that gives science credibility. Although it could be very stressful for authors, it ultimately serves to improve the quality of research. As a reviewer, he bears in mind to carefully determine whether new findings in research have been properly verified and, if so, to advise on their further development.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Nanjo lays emphasis on the use of reporting guidelines, such as TREND and ARRIVE, to structure one’s manuscript. To him, these guidelines make it easier to write a paper, and he urges authors to follow them from the research planning stage.

“In the midst of our busy daily work, peer review work suddenly falls from the sky with a set deadline, but we were able to publish our papers thanks to many reviewers, so let's do our best for the advancement of science!” says Dr. Nanjo.

(By Brad Li, Lareina Lim)

June, 2023

Apurva Singh

Dr. Apurva Singh is a doctoral candidate in the department of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, USA. Her research focuses on the development of prognostic multi-omic biomarkers, combining information from diagnostic scans that are robust to the heterogeneity in imaging parameters with clinical information of the patients and finding correlations of the imaging signatures with relevant genomic biomarkers (with a primary focus on lung cancer). Connect with Dr. Singh on LinkedIn.

A healthy peer-review system, according to Dr. Singh, includes a thorough and impartial review of the manuscript, driven towards the improvement of certain aspects of the submitted research work, according to the best knowledge and judgment of the reviewer. However, she thinks the current system is often very time-consuming, which can be improved if the reviewers are motivated to submit their reviews in a thorough and timely fashion.

“I consider peer reviewing an excellent way to give back to the field, as being prompt and thorough with my reviews enables a timely turnaround of the peer-review process. Further, being a reviewer develops my critical reading skills and improves the way I look at my research, as if through the eyes of a potential reviewer in the field,” says Dr. Singh.

(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)

Mi‐Hyun Kim

Dr. Mi-Hyun Kim works as an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the Pusan National University School of Medicine, and as a pulmonary physician at Pusan National University Hospital, in South Korea. Her doctoral thesis presents a report that identifies a subtype of lung adenocarcinoma, pathologically different from existing adenocarcinoma. The subtype has been named as a non-terminal unit of lung adenocarcinoma, with its clinical, pathological, and molecular characteristics detailed. Dr. Kim's primary research area is liquid biopsy of lung cancer. Recently, her research has been focused on conducting various molecular studies, including next-generation sequencing, using bronchial washing fluid.

TLCR: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?

Dr. Kim: In my opinion, peer review is essential for maintaining the quality and credibility of academic research and publications. It acts as a quality assurance mechanism by subjecting scholarly works to evaluation by experts in the respective fields. Moreover, peer review validates research, enhancing its credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of the academic community and the public. Authors benefit from constructive feedback provided by peers, enabling them to refine their work and improve its clarity. Furthermore, it contributes to the advancement of knowledge by building on existing research and resolving conflicts or disagreements within the scientific community.

TLCR: What do you regard as a healthy peer review system?

Dr. Kim: I think transparency, impartiality, and ethical conduct are essential for a healthy peer review system. A healthy peer review system ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly research. Reviewers should be experts in the subject matter, provide constructive feedback, and avoid conflicts of interest. This process needs clear guidelines for both authors and reviewers. Timeliness is essential to prevent unnecessary delays in publication, and editors play a crucial role in managing the process. However, in my experience, the extremely tight timelines of some journals are a significant reason for rejection when peer review is requested, so appropriate adjustments may be necessary.

TLCR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Kim: I tend to plan and organize my tasks in advance on a daily and weekly basis. My desktop screen serves as a checklist where I jot down my to-do list. So, when I receive a review request, I mark the start date and deadline on my calendar in advance, and I make a concerted effort to adhere to them. Every time I sit down in front of my computer, I'm constantly reminded of my checklist, compelling me to stick to the dates.

TLCR: Why is it important for research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval? What would happen if this process is omitted?

Dr. Kim: IRB approval is a crucial initial step in research with several important purposes. First and foremost, it ensures ethical consideration. The IRB evaluates the research protocol to ensure that research is conducted ethically and responsibly. Additionally, the IRB helps researchers identify potential harms and develop strategies to minimize or eliminate these risks. Last but not least, IRB approval is required by law for research in most countries, and funding agencies and journal publications require proof of IRB approval as a condition for funding or publication. Omitting this process can have serious consequences for both the researcher and the research institution, as well as potentially harm research participants.

(By Lareina Lim, Karina Yang)

July, 2023

Mohamed Rahouma

Dr. Mohamed Rahouma serves as an Assistant Professor at Cardiothoracic Surgery (CTS) Department, Weill Cornell Medical College/New York Presbyterian Hospital, Cornell University, New York, USA. He has been working at Surgical Oncology Department, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cairo University, Egypt. His research interests are CTS especially esophageal cancer, lung cancer and mesothelioma in addition to coronary artery bypass graft, radial artery harvest and cardiac tumors, minimally invasive surgery in general and statistics especially meta-analysis randomized clinical trials and large databases analysis. Dr. Rahouma published over 250 articles, and he is an editor of 8 journals (especially deputy statistical editor in The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Associate Editor in Frontier in Oncology and Associate Editor in BMC Cardiovascular disorders in addition to Vessel Plus) and reviewers of more than 20 journals with particular interest in minimally invasive CTS. He is also interested in immunotherapy, and conducting meta-analyses in different CTS and oncology fields.

In addition, Dr. Rahouma points out that Conflict of Interest (COI) could be highly influential to the decision during reviewing and editing a manuscript. Therefore, it is important to declare if there is any COI and be transparent in conveying such information.

Speaking of the reason he chooses to review for TLCR, Dr. Rahouma expresses sincerely, “TLCR is a prestigious and highly reputable journal that I respect.”

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

September, 2023

Aadel A. Chaudhuri

Dr. Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, is a physician-scientist and Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology, Genetics, Biomedical Engineering, and Computer Science at the Washington University in St. Louis. He is also leader of the Liquid Biopsy Working Group at the Washington University Siteman Cancer. He additionally serves as Co-Chair of the Liquid Biopsy Interest Group within the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chaudhuri’s laboratory at Washington University focuses on the development and application of liquid biopsy cancer diagnostic technologies. His laboratory is funded by the National Institutes of Health, the V Foundation, the Cancer Research Foundation, the Children’s Discovery Institute, the Children’s Tumor Foundation, the Alvin Siteman Cancer Research Fund, and the Melanoma Research Alliance. Connect with Dr. Chaudhuri on Twitter @aadel_chaudhuri.

Dr. Chaudhuri believes that in science, peer review could ensure that science remains high-quality, and that published work is innovative and relevant to experts in the field. However, in his opinion, limitations exist in the current peer-review system. They include availability. Experts often being too busy to review important papers. He reckons that improvements can be made by inviting editorial board members with expertise to strongly assess a paper upfront and then personally invite the most relevant peer reviewers.

Peer review is important, in Dr. Chaudhuri’s opinion, for maintaining quality in the scientific published literature. Thus, he regards this as an important opportunity of community service and he is motivated to serve as a peer reviewer for relevant work though it is often anonymous.

Furthermore, Dr. Chaudhuri emphasizes that sharing of research data is necessary so that others can replicate the work, corroborate it, and build off of it, making the published research more impactful and useful to the community.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

October, 2023

Cleo Goyvaerts

Dr. Cleo Goyvaerts holds a Bachelor in Veterinary Sciences, a Master in Biochemistry and Biotechnology and a PhD in Medical Sciences. She obtained the latter in the field of antitumor vaccination while she used her postdoctoral trainings to deepen her understanding of lung tumor immunobiology and in vitro 3D tumor modeling at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium and the Tisch Cancer Institute of Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York. Since she was appointed as Assistant Professor in 2018 at the Laboratory for Molecular and Cellular Therapy (VUB), Cleo’s group has focused on the discovery of resistance mechanisms that hamper curative antitumor immunotherapy for NSCLC. In 2020, she received the Young Investigator Award from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. In search for clinically relevant biomarkers and targets that could act in synergy with current immunotherapies, Cleo works i.c.w. the Medical Oncology unit of the University Hospital Brussel. Connect with Dr. Goyyaerts on LinkedIn or learn more about her here.

In science, Dr. Goyvaerts thinks that peer review is important to make sure published scientific results are novel and robust by validating the usage of appropriate controls and statistical methods. In addition, constructive comments can result in ameliorated manuscripts that better serve the entire research community.

Though peer review is often non-profitable, Dr. Goyvaerts reckons that it gives the reviewer a unique sneak-peak in most recent research findings as well as in the geographical distribution of relevant research groups within his/her own field of study. The latter facilitates international collaborations fueled by conferences and joint project applications.

Speaking of seeking institutional review board (IRB) approval for original research, Dr. Goyvaerts indicates that it is a vital step, and if such step is omitted, more fraud perpetration and publishing of meaningless results would be resulted.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

November, 2023

Katsuhiko Naoki

Dr. Katsuhiko Naoki is a thoracic oncologist at Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. He graduated from Keio University School of Medicine in 1992. He completed his Internal Medicine, Respiratory Medicine, and Thoracic Oncology Residency Program during 1992-2001 at the Keio University Hospital and affiliated Hospital. He has moved to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute / Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA as a Research Fellow in 2001. He worked on lung cancer gene expression analysis with microarray and on molecular markers, resulting in discovery of BRAF and EGFR mutation in lung cancer. He came back to Japan in 2004. He worked at Yokohama Municipal Citizen’s Hospital from 2004 to 2009, and then Keio University Hospital from 2009 to 2017. In 2017, he became the professor and chairman at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kitasato University School of Medicine. He is serving to raise the interest for respiratory medicine and thoracic oncology to young doctors and medical students. He is also committing for the launch and expansion of new international journal ‘Respiratory Endoscopy’, official journal of The Japan Society for Respiratory Endoscopy, as an editor-in-chief. His main research interests are conducting clinical trial and translational research in thoracic oncology including molecular targets, immunotherapy, drug resistance and neuroendocrine tumor. Learn more about him here.

For advancement of science and medicine, Dr. Naoki thinks it is very important to help new data to be easily accessible as a publication. He wants to help the scientific and medical community as a researcher and as a medical doctor. New and exciting data always give him power to do more research and clinical trials by himself.

In Dr. Naoki’s opinion, he regards neutral position and critical appraisal as a healthy peer review. Reproducibility and further research with available data are critical for the progress of science and medicine.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Diego Kauffmann-Guerrero

Dr. Diego Kauffmann-Guerrero currently serves as a pneumologist by training and attending physician at the University Hospital of Munich. After completing medical school in Munch, he received his doctorate in 2016. He coordinates the lung cancer center of Munich and his main scientific focus is on predictive and prognostic markers of advanced lung cancer with special emphasis on small cell lung cancer and inflammation. With this, he received his PhD and lecture license in 2023. He is a member of several societies and working groups of topics in thoracic oncology as IASLC, ESMO, ERS, DGP, AIO and others.

In Dr. Kauffmann-Guerrero’s opinion, independent peer review is the core of scientific publishing. It aims at identifying scientific works of interest and is intended to improve methodology, accuracy, and scientific impact. Feedback of experienced reviewers can be an important educational factor for young researchers. Furthermore, identification of low quality or unserious research is highly important.

Being a clinician scientist is very challenging due to the massive workload. Dr. Kauffmann-Guerrero reckons that allocating time for peer review is therefore difficult. However, he believes peer reviewing helps reviewers stay up to date with the current literature and gives them insights in what is happening in the scientific world. He advises reviewers only to review manuscripts that are really of their field of interest. This reduces dramatically the time they need for the review process, because of their previous knowledge.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

December, 2023

Jan Trøst Jørgensen

Dr. Jan Trøst Jørgensen holds a Master of Science in Pharmaceutical Science and a Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Pharmacy from the University of Copenhagen. He has over 40 years of experience in research and development from academia and various pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies including Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Dako/Agilent. Dr. Jørgensen currently serves as the Director of the Dx-Rx Institute in Fredensborg, Denmark. His research focus is companion diagnostics, particularly in the field of oncology. He is a strong advocate of individualized pharmacotherapy and has authored and edited numerous scientific papers, books, and special issues on predictive biomarkers, companion diagnostics, drug-diagnostic co-development, and precision medicine. He serves as an editorial board member for several medical journals, and is also a board member of the Danish Society of Cyto and Histochemistry. Connect with him on LinkedIn or learn more about him here.

In Dr. Jørgensen’s opinion, peer review is an important element of the medical and scientific publishing process and serves as a type of quality assurance to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the presented data. The peer-review process should also prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information, which could have serious consequences for patient care.

Undertaking a peer-review task involves navigating numerous limitations and challenges, and it is crucial to acknowledge them. Dr. Jørgensen reckons that a significant challenge is the substantial amount of time required to complete the task. As scientists, numerous other commitments may take precedence, preventing the peer-review process from being a top priority. Another challenge is maintaining objectivity: although reviewers strive to be impartial, unconscious bias may still influence the evaluation. Additionally, reviewers may face difficulties in detecting fraud or misconduct, such as data fabrication, which poses limitations to their roles. Here, it would be desirable if the journal/publisher took greater responsibility for checking the validity of the data presented. Another suggestion to enhance the peer-review process is to increase transparency by publishing review comments alongside the publication itself. Furthermore, the reviewers' contributions should be recognized and valued more than they currently are, as they are essential to the scientific community. The credibility of the peer-review system is crucial, and it is imperative that confidence in the process remains high to ensure the continued integrity of the scientific publishing system.

“As a scientist, I, like many of my colleagues, consider peer review to be both a duty and responsibility for the scientific and medical community,” says Dr. Jørgensen. By participating in this process, reviewers contribute to maintaining the integrity of medical research. In addition, he indicates that staying current with the latest data and disseminating new information are also important aspects of being involved with peer review. Overall, the peer-review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of medical research.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)