In 2024, 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, 2024
Fumihiro Kashizaki, Yokohama Minami Kyosai Hospital, Japan
February, 2024
Massimiliano Cani, University of Turin, Italy
March, 2024
Patrick Micke, Uppsala University, Sweden
April, 2024
Kristin G. Maki, Wayne State University, USA
May, 2024
Natsuo Tomita, Nagoya City University Hospital, Japan
January, 2024
Fumihiro Kashizaki
Dr. Fumihiro Kashizaki works as a pneumologist at Yokohama Minami Kyosai Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan. With over 20 years of experience as a clinician across diverse community hospital settings, his clinical expertise lies in the diagnosis and treatment of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer, severe asthma, interstitial pneumonia, and pulmonary interventions utilizing flexible bronchoscope techniques such as bronchial thermoplasty for severe asthma, endobronchial Watanabe spigot for intractable pneumothorax, and foreign body removal. In the realm of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, he has conducted meta-analyses of molecular targeted therapy and other treatments. Additionally, he has recently initiated meta-analysis projects focused on rare malignancies in collaboration with fellow oncologists, aiming to obtain new evidence in this area. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Kashizaki’s opinion, objective peer review shares the reader's perspective with the author, avoids personal bias, and helps the author present newly discovered evidence in the best possible way. To ensure objectivity, he provides evidence-based feedback, considers multiple perspectives, sets aside personal biases, maintains empathy and fairness, and reflects from the author's viewpoint.
The anonymity and non-profit nature of peer reviewing serve as motivating factors for Dr. Kashizaki. He reckons that this environment allows him to focus on the task at hand without distractions while offering valuable insights into the diverse perspectives of esteemed researchers in his areas of interest, thereby serving as a significant source of learning and motivation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Massimiliano Cani
Dr. Massimiliano Cani got his medical degree in 2019 and since January 2021, he has been attending his Oncology Residency at the University of Turin in Italy (San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin). Starting from October 2023, he attended a clinical and research fellowship at the “Institut Gustave Roussy” (Paris, France) focusing his interest on thoracic malignancies. Over the past few years, he has also been working on the Italian Lung Cancer Screening pilot study (RISP), which cooperates with some collateral national projects. Additionally, in recent months, he has overseen a retrospective study on first-line treatments for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer, the results of which were presented at the last European Lung Cancer Congress. Many other endeavors are currently underway in this field. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
TLCR: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Cani: The rigorous process underlying the publication of a scientific paper consists of fundamental steps. In addition to the meticulous collection of literature evidence and real-world or experimental data, their analysis and presentation should also be equally rigorous and meticulous. During such efforts, the final results may not always align precisely with the expected objectives, whether in terms of achieved outcomes or the presentation of the paper. In this regard, peer review plays a crucial role in providing essential improvements by verifying data accuracy, assessing background evidence, and exploring potential future implications. Ultimately, peer review stands as a fundamental step in the process.
TLCR: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Cani: As a young author, I've noticed a tendency in reviewing processes to highlight the weaknesses of submitted works. While it's important to discuss such aspects, reviewers should also strive to understand and envision how they can help improve the submitted work. Alongside the rigorous scientific assessment of a paper, reviewers can enhance the work by suggesting additional literature evidence to include in the draft or by providing specific examples of changes that could be made. In this sense, reviewers and the reviewing process become active protagonists in shaping a scientific paper.
TLCR: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Cani: Data sharing during the submission process could be particularly beneficial, especially when dealing with controversial data. In this way, data accuracy can be easily assessed, thus enhancing the relevance of the paper's results.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Patrick Micke
Patrick Micke, MD, PhD, is a Professor in Translational Pathology, Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Uppsala University, Sweden. He is a consultant lung pathologist and holds a shared position as clinical pathologist and cancer researcher. His interests are tumorigenic mechanisms in lung cancer, and he is heading the group “Integrative Lung Cancer Pathology”. His work is motivated by the challenges in immunotherapy for lung cancer, particularly the understanding of tissue contexture and cellular interactions. Utilizing both traditional and advanced in situ techniques, his team conducts extensive analyses of diagnostic tissue samples from lung cancer patients. Their research has provided detailed cellular maps of individual immune phenotypes within the cancer environment, offering direct clinical implications. Learn more about him here.
TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Micke: Peer review of research manuscripts is intrinsically linked to an academic's role and is generally included in a researcher's professional duties. However, the proliferation of journals and increased number of manuscript submissions make it difficult to accept the frequent review requests. At times, it's frustrating to realize the commercial interests of journals involved in a task I contribute to voluntarily. Moreover, I have occasionally observed journals demonstrating leniency towards manuscripts I have critically reviewed. I also believe that journals should be held legally accountable for scientific fraud, rather than shifting this responsibility onto reviewer.
TLCR: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Micke: Obviously, the reviewer should be experienced in the field that he is reviewing and raised concerns should be founded on solid knowledge. Therefore, decent questions are usually seldom unfair. Sometimes, I catch myself feeling envious when I receive a moderately interesting manuscript to review from a prestigious journal that has outright rejected my own manuscript. In those moments, I have to be careful not to be overly critical.
TLCR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?
Dr. Micke: I believe that COIs are important but remain challenging to interpret, especially in case of oncologists when the lists become extensive. Perhaps it would be more helpful if authors explicitly stated what potential conflicts might arise or could be considered relevant.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Kristin G. Maki
Kristin G. Maki, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Oncology, Division of Population Health, at Wayne State University School of Medicine, a faculty member in the Population Studies and Disparities Research Program at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, and a Community Outreach and Engagement (COE) Scientist for the Office of Cancer Health Equity and Community Engagement at Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, in Detroit, MI, USA. Dr. Maki’s research is focused on lung cancer screening eligibility, uptake, and decision-making. Prior to joining the faculty at Wayne State University, she completed postdoctoral training in Behavioral Science and Health Services Research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Connect with her on X @KGMaki.
TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Maki: There are challenges in the existing peer-review system, including identifying individuals who are available and whose expertise aligns with the research being reviewed; ensuring unbiased reviews; and providing constructive and timely reviews, to name a few. Despite these challenges, a high-quality peer-review system serves an important purpose in helping to provide a level of confidence in scientific studies. Although it can be difficult to conduct blind reviews – especially for researchers who are well-established within the field – a blind review process may help with reducing bias. Identifying reviewers whose expertise aligns with the research under review is also crucial. For instance, it is not productive for reviewers to spend time reviewing work that uses methods with which they are unfamiliar. It is helpful for review requests to include abstracts of the articles I am requested to review to help ensure that my input will be relevant and constructive. Finally, it is important for the review system to not be prolonged or undergo delays due to late reviews or lack of response from review requests. I appreciate these qualities in a review system when I am submitting a manuscript and try to make a positive contribution to it when I am serving as a reviewer.
TLCR: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Maki: A review is objective if there are not conflicts of interest present, such as working with one of the manuscript’s authors, or having another connection to the work. Also, an objective review is not influenced by the authors’ prestige, reputation, or institutional affiliation. This adds to the importance for blind reviews. Finally, it is important to keep our own biases in check and proactively assess how they are influencing our review. Even with our best efforts to provide an objective review, there is inherently some bias present. It is important to acknowledge that, identify your own sources of bias, and take steps to proactively mitigate it.
TLCR: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Maki: The IRB process is important because of its role in conducting ethical research and protecting participants. An important piece of this process is the review of the study protocol to ensure that the research being conducted aligns with the research question and that the design of the study is appropriate at the outset. This is necessary for participant protection and maintaining rigor in the scientific process.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Natsuo Tomita
Dr. Natsuo Tomita works as an associate professor in Department of Radiology at Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, and as a radiation oncologist at Nagoya City University Hospital, Japan. He has been focusing on high-precision radiation therapy such as IMRT and SRT for various cancers. A major focus of his research lies in expanding the application of these high-precision radiation therapy to new diseases such as oligometastasis and finding optimal methods (i.e., radiation dose, dose fractionation, and radiotherapy equipment for high-precision radiation therapy to improve cancer control, reduce adverse events, and improve patients' quality of life). He has served as Co-Investigator in several clinical studies and he currently leads a phase 2 clinical trial as Principal Investigator to assess the optimal interval of irradiation in SRT for patients with brain metastases. Dr. Tomita’s page can be accessed here.
Dr. Tomita believes that the peer-review system is essential to the advancement of science, and that experts in each field have an obligation to peer review whenever it is possible. In his case, he tries to understand the outline of the paper as quickly as possible. For scientifically and clinically significant papers, he tries to look closely at them and find points for improvement. He endeavours to being careful to avoid biases in peer reviews. When he gives a negative opinion to a manuscript, he would provide reasons for that. In his opinion, authors should also write scientifically and theoretically, and prepare their papers in a structure that is easy for readers to read.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
