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
June, 2024
Nickolas Stabellini, Cleveland Medical Center, USA
July, 2024
Samuele Nicotra, University of Padova, Italy
August, 2024
Joanna Socha, Jan Dlugosz University, Poland
September, 2024
Eric B. Kmiec, ChristianaCare’s Gene Editing Institute, USA
October, 2024
Takahiro Karasaki, Toranomon 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)
June, 2024
Nickolas Stabellini
Nickolas Stabellini is a researcher affiliated with the Department of Hematology-Oncology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (Cleveland, OH, US), the Division of Cardiology at Augusta University (Augusta, GA, US), and the Department of Oncology at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil). His research focuses on population health in oncology, with interests in epidemiology, CardioOncology, health disparities, data analysis, Big Data, computational sciences (Python and R), and Artificial Intelligence. His work highlights sex differences and racial disparities in cancer, the role of social determinants of health in cardiovascular outcomes in cancer patients, and Machine Learning-based predictive models in oncology. Prominent titles he has received include the AACR Scholar-in-Training (2022), the ACHIEVE GreatER (Addressing Cardiometabolic Health Inequities by Early Prevention in the Great Lakes Region) grant (2022-2023), and the Conquer Cancer Award at GU ASCO 2024.
Dr. Stabellini thinks that peer review is the step where research conducted by an individual or, more commonly, by a group, undergoes evaluation by peers with expertise and skills in the relevant area. The researchers receive feedback about their work, including its limitations, reliability, and necessary improvements for publication. He reckons that this phase is crucial in research not only for refining and improving the work but also for filtering what is actually important and can make a significant impact in the academic and clinical practice fields. Peer review increases the reliability of science and makes it more trustworthy for readers. It also helps science continue progressing and advancing.
In Dr. Stabellini’s opinion, a destructive review is one not conducted with the intent of analyzing, validating, and improving the work of a research team to make it publishable. Unfortunately, it is common to encounter peer reviews conducted by non-experts, lacking the necessary detail and attention, and driven by ego (e.g., refuting the research because it goes against personal beliefs or requesting citations of the reviewer's own work). Such reviews fail to filter what is truly important and capable of making a significant impact in the academic and clinical practice fields. They do not help science continue progressing and advancing; instead, they do the opposite by demotivating researchers and hindering scientific progress.
Speaking of the reason to review for TLCR, Dr. Stabellini says, “When I accept a request to review for a specific journal, I always consider the following factors: the journal's reputation, its editorial line, and the subject/summary of the research. The journal must have a good reputation, and the editorial line and subject of the research must fall within my area of expertise. This ensures that I can truly improve the work and critically analyze it.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Samuele Nicotra
Dr. Samuele Nicotra is a Senior Thoracic Surgeon Consultant operating at the Thoracic Surgery and Lung Transplant Unit at the Azienda-Ospedale - University of Padova, Italy. He graduated in Padova in 2001 discussing a sperimental thesis on thyroid surgical management and subsequently concluded in 2006 the Thoracic Residency Program under the guide of Prof. Francesco Sartori and then with Prof. Federico Rea. He was one of the first to introduce the thoracoscopic approach to pulmonary surgery in Padua, with increasing experience in more and more complex cases. Simultaneously, the University Hospital of Padua became a Specialized Center for Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery. He finally completed the robotic surgery course, and he is nowadays involved in the lung robotic resection program. He dedicates his surgical activity in particular performing sleeve lobectomies, pneumonectomies and complex resections with pulmonary artery reconstruction via thoracoscopic approach. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Nicotra points out that it is essential that the reviewer possesses a comprehensive understanding of the issue, encompassing all relevant aspects from all perspectives. It is not necessary to be an expert in the field, especially in preclinical manuscripts which require deep comprehension of experiments and methodology, but it is important to clearly delineate to the Editor which aspects of the work are within one's area of expertise and which are beyond one's capabilities. A thorough review requires time to read the issue in its entirety and to focus on the relevant aspects. The objective is to identify the critical issues in the manuscript and provide constructive feedback for improvement. The purpose of reviewing is not to simply highlight deficiencies but to offer suggestions for enhancement, hoping the manuscript will be further published.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Nicotra reckons that the sharing of data is undoubtedly a valuable aspect of scientific research, particularly when the objective is to enhance the reliability and robustness of scientific evidence through the conduct of reproducible and transparent experiments. However, it is important to recognize that legislative frameworks governing data sharing may vary across different countries. In several countries, for instance, the process of sharing data may be more challenging due to the policies, which can limit the scope of research and necessitate the use of smaller sample sizes.
“It is usually difficult to reconcile both roles and the operating theatre and surgical practice but an interest in personal improvement and surgical practice is one of the goals the reviewer should have. The effort is often rewarded by seeing an improvement in technique and patient health over the years,” says Dr. Nicotra.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Joanna Socha
Dr. Joanna Socha is a radiation oncologist and clinical scientist. She currently serves as an Associate Professor and the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Jan Dlugosz University in Częstochowa, Poland. She is also a consultant at the Department of Radiotherapy at the Regional Oncology Center in Częstochowa, Poland. The major portion of her clinical, research, and educational pursuits centers around target volume delineation in radiotherapy—i.e., the precise definition of the regions that must be encompassed within the therapeutic radiation dose. Her second primary focus is on preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer, including organ-preserving strategies. She is an active lecturer and researcher with many years of experience teaching postgraduate and specialist-level courses. She has authored, co-authored, and co-edited several monographs on radiation oncology and clinical oncology, including national guidelines for the diagnostic and therapeutic management of gastrointestinal malignancies. She is a member of the ESTRO Lower GI Focus Group and the International Multidisciplinary Anal Cancer Consortium (IMACC). Learn more about Dr. Socha here.
TLCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Socha: A reviewer should have a solid understanding of the field, though not necessarily at an expert level. This knowledge should be deep enough to grasp the relevant aspects of the paper under review, allowing them to identify potential biases and confounders, assess the novelty of the work, and understand how the study fits within the broader research landscape. However, even more critical than subject-specific knowledge is a strong working knowledge of clinical research methods, including statistics. This expertise enables the reviewer to provide valuable insights into the methodological quality of the paper, even if the subject matter is somewhat outside their primary area of interest. Additionally, a reviewer should be curious, eager to understand the authors' motivations and approach to the project, and open to why the research was conducted in a particular way. Patience is also essential, as a reviewer must be thorough, reading the paper systematically, and looking up any acronyms or terms they do not understand. Finally, honesty is crucial. A reviewer should ask themselves whether they like the paper because it aligns with their preconceived beliefs, or if they are discounting it simply because it challenges their expectations.
TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Socha: There are two main reasons I accept invitations to review. First, when a study captures my interest after reading the abstract, and at the same time, I feel reasonably confident that I possess the necessary qualities to review it well. Second, when the study aligns with my primary area of interest, I am keen to see it published. In such cases, I do my best to contribute to its improvement by offering suggestions, providing my perspective, presenting alternative interpretations of the results, and asking questions that the data should address or at least discuss in the Discussion section. I strive to be as constructive as possible because my ultimate goal is to help improve the paper. I am aware of my limitations and never agree to review work that I do not feel qualified to review.
TLCR: Why do you choose to review for TLCR?
Dr. Socha: As a reader and an author of TLCR, I am deeply invested in the quality of the content published in the journal. Reviewing for TLCR allows me to contribute to maintaining and enhancing the high standards of research in a field that directly impacts my work and interests. Additionally, reviewing for TLCR gives me the opportunity to stay updated on the latest developments in lung cancer, which can inform and inspire my own research efforts. Finally, reviewing helps me improve my own critical thinking and analytical skills, which are valuable in my own research and writing.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Eric B. Kmiec
Eric B. Kmiec, PhD, is the Founder and Executive Director of ChristianaCare’s Gene Editing Institute. He is widely recognized for his pioneering work in the fields of molecular medicine and gene editing. His research has helped elucidate the regulatory circuitry that controls gene editing of human cells. Current clinical research centers on developing CRISPR-based gene editing approaches for solid tumors, with the lead protocol in head and neck cancer advancing through FDA approval. He is the founder of CorriXR Therapeutics, a new spin out company from ChristianaCare. Dr. Kmiec received his PhD in Molecular Biology and Microbiology from the University of Florida School of Medicine. He has authored 186 peer-reviewed publications, has 18 issued patents, and has received numerous service medals and awards. In the public media arena, his work has been featured in many outlets including CRISPR Medicine News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, STAT News, and the New York Times. Learn more about him here.
TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Kmiec: There is an inherent bias against less well known, smaller research groups who often can produce outstanding work with less resources. There just isn’t a way to extract some of this view from the major journals. There is no doubt that the usual suspects of major research institutions produce incredible work, but in some cases, it’s so complex that no one will attempt to reproduce it. This does not mean that the work is in some way questionable, but rather that only a few laboratories in the world have the resources to adequately attempt to reproduce it. I consider robustness the most important part of a manuscript and as an editor and in my other editorial and reviewer roles I serve; I try to understand the context in which the work was developed. There’s elegance in simplicity of experimental thought. It doesn’t have to be supported by multimillion dollar grants. In fact, I think some of the best comes from laboratories that do more with less. What can be done to improve it? The leaders of the major journals are going to have to take their high ended opinions and hats off and look deeper into those submissions that can really move the needle. Thankfully, I’m already starting to see this. In fact, we’re starting to hear from lots of journals that the work they’re publishing has little or no impact on medicine, society or culture. They apparently want to change that, so I remain cautiously optimistic.
TLCR: What reviewers must bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Kmiec: The job of the reviewer is to review the data in front of them in an unbiased nature. Reviewers sometimes get too far down into the weeds, editing specific words or phrases. While I appreciate that effort, it would sometimes suffice to say that the paper requires grammatical or editorial work. The key question centers on if the science is robust enough to be reproduced, extended, and most importantly understood by someone with knowledge in the field. There’s also a key point that I look for when I review as a referee or an editor: are the best controls in place? There is a tendency among many scientists to use the experiments and controls that best fit their narrative. I look for experiments that can demonstrate consistency among figures, so that the paper is an integrated story where the data reinforce each previous experiment in a different way.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Takahiro Karasaki
Dr. Takahiro Karasaki is a general thoracic surgeon at Toranomon Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. He is also a visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo Hospital (Japan) and the Francis Crick Institute (UK). In early 2008, during the board exam for a Japanese Medical License, he developed spontaneous pneumothorax but fortunately passed the three days of the exam with a portable drainage tube inserted in his chest. After he was board-certified as a general thoracic surgeon, he completed his PhD in 2018. During his PhD, he learned how to handle NGS data and published several papers on immunogenomics. To further improve his bioinformatics skills and understand more about clonal evolution in lung cancer, he joined the TRACERx study (PI: Prof. Charles Swanton) in 2020. He restarted his career as a full-time surgeon in 2023.
Dr. Karasaki thinks that peer review is a fundamental process to audit, improve, and guarantee the quality of the research. As a reviewer, he keeps in mind to serve as a “co-author” and always contemplates how the manuscript can be improved.
From a reviewer’s perspective, he finds it important for the authors to follow reporting guidelines, such as STROBE and TREND, especially at the beginning of their manuscript preparation, so that they do not miss important information and can efficiently write the manuscript.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
