In 2025, 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.

Hironori Kobayashi, Kameda Medical Center, Japan

Michael Milano, University of Rochester Medical Center, USA

Anna V Ivanina Foureau, Levine Cancer Institute, USA

Diane M. Libert, Stanford University, USA

Yasoo Sugiura, Kanagawa Hospital, Japan

Yeon Wook Kim, University of Tokyo, Japan

Ryo Miyata, Nara Medical University, Japan

Yukiko Nakamura, Yokohama Municipal Citizen’s Hospital, Japan

Mary E Carter, University Hospital Tübingen, Germany

Jonathan A. Sänger, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland

José Maria Hernández Pérez, University Hospital of Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Spain

Kevin Ho, Ohio State University, USA

Muhammad Awidi, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, USA

Petros Christopoulos, Heidelberg University, Germany

Mateusz Bilski, Medical University of Lublin, Poland

Michal Sternschuss, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA

Jason Cheuk Sang Ho, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, China

Stefan Salcher, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria

Benedikt Niedermaier, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany

Charles Wong, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong, China

Yutaro Nagano, Sapporo Medical University, Japan

Da Hyun Kang, Chungnam National University Hospital, Korea

Kevin Chen, University of North Carolina Medical Center, USA

Ben Man Fei Cheung, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China

Blerina Resuli, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

Gloria Hopkins Sura, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA

James J. Fradin, Froedtert Hospital and the Medical College of Wisconsin, USA

Rahul Mudumba, University of Southern California, USA

Hunter N. B. Moseley, University of Kentucky, USA

Mélanie Janson, University of Caen Normandy, France

Hironori Kobayashi

Dr. Hironori Kobayashi, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine specialist in Japan with expertise in medical oncology. He graduated as valedictorian from Nara Medical University and completed his residency training at Kobe City General Hospital, followed by specialized training in Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology at Kameda Medical Center, a leading institution known for its U.S.-style oncology program. His research focuses on clinical epidemiology and prognostic factors in oncology, particularly in lung cancer and cancer-associated complications. His recent work includes investigating the efficacy of ABCP therapy in EGFR-mutant lung cancer, survival outcomes in cancer-associated pulmonary embolism, and the impact of acute comorbidities on pulmonary embolism prognosis. In 2025, Dr. Kobayashi will pursue a Master of Public Health at the International University of Health and Welfare, specializing in cancer epidemiology. Leveraging the National Cancer Center’s comprehensive databases, he aims to advance evidence-based oncology research, particularly in long-term outcomes and survivorship. Learn more about him here.

TLCR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Kobayashi: Peer review serves as the foundation of scientific integrity, ensuring the reliability, accuracy, and validity of research findings before they are disseminated to the scientific community and the public. In an era where misinformation can easily spread, the peer-review process acts as a safeguard against unverified claims and methodological flaws. By subjecting research to rigorous evaluation by experts in the field, peer review enhances the credibility of scientific literature, promotes transparency, and facilitates constructive criticism that ultimately strengthens the quality of research. Additionally, peer review fosters continuous scientific progress by identifying areas for improvement, encouraging innovation, and maintaining high ethical and methodological standards. It is a mechanism that balances academic freedom with accountability, ensuring that only well-supported, reproducible findings contribute to the body of scientific knowledge.

TLCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Kobayashi: A competent reviewer should embody several key qualities:

1. Expertise and Knowledge – A deep understanding of the subject matter is essential for assessing the scientific rigor, methodology, and significance of the research.
2. Objectivity and Fairness – A reviewer must evaluate a manuscript based on scientific merit rather than personal biases, institutional affiliations, or competing interests.
3. Constructive Criticism – Providing thoughtful, clear, and actionable feedback helps authors refine their work, contributing to the advancement of research rather than merely pointing out shortcomings.
4. Ethical Responsibility – Confidentiality, integrity, and respect for intellectual property are crucial. Reviewers should ensure that their assessments remain confidential and that they do not exploit the research for personal gain.
5. Broad Perspective – While subject matter expertise is vital, considering interdisciplinary insights can improve the accessibility, impact, and application of research findings.

A high-quality peer review does not merely act as a gatekeeping mechanism but instead serves as a collaborative effort to uphold scientific excellence and support researchers in enhancing their contributions to the field.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Michael Milano

Dr. Michael Milano is a board-certified radiation oncologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center with clinical expertise in radiotherapy for thoracic and head and neck malignancies as well as benign and malignant tumors of the central nervous system. He has been the residency program director for over a decade and now serves as the Vice Chair of Education. His clinical research has been devoted to investigating the clinical outcome of patients treated with newer technologies as well as the treatment of patients with oligometastatic disease. Additional research interests include cancer survivorship and late effects of cancer therapy. He was directly involved with the High Dose per Fraction, Hypofractionated Treatment Effects in the Clinic (HYTEC) and Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) projects. Connect with him on X @MichaelTMilano.

TLCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Milano: A reviewer should want to help the authors and journal by providing productive feedback that will help the authors improve their work, even if the submission is better suited for another journal. This requires objectivity, collegiality and an appreciation of how realistic it will be to address to your suggestions.

TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Milano: The increasing demands on physicians and scientists limit the time and energy that they have for reviewing research papers. Reviewing papers is truly volunteer work that is generally not accounted for in assessing someone’s academic accomplishments. Finding ways for academic institutions, medical and scientific industries and journal publishers to recognize and reward this work is a challenge but can be an avenue to improve the review process by incentivizing thoughtful, productive scientific reviews.

TLCR: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?

Dr. Milano: The use of reporting guidelines assures a level of “quality assurance” of the submitted paper and forces the authors to go through the rigors to ensure that their work meets objective criteria for quality. As a reviewer, the granular information about how a paper adheres to a specific reporting standard is perhaps not as critical as knowing that objective standards were addressed. Many research papers will not cleanly fit into a given reporting guideline, though these submissions still benefit from the efforts to meet the objective guideline criteria as much as possible.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Anna V Ivanina Foureau

Anna V. Ivanina Foureau is a research assistant professor at the Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte NC. Her research focuses on metabolic reprogramming in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and how it relates to therapeutic failure. Her ongoing work seeks to identify actionable metabolic adaptation(s) controlling ATP and purinergic metabolites production in NSCLC to devise strategies to overcome resistance to therapy. Her research goal leverages her expertise in the field of biochemistry and toxicology acquired through her predoctoral training (Kazan State Academy of Veterinary Medicine) and postdoctoral experience in metabolic adaptation to biotic and abiotic stresses (UNC Charlotte). Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Dr. Foureau reckons that peer review plays a key role in ensuring the credibility of published research. At a time when the scientific literature has become more broadly and readily available, peer review by subject matter experts plays a key role in preserving the integrity of the greater body of scientific knowledge. Incidentally, the peer-review process also often contributes to improving the quality and impact of scientific publications by ensuring scientific rigor.

In Dr. Foureau’s opinion, reviewers ought to seek to positively influence the field of research. Reviewers’ comments must comprehensively examine ethical part of the research conducted, its validity and implications, check if manuscript within a line of available research reporting standard, have some evidence, novelty of hypothesis, accuracy of statistical analysis and review of current and relevant references. Certainly, the peer-review process may be subject to bias. That is why a double-blind review process constitutes an important tool to prevent personal conflicts of interest in small professional community.

According to Dr. Foureau, like the peer-review process, institutional review board (IRB) approval is an essential guardrail to ensuring scientific rigor and ethical integrity of clinical research studies. The IRB approval takes place prior to the conduct of the research while peer review takes place when the research has been completed. Whether it relates to interventional or non-interventional studies, the IRB process evaluates whether investigators have proper statistical power to test their stated hypotheses, offers a robust framework to ensure patient’s participation to the research is well-informed and establishes clear stopping rules to protect them.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Diane M. Libert

Diane Libert completed her BS in Biochemistry at Penn State University, her MPhil in Biological Sciences-Pathology at the University of Cambridge, and her medical degree at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. She completed her Anatomic/Clinical Pathology residency at Stanford University, where she is currently a Cytopathology fellow. Her research spans basic, translational, and clinical domains, with a focus on cancer pathology. She has investigated the tumor microenvironment, molecular biomarkers, and novel diagnostic techniques. Her recent works involve tissue characterization of novel therapeutic targets for cancers, optimization of molecular assays for cancer diagnostics, and the practical application of liquid biopsy technologies for rare tumor cell detection.

Dr. Libert believes that as the scientific community advances in its pursuit of knowledge and truth, new studies are designed and conducted based on previous work. This process relies on reviewers serving as essential safeguards to uphold the integrity of published research. Thorough and conscientious peer review ensures that only valid and accurate research is published. The impact extends beyond the realm of pure science, carrying significant real-world implications for patient safety and longevity.

According to Dr. Libert, reviewers should first identify the key hypothesis of the paper before evaluating the supporting results. Do the authors interpret the results accurately, and do these results support the overall hypothesis? Are the conclusions appropriate and well-supported by the data? Are there any critical pieces of information missing that future scientists or clinicians would need before using the study’s findings to design experiments or guide patient care? Any gaps in this logical progression represent significant deficiencies that a reviewer must bring to attention.

“Scientific progress depends on researchers paying it forward by reviewing manuscripts, just as others have done for them. Thank you for generously sharing your time, expertise, and experience in support of your fellow scientists,” says Dr. Libert.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yasoo Sugiura

Dr. Yasoo Sugiura graduated from Keio University School of Medicine in 2005 and subsequently trained at Keio University Hospital and the National Cancer Center Hospital East. In 2015, he joined Kanagawa Hospital, National Hospital Organization, as the Head of the Department of Thoracic Surgery. His clinical and research focus on the diagnosis, surgical treatment, and medical management of lung cancer, covering all aspects of patient care. Additionally, he is actively engaged in the surgical management of non-cancerous thoracic conditions, including empyema, inflammatory diseases, nontuberculous mycobacterial infections, and pulmonary fungal infections. Through his work, he strives to contribute to advancements in thoracic surgery and improve patient outcomes.

In Dr. Sugiura’s opinion, bias is an inherent challenge in peer review, and he recognizes the importance of approaching each manuscript with fairness and objectivity. To minimize biases, he focuses on evaluating the study based on its methodology, data quality, and logical coherence rather than factors such as the authors' affiliations or past publications. Additionally, he makes a conscious effort to set aside personal perspectives and remain open to new ideas, even if they differ from his own experiences or expectations. If he is familiar with the topic, he takes extra care to ensure that his assessment is based on the manuscript's content rather than his prior knowledge. Lastly, he believes constructive feedback is key to a productive peer-review process. He strives to provide specific, balanced, and helpful comments that support the authors in improving their work while maintaining a respectful and professional tone.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yeon Wook Kim

Dr. Yeon Wook Kim is a pulmonologist at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and an affiliate of the Lung Cancer Program at the Respiratory Center. As a physician-researcher, he is deeply committed to advancing lung cancer care through cutting-edge clinical trials and research. His research areas focus on risk reduction, screening, early detection, and timely diagnosis and staging. Additionally, he is dedicated to reducing disparities and promoting equitable access to lung cancer care worldwide. Connect with him on X @kimyw_snu_pulm.

Dr. Kim believes peer review plays an essential role in the publication of scientific literature, serving primarily as a quality-control mechanism to prevent misconduct. It is also a crucial collaborative process that involves researchers, peers, and editors working together to improve the research, ensuring that the final publication is both scientifically rigorous and contributes novel knowledge to the field.

According to Dr. Kim, peer reviewers can be susceptible to various types of biases. As a reviewer, he believes the most important approach is to continuously question whether his impressions and decisions are truly objective and fair. To ensure consistency, he provides clear, well-reasoned justifications for all of his suggestions. Additionally, recognizing the critical role of peer reviewers in improving manuscripts, he strives to reflect on how he would enhance the research if he was the author. He also considers what questions he would have as a reader encountering the final published version in a journal.

“Our work as a reviewer is crucial to the advancement of science. Although it is time-consuming and may seem underappreciated, it is deeply rewarding because of its essential role in the collaborative effort to deliver accurate knowledge in the most appropriate form to readers and the scientific community, of which you yourself are an integral part. It is your dedication that plays a key role in the collective process of ensuring high-quality scientific knowledge,” says Dr. Kim.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ryo Miyata

Ryo Miyata is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery at Nara Medical University in Japan. His research spans both the basic and clinical aspects of thoracic surgery, with a strong focus on lung cancer. Currently, he is delving into perioperative therapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). His goal is to develop curative treatment strategies that have surgery at their core. By fine-tuning the timing and combination of surgical and medical treatments, he aims to enhance long-term outcomes and survival rates for NSCLC patients.

From an author's perspective, Dr. Miyata highlights the inconsistency in the peer-review process among different journals as a significant limitation. When an author has to transfer a manuscript to another journal, the varying review procedures can cause stress. He suggests that if the transfer occurs within the same publisher, the process could be made more efficient by eliminating additional steps and redundant work. This would streamline the publication process for authors and potentially lead to a more consistent and less burdensome experience.

Dr. Miyata emphasizes the need for reviewers to be empathetic towards the authors, as they invest a great deal of effort in their work. He often encounters manuscripts where the hypothesis or research aim in the Introduction is unclear or not directly related to the stated research purpose. Reviewers, in his view, should clearly identify such areas that need revision. Their role is not just to point out flaws but also to guide authors in improving the manuscript, making it a more substantial and coherent contribution to the field. This approach helps in enhancing the overall quality of scientific literature.

Dr. Miyata has come across manuscripts with an overwhelming number of typos, indicating a lack of proper internal review among co-authors. In most cases, these manuscripts also had other major flaws. He recalls his former mentor's advice that a manuscript with too many typos should be rejected immediately upon discovery. This anecdote showcases how the initial appearance and basic quality control of a manuscript can be an early indicator of its overall quality and the care put into its preparation.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yukiko Nakamura

Yukiko Nakamura is a thoracic oncologist at Yokohama Municipal Citizen’s Hospital in Japan. She graduated from Osaka University School of Medicine in 2000. Subsequently, she completed her training in Internal Medicine, Respiratory Medicine, Thoracic Oncology, and Bronchoscopy at various institutions including the University of Osaka Hospital, Nisinomiya Municipal Central Hospital, and Osaka Habikino Medical Center. From 2005 until now, she has served as a staff physician at Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, National Cancer Center Hospital, and Yokohama Municipal Citizen’s Hospital in Japan. She has been actively involved in the development of oncology guidelines, having been a member of the Chemotherapy & Multidisciplinary Treatment of Guideline Control Committee in 2019 and the Lung Cancer Treatment Improvement Committee from 2019 to 2020. Her work primarily focuses on the treatment of lung carcinoma and the research utilizing real-world data from databases in the field of thoracic oncology.

According to Dr. Nakamura, reviewers are expected to offer constructive and positive feedback that aids in enhancing an article. To be able to provide such valuable feedback, she believes that a reviewer must possess a substantial amount of knowledge and experience in the relevant field. This knowledge allows the reviewer to accurately assess the content of the article, identify areas that need improvement, and offer practical suggestions for enhancing the quality of the work. The positive and constructive nature of the feedback helps the authors to grow and develop their research, ultimately contributing to the advancement of the scientific community.

“TLCR is open to many researchers and receives many informative articles. Therefore, this journal is exciting for reviewers as well,” says Dr, Nakamura.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mary E Carter

Dr. Mary Elisabeth Carter works as a junior doctor in the Department of Medical Oncology and Pneumology at the University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. After her medical degree she completed her doctoral thesis investigating the effects of oncolytic virotherapy in a three-dimensional organoid model of primary breast cancer. Her current research focuses on thoracic oncology with interests in translational research, novel therapeutic approaches and patient-derived lung cancer organoid models. She has received scholarships from the University of Tübingen for her past and current research projects. Her current work combines clinical treatment of thoracic oncology patients whilst training for her specialist qualification in oncology alongside research to improve the care of patients diagnosed with thoracic malignancies. Under the direct leadership of Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lauer, she has supervised several students working on their master theses and doctoral dissertation projects. Learn more about her here.

TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Carter: The peer-review system is an integral part of ensuring the quality of published research. However, this system relies heavily on the availability and experience of individual scientists for the review process. In order to enable timely reviews of manuscripts, it is imperative to identify and encourage an experienced cadre of researchers that are able to peer review manuscripts and for the review process itself to be of an excellent quality and as efficient as possible. 

TLCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Carter: A reviewer should be able to have an unbiased view on the data being presented. Furthermore, a good knowledge of the scientific field which is being investigated is necessary to allow a comprehensive review of the manuscript. However, some aspects of the manuscript should be new to the reviewer to widen their horizon and enable understanding of the manuscript for a diverse readership. In addition, a reviewer needs to be thorough and honest in his or her remarks while keeping the tone as neutral and constructive as possible. Scientific curiosity and experimental rigor are the two main components of a good review.

TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Carter: I thoroughly understand the need and benefits of the peer-review process for maintaining a high quality of research. I believe that the peer-review process encourages reviewers like myself to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field and provides insights into new aspects of research.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jonathan A. Sänger

Dr. Jonathan A. Sänger, a radiology resident at the University Hospital Zurich, specializes in interventional oncology, with a focus on percutaneous cryoablation for lung tumors. During his postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard Medical School’s Massachusetts General Hospital, he contributed to clinical studies on cryoablation outcomes, safety, and patient stratification in contexts like interstitial lung disease and oligometastatic cancer. His research evaluates the safety and efficacy of cryoablation for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), lung metastases, and complex cases involving juxtacardiac or ultra-central tumors. Additionally, he explores gynecologic oncology and breast imaging, investigating breast arterial calcifications (BAC) to differentiate them from malignant lesions and their role in cardiovascular risk assessment. He teaches ultrasound at ETH Zurich and SGUM and lectures in radiology at the University of Zurich.

In Dr. Sänger’s opinion, peer review is very important for the scientific quality and integrity of published research. It acts as a filter to ensure that studies are methodologically sound, conclusions are justified by the provided data, and findings are relevant to the field. Furthermore, peer review can also strengthen a manuscript by offering an outside perspective, someone not involved in the study who can help clarify arguments, refine the methodology, and highlight the broader significance of the work. Peer review is a collaborative process between reviewer and author that not only improves individual manuscripts but also drives scientific progress through constructive dialogue, shared expertise, and the exchange of ideas, which may even inspire new research and future publications.

To Dr. Sänger, reviewers should approach each manuscript with an open and fair mindset. It is important to evaluate a manuscript based on its content, not, even in an open review process, on the author’s name or institutional affiliation, and to provide feedback that is honest, respectful, and constructive, without being too critical. In his opinion, a good review should also highlight what the authors did well and deliver critical feedback with kindness and clarity, making it easier to receive and put into practice. Keeping things confidential goes without saying, and being aware of any personal opinion and potential bias is just as essential. In the end, the goal is to help someone move science forward, not to tear down their work, but to make it better.

Dr. Sänger believes that disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) is vital for transparency. While COIs don’t invalidate research, they help readers assess potential biases in study design or interpretation. Undisclosed conflicts can undermine credibility, even in strong studies. Open disclosure protects both authors and the scientific community, ensuring research is trusted and critically evaluated based on merit.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

José Maria Hernández Pérez

Dr. José María Hernández Pérez, a PhD and an MD at the University Hospital of Nuestra Señora de Candelaria in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, has specialized in alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (DAAT) since 2006. As National Coordinator of the Spanish Research Network on Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (REDAAT), his research explores DAAT’s relationship with bronchial asthma exacerbations, lung cancer survival, and less deficient genotypes in COPD/liver disease, alongside discovering new pathogenic variants. Connect with him on X @JoseMariaAlfa1.

To Dr. Pérez, peer review ensures scientific integrity by verifying research truthfulness, accuracy, and clarity. Reviewers must possess recognized field expertise, offering critical yet constructive feedback. In DAAT studies, this means evaluating whether data support conclusions—such as linking genotypes to clinical outcomes—while suggesting methods to strengthen analyses.

Dr. Pérez reckons that an objective review must be conducted by a subject matter expert with recognized experience, not only theoretical but also practical. The comments made must be substantiated and free from subjectivity. He adds, “The more precise and literature-grounded reviewers are, the better we will avoid bias. Obviously, reviewers should seek all necessary clarification from the authors so that any questions that arise can be resolved.”

In Dr. Pérez’s opinion, institutional review board (IRB) approval elevates research quality and prevents overlooked errors, especially in human-subject studies. While ethics committees may seem strict, their role is to uphold standards and protect participant rights. Omitting this step risks ethical violations, compromised data validity, and damage to academic credibility—critical in DAAT research, where genetic insights directly impact patient care.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Kevin Ho

Kevin Ho is a pulmonologist and Assistant Professor of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at Ohio State University. His clinical and research focus centers on pulmonary complications of cancer and cancer treatment, with a career goal to enhance lung health for all cancer patients. Recent projects include identifying clinical risk factors for pneumonitis associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and trastuzumab-deruxtecan.

Dr. Ho reckons that reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on the authors’ described methods, ensuring results align with the stated framework. Expertise in the research area is essential to accurately assess how findings fit within the field’s current landscape, ensuring scientific rigor and relevance.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Ho thinks that authors should share research data upon reasonable request. Data sharing fosters transparency and reproducibility, while enabling multicenter collaboration—critical as research becomes more complex and multidisciplinary. By reducing miscommunication and ensuring proper application of methods, it accelerates cumulative scientific advancement, ensuring knowledge builds effectively for broader impact.

“Scientific research may not always advance linearly, and persistence is vital in producing high-quality research. We (as the scientific community and the patients your research will serve in the future) truly appreciate your efforts!” says Dr. Ho.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Muhammad Awidi

Dr. Muhammad Awidi is a Hematology and Medical Oncology fellow at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. His research focuses on immunotherapy, especially in vulnerable populations like transplant recipients and the elderly. He has authored over 30 abstracts and publications. He serves on the editorial review board of several peer-reviewed journals. Learn more about him here.

TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Awidi: Peer review often lacks standardization, timely feedback, and transparency. Bias, inconsistent reviewer quality, and limited recognition are recurring issues. Improvements include structured reviewer training, reviewer credit systems (e.g., via ORCID), use of AI for preliminary checks, and better editorial oversight to ensure constructive feedback.

TLCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Awidi: A reviewer should be objective, knowledgeable, and constructive. Strong writing and analytical skills, respect for confidentiality, and a focus on helping authors improve their work regardless of final recommendation are essential. Curiosity and open-mindedness are also important, especially with emerging methodologies.

TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Awidi: I see peer review as a responsibility and a learning opportunity. It allows me to stay current, contribute to science, and support colleagues especially junior researchers. I’ve benefited from good reviews myself, and I aim to give back by doing the same for others.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Petros Christopoulos

Petros Christopoulos is Professor of Medicine at Heidelberg University, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Head of Scientific Coordination for the Thoracic Oncology Program at Thoraxklinik Heidelberg, and Principal Investigator at the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). He oversees numerous clinical and translational studies, leads a weekly thoracic molecular tumor board, and facilitates access to novel compounds via off-label use or expanded access programs. Trained in medicine at the University of Athens, Greece, he completed postgraduate training in Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Hematology, Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Medical Oncology, Genetic Counseling, and Palliative Care at Germany’s Freiburg and Würzburg University Hospitals. His research integrates clinical data with genetic, pathologic, immunologic, and radiologic insights to refine patient stratification, enhance disease monitoring, and identify new therapeutic targets, translating these into preclinical models and investigator-led trials. Learn more about him here.

In Dr. Christopoulos’ opinion, peer review is a vital quality-control mechanism in science, where experts assess research prior to publication. It ensures studies are valid, original, and significant, while helping authors improve their work through constructive feedback. By verifying that published research meets rigorous standards, peer review fosters trust in scientific literature, making it a reliable foundation for further research and policy decisions. It also curbs the spread of flawed or fraudulent studies, safeguarding the reputations of journals and science itself. Despite limitations like potential bias and slow processes, it remains the most effective system for upholding scientific credibility and integrity.

Biases are inevitable in peer review. To reduce bias, Dr. Christopoulos reckons that double-blind or triple-blind reviews—concealing author and reviewer identities—are key. Standardized criteria and scoring systems promote objective, consistent evaluations. Increasing diversity among reviewers and editorial boards mitigates systemic biases. While bias-awareness training for reviewers (encouraging reflection on assumptions) could help, it is not widely adopted. Open peer review, with public comments, enhances transparency and accountability. These strategies collectively strive to make peer review fairer and more reliable.

“Even though peer review is often anonymous and unpaid, it can provide several other benefits. For example, scientists involved in peer review can get earlier insights into novel research results, refine their critical skills, expand their reputation, and also contribute to the integrity in their field. That being said, the time of scholars is usually very limited and needs to be divided among many professional duties, therefore it is important that some journals recognize the reviewers’ efforts, providing incentives like free access to publications otherwise requiring subscription, reduced fees for future submissions, or scientific collaboration in upcoming research projects,” says Dr. Christopoulos.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mateusz Bilski

Mateusz Bilski, MD, PhD, is a radiation oncologist and interventional radiotherapist (brachytherapist) affiliated with the Medical University of Lublin and the Centre of Oncology of the Lublin Region, where he serves as deputy head of the Brachytherapy Unit. After completing his PhD at the Medical University of Łódź, he has focused his clinical and research efforts on metastasis-directed therapies (MDT) using stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy for prostate, gynecological, liver, lung, and CNS cancers. Active in international working groups like ESTRO, ISRS, and EORTC, he contributes to numerous scientific publications and multicenter projects on SBRT and interventional radiotherapy, with his work recognized at international congresses. Advocating for precision radiotherapy and interdisciplinary collaboration, he aims to improve outcomes in oligometastatic and recurrent cancer care. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Bilski reckons that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity, ensuring research is rigorously evaluated for methodological rigor and relevance before publication. Yet, it should also be constructive: a thoughtful review identifies limitations while helping authors refine their work, transforming the process into a collaborative dialogue that strengthens both studies and the field.

In Dr. Bilski’s opinion, an objective review prioritizes scientific merit over personal bias, evaluating methodology, originality, and clarity without regard to authors’ backgrounds. He maintains objectivity by structuring evaluations around study design, data quality, and statistical validity, using literature-backed feedback in neutral language.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Bilski thinks that disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) is equally vital—while not invalidating research, COI transparency allows critical interpretation of findings, as financial or institutional interests may subtly influence studies. As a reviewer, he assesses COIs’ impact thoughtfully, ensuring transparency upholds scientific trust and integrity.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Michal Sternschuss

Dr. Michal Sternschuss, MD, is a medical oncologist currently completing an advanced medical oncology fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York. After receiving her MD from Tel Aviv University, Dr Sternschuss completed her medical oncology residency at Davidoff Cancer Center, Israel, where she later joined the faculty as an attending treating patients with thoracic and genitourinary malignancies. Since 2023, she pursued advanced clinical and research training at MSKCC, where she will continue her research efforts after completing the fellowship program. Her academic interests include real-world outcomes, treatment sequencing, biomarkers of response and mechanisms of resistance. She is also deeply committed to medical education and is actively involved in academic teaching and mentorship.  

TLCR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Sternschuss: Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific process. It serves as a safeguard to ensure that published research is methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and relevant to the field. In oncology, where research directly impacts patient care, the responsibility to maintain scientific integrity, rigor and credibility is especially important. Ultimately, the goal of the peer-review process is to help the authors refine their work by providing constructive, unbiased feedback.

TLCR: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Sternschuss: An objective review focuses on the science- the methodology, the analysis, data interpretation, and contribution to the field. I believe that honesty and transparency about one’s expertise are essential, and I make sure to accept review invitations only when I feel confident that I have the relevant knowledge to evaluate the work thoroughly. When reviewing a manuscript, I find that a structured framework helps ensure both objectivity and clarity: I assess the merit of the research question, appropriateness of the methods, and validity of the conclusions. I make a conscious effort to separate my personal preferences and potential biases from the scientific merits of the study and aim to provide constructive, respectful feedback that would hopefully help authors strengthen their work.

TLCR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Sternschuss: I believe that transparency around COI in academia is essential. While the presence of a COI does not inherently invalidate a study, awareness allows readers and reviewers to evaluate potential biases that may influence study design, data interpretation, or reporting. Routine disclosure of COI helps maintain the trust in the integrity of the scientific process.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jason Cheuk Sang Ho

Jason Cheuk Sang Ho holds pharmacy and medical degrees from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and is a junior doctor in the Department of Clinical Oncology at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong’s largest oncology center. His research focuses on thoracic oncology, particularly managing inoperable locally advanced lung cancer. Recent work on consolidation durvalumab’s efficacy in unresectable lung cancer with driver mutations was published and presented at the 2025 European Lung Cancer Congress.

Dr. Ho emphasizes that peer review is foundational to cancer research, ensuring credibility, robustness, and innovation. It fosters objectivity by involving external experts to challenge biases, upholds scientific rigor through scrutiny of methods and conclusions, and drives progress via constructive feedback that refines research—ultimately enhancing patient care.

As a reviewer, Dr. Ho believes that key considerations in a peer review include a manuscript’s novelty (assessing if it offers new insights), clinical relevance (whether findings shape patient care across diverse populations), and clarity (logical writing with clear methods, results, and interpretations to aid practical application). These focus areas ensure reviews strengthen research that advances oncology practice.

“Balancing clinical and research duties as an oncologist is demanding, but I see peer review as a vital part of my role. I carve out dedicated time during quieter periods, like evenings or weekends, to focus on reviewing papers thoroughly. I also integrate peer review into my clinical work by reflecting on research hypotheses while seeing patients, assessing whether proposed ideas are practical and beneficial in real-world settings. This approach helps me manage my time efficiently, ensuring I contribute to advancing cancer research while staying grounded in patient care,” says Dr. Ho.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Stefan Salcher

Dr. Stefan Salcher is a cancer scientist and tenure-track assistant professor in Precision Oncology at the Medical University of Innsbruck. His research focuses on the tumor–immune cell interface, with a particular emphasis on neutrophil plasticity and immune regulation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Trained in both biotechnology and medicine, he integrates single-cell and systems biology approaches to dissect the complexity of the tumor microenvironment. He has led multiple studies mapping immune heterogeneity in lung tumors and has published extensively in high-impact journals, including Cancer Cell and Nature Communications. He directs a translational research group dedicated to uncovering mechanisms of immune dysfunction in solid tumors and mentors MSc and PhD students within the oncology curriculum. His goal is to translate mechanistic insights into targeted immunotherapeutic strategies.

TLCR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Salcher: Peer review is essential for maintaining scientific standards. It helps filter out flawed or overstated claims and improves the quality of a manuscript through constructive input. I see it as a collaborative process—ideally, it sharpens the science and brings out the core message more clearly. Especially in cancer research, where findings can have translational or even clinical implications, peer review acts as a necessary checkpoint before ideas move forward.

TLCR: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Salcher: Bias can never be completely eliminated, but I try to minimize it by focusing strictly on the quality of the data, the clarity of the reasoning, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Since most peer reviews are blinded, I usually don’t know who the authors are, so personal bias isn’t typically an issue. More relevant are field-related biases—like favoring familiar models or methods. It’s important to stay aware of that and evaluate the study based on how well it addresses the research question, not whether it aligns with own methodological preferences.

TLCR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Salcher: Absolutely. Full disclosure is key. A conflict of interest doesn’t mean the research is invalid, but it gives context—especially when it comes to interpretation or study design. In translational research, where collaborations with biotech or pharma are common, transparency helps maintain trust. It’s not about avoiding all conflicts but about being upfront so readers and reviewers can evaluate the findings appropriately.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Benedikt Niedermaier

Dr. Benedikt Niedermaier is a resident in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at the Thoraxklinik, Heidelberg University Hospital. He studied medicine at the Universities of Freiburg and Duisburg-Essen and began his thoracic surgery residency in 2022. His clinical and translational research focuses on thoracic surgical oncology, with a specific interest in the early development of lung cancer—including investigating the molecular mechanisms and clinical relevance of the histologic transition from lepidic to invasive growth in lung adenocarcinoma. He also explores the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgical approaches. Currently, he serves as a visiting researcher at the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), where he studies proteomic alterations linked to early lung cancer progression and aims to translate molecular findings into clinical practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Niedermaier’s opinion, peer review is the foundation of scientific advancement—not merely an “error-checking” step, but a driver of collaborative progress. He emphasizes that peer review transforms individual research into a shared effort: through thoughtful feedback and critique, studies become stronger, ideas are refined, and the entire field benefits. It also guides researchers to focus on what matters most—articulating a study’s novelty, its significance, and how it fits into the broader scientific landscape. As a reviewer, he thinks that one can challenge authors to sharpen their message and highlight their work’s true contribution. In this way, peer review exceeds basic quality control; it shapes more rigorous science and steers knowledge growth in meaningful directions.

Dr. Niedermaier points out that a primary limitation of the current peer-review system is the impact of AI technology on the review process. With AI simplifying rapid paper generation, the scientific community faces a surge in published work—much of it mediocre—overwhelming reviewers. While AI aids writing, it can also produce “convincing-looking” texts that are scientifically weak or misleading. To him, the current system is ill-equipped to detect such issues, as discerning true innovation from AI-assisted superficial work is time-consuming and challenging.

To address this, he proposes three key solutions:

• Better AI misuse detection tools: develop technologies to identify scientifically flawed or misleading content generated by AI.
• Clear ethical AI guidelines: establish standards for responsible AI use in research -writing to prevent abuse.

• Enhanced reviewer support: provide resources to help reviewers navigate AI-related challenges, reducing their workload burden.

Additionally, he advocates for prioritizing high-quality research over quantity, and suggests open review (where reviewer identities or comments are transparent) and post-publication feedback to boost process transparency—ensuring only rigorous, impactful work advances.

“Peer reviewing is incredibly valuable—and often underrated. It’s a chance to get early insight into new ideas and stay on top of emerging trends, but more importantly, it’s part of building a collaborative, self-correcting scientific culture. Thoughtful reviews help shape stronger research and better evidence, which benefits everyone in the field,” says Dr. Niedermaier.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Charles Wong

Dr. Charles Wong, a Hong Kong-based Respiratory Medicine specialist, serves as Associate Consultant in the Department of Medicine at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital and Honorary Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Hong Kong. He completed a Respiratory Medicine fellowship and advanced training in Pleural Medicine and Research at Australia’s Centre for Innovative Pleural Research (Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital). His research focuses on pleural disease, thoracic oncology, clinical use of thoracic ultrasound, and respiratory disease risk stratification. He has published in top international journals and won awards like the 2021 APSR/Hong Kong Young Investigator Award, 2021 ERS Young Scientist Sponsorship, and 2024 APSR/ERS Young Investigator Award, while also acting as a peer reviewer for leading journals. Learn more about him here.

In Dr. Wong’s opinion, peer review remains a cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet several limitations persist. First, limited reviewer availability often results in prolonged turnaround times and delays in publication. Second, inadequate matching of reviewer expertise, particularly for interdisciplinary submissions, can lead to suboptimal assessments. Third, bias arising from conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations, or unconscious preferences may compromise the objectivity of reviews. To address these concerns, several improvements could be implemented. Incentive structures that acknowledge timely and high-quality reviews could enhance reviewer engagement. More advanced reviewer-matching algorithms may improve the alignment of manuscripts with appropriate expertise. In addition, broader implementation of double-blind review protocols could help mitigate unconscious bias and promote fairness throughout the evaluation process.

Bias in peer review is inevitable, but Dr. Wong reckons that it can be significantly mitigated by anchoring evaluations to objective scientific criteria. Assessments of methodological soundness, analytical rigor, and the identification of critical flaws that may affect the reliability of the findings should be prioritized. Maintaining impartial judgment, disclosing potential conflicts of interest, and adhering to a structured review framework help promote fairness and consistency. Ultimately, the scientific merit of the work should be the focus of the review, rather than the authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, or publication history.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Wong thinks that authors should follow guidelines like STROBE and CARE. These design-specific frameworks enhance transparency and rigor, streamline review (letting reviewers focus on validity over clarifying gaps), improve reproducibility, and are increasingly required by top journals to uphold publication integrity and quality.​

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yutaro Nagano

Yutaro Nagano is a respiratory physician at Sapporo Medical University. After graduating from the university in 2016, he completed initial and specialty training in respiratory medicine at multiple hospitals in Hokkaido, Japan. His primary research focus lies in thoracic malignancies—particularly lung cancer. Currently, he is involved in several cohort studies and has initiated research aimed at developing clinical artificial intelligence (AI) models to support diagnosis and decision-making in real-world medical practice.

Dr. Nagano emphasizes that peer review is fundamental to upholding the credibility and integrity of scientific research. By enabling multiple experts to critically evaluate submitted work from diverse perspectives, the process acts as a safeguard for the quality and reliability of academic publications. Beyond quality control, peer review serves as a platform for constructive dialogue: it provides authors with valuable feedback that can foster deeper insights, refine ideas, and drive personal growth. To him, peer review is more than just a standard-setting mechanism; it is a collaborative engine that propels scientific progress forward.

A key limitation of peer review, Dr. Nagano identifies, is the misalignment between reviewers’ expertise and the manuscript topic, which undermines review efficiency. Under the existing system, review requests often do not match a reviewer’s specialized area, leading to less informed feedback. To address this, he proposes implementing a more advanced matching system or a structured reviewer database. Leveraging AI to manage reviewer profiles—by tracking their expertise, research focus, and availability—could streamline the pairing process, ultimately enhancing both the efficiency and fairness of peer review.

“Peer review is a valuable opportunity for personal growth. It also provides access to the latest findings and new perspectives that lie outside one’s own research focus. For early-career researchers like myself, engaging in peer review is a meaningful way to grow professionally. This process is a collaborative effort, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all reviewers who generously dedicate their time to this essential task,” says Dr. Nagano.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Da Hyun Kang

Dr. Da Hyun Kang, M.D., Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea. Her clinical and research efforts focus on lung cancer—specifically its diagnosis, treatment, early detection, and prognosis improvement. She leads translational research into immunotherapy resistance mechanisms, leveraging minimally invasive samples like blood, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and pleural fluid. Her current work integrates metabolomics to identify metabolic changes tied to tumor progression, immune response, and therapeutic outcomes. By combining multi-omics approaches, she aims to boost diagnostic accuracy and develop metabolism-based strategies to enhance lung cancer treatment.

Dr. Kang thinks that peer review is critical to upholding the quality and reliability of scientific research. It acts as a vital checkpoint: verifying that a study delivers accurate, valuable information to the scientific community while blocking the spread of incorrect or misleading data. In doing so, it preserves scientific integrity and drives field advancement in a trustworthy, constructive way.

While fairness and objectivity are foundational, Dr. Kang emphasizes that reviewers must be well-versed in relevant literature. They should proactively consult key references and stay updated on recent field developments to assess a manuscript’s novelty and scientific merit with proper expertise. This ensures evaluations are accurate, constructive, and ultimately benefit the broader research community.

“I try to schedule time for the review process a few days before the due date, rather than rushing at the last minute. I believe that a thoughtful and thorough review is a matter of respect for the authors, who have invested significant time and effort into their work. As someone who also puts great effort into writing papers, I feel a responsibility to evaluate others’ work with the same level of care and attention,” says Dr. Kang.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Kevin Chen

Kevin Chen, PharmD, MS, is a clinical pharmacist practitioner at the University of North Carolina Medical Center specializing in the care of patients with thoracic malignancies and sarcoma. His clinical and research interest surround precision medicine in NSCLC and dose optimization of targeted therapies. He is a co-investigator of a prospective hybrid-decentralized trial aimed towards improving biomarker testing and ordering of appropriate mutation-directed therapies across academic and community practices. 

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

Dr. Chen: A healthy peer-review system is one that recruits individuals with appropriate context experts to provide valuable feedback to improve the quality of journal submissions. They must be able to evaluate the scientific rigor of each submission from evaluating methodology, results, and contribution within the existing body of literature. Furthermore, this process should be impartial and timely to ensure no bias or delay is introduced in the publication process.

TLCR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Chen: It is vital for authors to disclose COI so as to minimize the potential perceived or real bias that may exist within their research. COI may influence research in many ways including trial enrollment, data analysis, and medical writing, depending on the level of involvement of the specific COI. Authors’ disclosure of COIs enables reviewers and readers to better evaluate and interpret each publication.

TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Chen: My motivation for actively engaging in the peer-review process is to ensure the quality of submissions that become published. Clinicians and scientists utilize scientific literature to directly inform patient treatment decisions and identify areas for future research. Therefore, it is paramount that journals publish high-quality articles that appropriately guide the treatment and research decisions for the medical field.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ben Man Fei Cheung

Dr. Ben Cheung is a Clinical Oncology resident at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong. He is actively engaged in translational research, particularly in thoracic, CNS malignancies, and precision oncology. His main focus is to develop novel multi-omics (genetics, radiomics and dosiomic) models and biomarkers to improve treatment outcomes. His recent work focuses on modelling radiotherapy-induced lymphopenia and early mortality in lung cancer using dosiomics and machine learning approaches. The work is now being translated into a prospective study evaluating the feasibility of lymphocyte-sparing radiotherapy and its immunomodulatory effect. He is also involved in research on applying radiomics and machine learning to predict radiotherapy response and patient outcomes. Connect with him on X @BenCheung99.

TLCR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Cheung: It serves as a quality control mechanism that ensures scientific findings are accurate, reproducible, and relevant. Peer review also promotes dialogue between researchers, encouraging the refinement of ideas, methodology, and interpretation. In oncology and radiotherapy research, where clinical implications are significant, rigorous peer review safeguards safety and enhances translational value. It fosters a community of critical appraisal and accountability that is essential for progress.

TLCR: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Cheung: Reviewers should approach manuscripts with a balance of rigor and fairness. They must assess methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and whether conclusions are supported by data, while being constructive and respectful. A good reviewer recognizes innovation without bias and also considers the clinical or translational impact. It’s important to understand the context of the work and the constraints the authors may face, especially in resource-limited settings. Above all, the goal is to help authors improve their work and uphold the standards of scientific publishing.

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

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Blerina Resuli

Dr. Blerina Resuli works in the Department of Medicine V at University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany. As a Medical and Radiation Oncologist at Ludwig Maximilian University Clinic Munich, she is part of the Thoracic Oncology Department’s Day Clinic. Over the past five years, her clinical and research focus has centered solely on thoracic oncology, blending patient care with translational and clinical research to advance treatment strategies. A graduate of Sapienza University of Rome, she completed a Radiation Oncology specialization at Policlinico Umberto I, followed by a second specialization in Medical Oncology at the same institution and the Phase 1 Clinical Trial Unit of Rome’s Regina Elena Cancer Institute. Her expertise covers early-phase trials, thoracic cancer management, and research to improve outcomes for lung and other thoracic malignancy patients. She is committed to upholding scientific research integrity and advancing oncology knowledge via peer review.

As a medical oncologist, Dr. Resuli sees peer review as a cornerstone of medical research and clinical practice. It ensures studies are methodologically sound, results accurate, and conclusions valid before dissemination—critical in oncology, where treatments impact patient outcomes. Experts scrutinize study design, statistics, and result interpretation to spot errors, biases, or unsupported claims, ensuring reproducibility and ethical conduct (vital for vulnerable populations or novel therapies). Ultimately, peer review preserves scientific literature integrity, underpinning evidence-based medicine to guide trusted clinical guidelines and optimize patient outcomes.

In Dr. Resuli’s opinion, institutional review board (IRB) approval is crucial for human-participant research—it guarantees ethical conduct, protects participants’ rights/safety, and minimizes risks by evaluating study design, consent processes, and safeguards against ethical/legal breaches. Omitting it risks participant harm (compromised safety/privacy), legal/institutional penalties (funding loss, liability for researchers/institutions), and lost scientific credibility (studies may be rejected by journals/conferences, undermining impact). IRB approval is vital for ethics, participant protection, and research integrity.

“I would like to sincerely acknowledge and thank all the reviewers who work tirelessly behind the scenes. Your careful evaluation, critical insights, and dedication ensure that only high-quality, reliable research reaches the scientific community. Even though your contributions often go unseen, they are absolutely essential for advancing medical knowledge and improving patient care. Your commitment strengthens the foundation of evidence-based medicine, and your efforts truly make a difference in the progress of science,” says Dr. Resuli.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Gloria Hopkins Sura

Dr. Gloria Hopkins Sura, MD, is an Assistant Professor in the Sections of Cytopathology and Molecular Diagnostics within the Department of Anatomic Pathology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Board-certified in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Cytopathology, and Molecular Genetic Pathology, she completed her residency at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, followed by fellowships in Cytopathology and Molecular Genetic Pathology at Houston Methodist Hospital. Her research focuses on optimizing molecular testing for minimally invasive specimens and investigating how pre-analytical factors influence RNA sequencing quality in oncologic cytology. She also develops rapid molecular testing approaches and novel laboratory workflows. Nationally, she serves as Executive Officer of the Translational Research Program for the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, helping integrate biomarker-driven translational science into cooperative group trials. Learn more about her here.

TLCR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Sura: Peer review is a key part of keeping science solid and trustworthy. It gives experts a chance to look closely at a study’s design, methods, and conclusions before it’s published, helping catch issues early and improve the work. Beyond quality control, it’s also a way for scientists to exchange ideas, give feedback, and move the field forward together.

TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Sura: The peer-review system has its challenges — things like reviewer bias, varying levels of expertise, limited time, and not always being transparent. Since most reviews are done voluntarily and without much recognition, consistency and turnaround time can sometimes suffer. It would help to have more structured reviewer training, explore open or hybrid review models for added accountability, and create better ways to formally acknowledge reviewers for their contributions.

TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Sura: I view peer review as both a professional responsibility and an opportunity for continuous learning. Reviewing others’ work sharpens my own scientific judgment and exposes me to emerging methods and ideas. Most importantly, it allows me to contribute to the integrity and progress of the field—especially in translational and molecular pathology, where published works will eventually directly impact patient care.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

James J. Fradin

James Fradin, MD, is an Internal Medicine Resident Physician at Froedtert Hospital and the Medical College of Wisconsin, where he is pursuing a career in hematology and oncology. He earned his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University, where early clinical exposure to patients with advanced malignancies sparked his commitment to cancer care and multidisciplinary research. His scholarly interests centre on cellular therapy and hematologic malignancies, with a focus on improving patient outcomes through innovative, immune-based treatments. His ongoing projects include evaluating cellular therapies for treatment-resistant sarcomas and studying real-world outcomes in patients receiving therapy for hairy cell leukemia and primary CNS lymphoma.

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

Dr. Fradin: A healthy peer-review system is one that challenges authors to deliver clear, quality published work. It relies on reviewers providing thoughtful and unbiased feedback grounded in evidence and experience. Reviewers should maintain constructive feedback, allowing authors the opportunity to improve their output while preserving respect for their efforts. A strong review system allows ongoing learning for all involved with authors receiving guidance that strengthens their research, and reviewers remaining engaged with new developments in their fields of interest.

TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Fradin: It is an opportunity to contribute to the integrity of the scientific record and ensure that high-quality evidence informs patient care. Reviewing also keeps me deeply engaged in rapidly evolving areas of oncology, particularly as new therapies and technologies reshape standards of care. Ultimately, reviewing allows me to give back to the scientific community that continues to train and inspire me, while also shaping the way I think about research as I grow in my career.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rahul Mudumba

Rahul Mudumba is a health economist completing his PhD at the University of Southern California. His research focuses on advancing health economic modelling methods, from theoretical foundations to oncology applications, with an emphasis on aligning cost-effectiveness models with real-world preferences and improving modelling efficiency. His work informs medical decision-making and health policy, has been published in leading journals, recognized with awards at national and international conferences, and highlighted by media outlets. His doctoral dissertation work aims to improve value assessment in NSCLC by developing health economic models that better reflect patient preferences and disease severity. In addition, he has led real-world comparative effectiveness studies and economic evaluations of emerging targeted therapies in ALK-positive NSCLC. Rahul holds a master’s degree in Health Economics and Outcomes Research from Johns Hopkins University and a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Indiana University. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

TLCR: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Mudumba: Bias is impossible to eliminate entirely, but I try to recognize it early and actively counteract it. Before writing comments, I step back and reflect on my initial reactions, asking whether they stem from my own preferences, expectations, or prior experiences rather than the manuscript itself. I also try to read the work from multiple perspectives, including those of the authors, potential readers, and decision-makers, to ensure that my assessment focuses on the scientific rigor rather than my personal views. Playing “devil’s advocate” with my own critiques helps me evaluate whether a concern is truly methodological or simply subjective. Ultimately, my goal is to provide feedback that is fair, constructive, and centered on strengthening the science.

TLCR: Why is it important for a study to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?

Dr. Mudumba: IRB approval is essential because it ensures that research involving human participants is conducted ethically, transparently, and with appropriate safeguards. As investigators, we may become closely invested in our study goals, and IRB review provides an independent perspective that helps identify risks or ethical concerns we may not fully appreciate. Since patients and participants are at the center of our work, it is critical that our methods, consent processes, and protections are rigorously vetted. Without IRB oversight, studies risk exposing participants to harm, violating ethical standards, or producing findings that cannot be used, published, or trusted. The IRB process ultimately protects both participants and the integrity of the research itself.

TLCR: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Mudumba: What motivates me most is the opportunity to contribute to the credibility and advancement of our scientific community. Throughout my training, I relied heavily on published literature to learn from others and to build my own research. That foundation is only possible because reviewers before me invested their time to uphold scientific standards. I see peer review as part of that collective responsibility: paying forward the support that enabled my development as a researcher. Reviewing also keeps me engaged with emerging methods and ideas in my field, offering a chance to learn from peers while helping improve the quality and clarity of the work we all depend on.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hunter N. B. Moseley

Hunter N.B. Moseley, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry at the University of Kentucky. His broad research interest lies in developing computational methods, models, and tools for analyzing, integrating, and interpreting various types of biological and biophysical data—with a focus on promoting FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data sharing and Open Science. These technological developments enable new insights into biological systems and related disease processes, with applications spanning omics (especially metabolomics) data analysis, systems biology, and structural bioinformatics. Recently, his research group has developed machine learning models that generate high-quality metabolite-pathway annotations, improving pathway enrichment analysis of metabolomics datasets by approximately 10-fold. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Moseley believes that reviewers must keep multiple critical questions in mind during the evaluation process. First, they need to assess whether the research was rigorously conducted and analyzed. Second, they should verify if the conclusions are logically presented and adequately supported by the study’s results. Third, reviewers must check if the manuscript provides sufficient detail to fully support scientific reproducibility and replication. A fourth key consideration, aligned with his focus on FAIR data, is whether valuable datasets have been deposited in public scientific repositories—ensuring they support not only reproducibility but also reusability for new research purposes.

Recognizing the heavy burden of scientific work, Dr. Moseley has established a structured approach to peer review: he allocates roughly one reviewing assignment per month on average.

Dr. Moseley reckons that disclosing conflicts of interest (COI) is important, as it helps the scientific community understand any potential influence on the research. However, he notes that COI is just one of many critical issues in scientific publication.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mélanie Janson

Mélanie Janson is a 7th-semester medical oncology resident at the University of Caen Normandy, France. During her residency, she has completed rotations at two leading cancer centers—the François Baclesse Center and Gustave Roussy—where she gained hands-on experience in diagnostic consultations, initial treatment management, and long-term follow-up care for patients with thoracic tumors. She has also participated in thoracic and molecular tumor boards, deepening her expertise in multidisciplinary cancer care. Her professional passions lie in the development of novel immunotherapies for solid tumors—an area she acknowledges remains highly challenging—with a focus on precision medicine applications such as CAR-T cell therapies. Currently, she is conducting a multicenter medical thesis centered on EGFR-positive non–small-cell lung cancers, which she plans to present this summer. Beyond her thesis work, she collaborates with teams at the François Baclesse and Gustave Roussy centers on additional scientific projects focused on thoracic tumors. She also holds a strong commitment to supportive care, viewing it as a cornerstone of holistic, patient-centered cancer treatment.

Mélanie views critical peer review as a key driver of progress in medical research, especially in thoracic oncology. It fosters collective knowledge, sharpens critical thinking, and facilitates the exchange of clinical and scientific expertise across specialist communities. This process helps identify and tackle current clinical needs and research challenges while keeping practitioners up to date with advances in cancer care. Above all, peer review offers an essential external perspective, delivering constructive feedback that enables authors to strengthen their work—ensuring journals publish the highest-quality, most impactful contributions in thoracic oncology and immunotherapy.

According to Mélanie, a constructive review should highlight the strengths of the article and help the authors develop and enhance them and also point out weaknesses and/or methodological defects in order to help correct them as much as possible, allowing to improve the quality of the scientific paper, always considering the scientific context in which the article was written or the research was performed. It should also highlight the questions and issues raised in order to create discussion.

“I review for TLCR because they gave me the opportunity to publish my first case report, which was very important for me as a young resident. Additionally, the multidisciplinary nature of this journal, as their name ‘translational lung cancer research’, allows me to review cases from various fields, including surgery and pathology subject, which helps me stay informed on a wide range of topics,” says Mélanie.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)