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.
January, 2025
Hironori Kobayashi, Kameda Medical Center, Japan
Michael Milano, University of Rochester Medical Center, USA
January, 2025
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:
- Expertise and Knowledge – A deep understanding of the subject matter is essential for assessing the scientific rigor, methodology, and significance of the research.
- Objectivity and Fairness – A reviewer must evaluate a manuscript based on scientific merit rather than personal biases, institutional affiliations, or competing interests.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
