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
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)
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)
