In 2026, 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.
Mylene Wespiser, Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, France
Yasar Ahmed, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Ireland
Hiroaki Ikushima, University of Tokyo, Japan
Jonathan Thompson, Medical College of Wisconsin, USA
Mylene Wespiser
Dr. Mylene Wespiser is a medical oncologist at the Centre Léon Bérard, a comprehensive cancer center in Lyon, France. After completing her residency, she specialized in thoracic oncology and now dedicates most of her clinical activity to the hospital-based management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In parallel with her clinical practice, she is pursuing a PhD in cancer biology within a translational research team focused on deciphering the molecular mechanisms underlying cancer cell tolerance and resistance to anticancer therapies. In recent years, she has developed a particular interest in oncogene addiction in thoracic cancers, investigating tumor dependencies on specific molecular alterations and the mechanisms driving therapeutic resistance. Through her combined clinical and research activities, her work aims to bridge laboratory discoveries with patient care, strengthening the continuum between bench and bedside. Learn more about her here.
TCR: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Wespiser: Peer review reinforces trust in scientific literature and protects the credibility of our collective knowledge. It acts as a critical filter to ensure that published research meets high standards of methodological rigor, scientific accuracy, and ethical integrity. In an era increasingly influenced by artificial intelligence, where content can be generated rapidly and may appear scientifically sound without truly being robust, the role of expert evaluation becomes even more crucial. Peer review helps prevent the dissemination of insufficiently substantiated statements or methodological weaknesses that could otherwise inappropriately shape future research. Beyond quality control, it also improves manuscripts through constructive critique.
TCR: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Wespiser: Reviewers should first approach each manuscript with a respectful and constructive mindset. The goal is not to impose one’s own perspective, but to evaluate the scientific robustness and coherence of the study. Maintaining a high level of concentration throughout the review is also crucial. I try to read each manuscript in a single uninterrupted session whenever possible. Careful reading ensures that feedback remains accurate and appropriate. Finally, reviewers should consider the scientific relevance and added value of a manuscript. A publication should provide meaningful insight and genuinely advance collective knowledge, rather than simply contribute another paper to an already vast body of literature. Promoting originality and complementary perspectives ultimately strengthens the scientific community.
TCR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Wespiser: There is no single answer to this question, as it largely depends on personal organization and priorities. Although peer reviews require time and focus, I consider them to be part of our collective scientific responsibility. When we submit our own work, we rely on colleagues to critically assess it; contributing in return feels fair. Reviewing manuscripts within my area of expertise is also intellectually stimulating and helps me remain up to date. In that sense, peer review is fully integrated into my ongoing scientific literature monitoring and continuous learning.
(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)
Yasar Ahmed
Dr. Yasar Ahmed is a Consultant Medical Oncologist at St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the School of Medicine, University College Dublin. He holds subspecialty expertise in thoracic oncology, melanoma, and solid tumour immunotherapy, with a particular focus on precision oncology and the clinical application of novel immunotherapeutic strategies. His career has spanned leading oncology centres across Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Ireland, bringing a broad international perspective to both clinical practice and research. Dr. Ahmed holds the MRCP(UK), FRCP(UK), MSc in Molecular Oncology and an MD focused on Tumour Immunology and Immunotherapy, alongside an MSc in Health Professions Education. His current academic interests include translational immunotherapy research, biomarker-driven treatment selection, and oncology medical education. He is also actively engaged in research on cancer care needs assessment in unprivileged populations, reflecting his sustained commitment to global oncology equity and the advancement of cancer care in resource-limited settings.
TLCR: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Ahmed: Scientific expertise is the obvious prerequisite, but intellectual honesty matters just as much. A reviewer must be willing to acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge and recuse themselves when a manuscript falls outside their genuine area of competence. Beyond that, constructive specificity is what separates useful feedback from dismissive critique. Pointing out a weakness without suggesting how it might be addressed is of limited value to the authors. I would also add: awareness of one's own biases in aspects like institutional, methodological, or geographic is of significance particularly in a field as globally heterogeneous as lung cancer research.
TLCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Ahmed: The system works on goodwill and professional obligation, with little formal recognition. That creates structural fragility that review quality is inconsistent, turnaround times vary widely, and reviewer fatigue is real. There is also a concentration problem: the same experts are asked repeatedly, while newer voices with fresh perspectives are underutilised. In thoracic oncology, where the pace of evidence generation is rapid, a review delayed by four months can render feedback almost clinically irrelevant. I think journals need to invest more seriously in reviewer recognition, structured training for early-career reviewers, and transparent reporting of review timelines.
TLCR: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Ahmed: Honestly, it requires discipline rather than sparing time because spare time rarely materialises. I treat peer review as a scheduled academic commitment, not an optional add-on. In a busy tertiary oncology unit, the temptation is to defer it, but I find that reviewing papers within my subspecialty thoracic and cutaneous malignancies, immunotherapy, precision oncology keeps me intellectually sharp and current in a way that passive reading does not. It also feels reciprocal: our own submissions depend on colleagues investing that same effort. I typically block a focused session rather than reviewing in fragments; a distracted review serves neither the authors nor the journal.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
Hiroaki Ikushima
Dr. Hiroaki Ikushima is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Respiratory Medicine at the University of Tokyo and is a physician-scientist specializing in clinical oncology, with a particular focus on lung cancer. He completed the M.D.-Ph.D. program at the University of Tokyo, earning his Ph.D. in 2010 and his M.D. in 2012. While his academic foundation is rooted in basic cancer research, he has extensively transitioned into clinical practice and oncology research. In 2022, he further expanded his expertise by obtaining a Master of Science in Data Science with Distinction from the University of London. His current research aims to bridge the gap between clinical oncology and computational technology, focusing on the integration of data science and artificial intelligence into medical oncology. His multidisciplinary background uniquely positions him to advance data-driven approaches in the field of translational lung cancer research.
Dr. Ikushima thinks that the current peer-review system faces a major bottleneck as submission volumes outpace the availability of qualified reviewers. To improve this, he proposes integrating AI-powered screening tools for preliminary technical checks. He explains that these tools could verify statistical consistency and reporting guidelines, allowing human reviewers to focus purely on clinical novelty. Additionally, he notes that the lack of transparency can sometimes lead to unconscious bias. He suggests moving toward a transparent peer review model where reports are published alongside articles, which could enhance accountability. Finally, formalizing reviewer recognition is essential. By incentivizing peer review through academic credits or awards, he says, we can ensure a more sustainable and high-quality process that keeps pace with rapid scientific discovery.
Dr. Ikushima believes a good reviewer must balance professional skepticism with constructive empathy. First, objectivity is paramount because one must evaluate the data without bias. Second, timeliness is crucial in clinical oncology, where rapid dissemination can impact patient care. Third, a reviewer should act as a mentor by providing actionable feedback rather than just listing flaws. For example, suggesting specific statistical adjustments adds tangible value to the authors' work. Finally, a sharp attention to detail regarding data integrity is vital. With his background in data science, he believes a great reviewer looks beyond the surface to ensure that the underlying logic and data structures truly support the conclusions. This ultimately maintains the overall quality of the journal while fostering a professional and collaborative environment for scientific advancement.
“One memorable experience involved reviewing a study that applied complex machine learning models to predict lung cancer treatment outcomes. The data performance metrics were nearly perfect, which usually signals high quality research. However, upon closer inspection through my clinical lens, I noticed the model relied on a variable that is rarely available in real world hospital settings. This realization sparked a constructive dialogue with the authors about the practical gap between theoretical data science and bedside reality. They eventually revised their model to prioritize clinically accessible features, making the final publication far more impactful for practicing oncologists. This interaction reminded me that the most valuable peer reviews occur when we bridge the gap between technical innovation and the practical needs of medical professionals,” Dr. Ikushima shares.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
Jonathan Thompson
Dr. Jonathan Thompson, MD, MS, is an Associate Professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) in Milwaukee, the U.S.. His main clinical and research focus is on advancing care for patients with thoracic malignancies. He also has interest in novel therapeutic development, serving as the Vice Chair for the Early Phase Clinical Trial Program at MCW. He leads the Immunotherapy Toxicity Team at MCW, which has multiple missions, including bringing expert care to patients experiencing immune-related adverse events (irAEs), educating the medical community on irAEs, and developing and executing clinical and translational research aimed at improving the understanding and treatment of irAEs.
Dr. Thompson believes a healthy peer-review system should be timely and ensure that scientific research is well-designed, well-conducted, and generates reliable, reproducible, and impactful results. He points out that this is especially critical in the modern era, when pseudoscience spreads widely across social media and news platforms. Without rigorous peer review for academic journals, the scientific community risks spreading misinformation to the public and eroding public trust in science.
In Dr. Thompson’s opinion, reviewers should evaluate manuscripts critically yet fairly. He notes that no study can be perfect, so reviewers ought to identify methodological flaws and request necessary revisions appropriately. Meanwhile, even imperfect research can still be worthy of publication. Limitations in study design can be acceptable if the paper delivers valuable information, addresses unanswered clinical questions, or provides innovative, thought-provoking preliminary findings to guide future research.
According to Dr. Thompson, institutional review board (IRB) offers essential oversight for research and protects the welfare of research participants. Even well-intentioned studies may contain unintended design flaws that could harm participants. IRB review provides an additional layer of scrutiny on research design and implementation, ensuring that the value of a project outweighs its potential risks to participants, and ultimately strengthens public confidence in the research process.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
