In 2025, JGO 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.
Marcelo Porfirio Sunagua Aruquipa, Oncoclinicas Group, Brazil
Nupur K. Das, University of Michigan, USA
Ahmed Dehal, Panorama City Medical Center, USA
Adam Daniel Durma, Warsaw University, Poland
Junpei Yamamoto, Osaki Citizen Hospital, Japan
Jose F Delgado, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Masako Shomura, Tokai University, Japan
Leonardo da Fonseca, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Brazil
Betul Gok Yavuz, University of Missouri–Columbia, USA
Kazunari Tanaka, Teine Keijinkai Hospital, Japan
Mary Linton Peters, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), USA
Marta Magdalena Fudalej, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
Bruno Mirandola Bulisani, Vincit Institut, Brazil
Abdul Rehman, TidalHealth, USA
Worawat Songjang, Naresuan University, Thailand
Bibek Aryal, Grandee City Hospital, Nepal
Marcelo Porfirio Sunagua Aruquipa
Marcelo Porfirio Sunagua Aruquipa, MD, is a board-certified medical oncologist at Oncoclinicas Group in Sao Paulo, Brazil and a graduate-level member of the European School of Oncology (ESO). He graduated from medical school in Bolivia and moved to Brazil to realize his oncology training at AC Camargo Cancer Center at Sao Paulo. His areas of interest include Gastrointestinal and Urologic oncology, as well as Health Administration and Medical Education. His research involves biomarkers for colorectal and gastric cancer. He also has a special interest to collaborate in medical mobility options for fresh medical graduates from Latin America. Connect with him on Instagram .
Dr. Aruquipa believes that a healthy peer-review system must remain closed, anonymized for both parties (authors and reviewers) to keep the research review objective and fair in order to avoid potential personal or institutional biases. In the same way, becoming a reviewer involves a personal and professional development because the mission changes from producing science (as an author) to helping and refining the way science is communicated. In the end, the ultimate objective of publishing is to communicate relevant data to benefit patients.
In Dr. Aruquipa’s opinion, an objective review should focus on technical methodology aspects and any missing data within the results and discussion sections of a manuscript. He finds this information crucial as it helps determine if the research can be replicated and applied in clinical practice or clinical trials. By understanding the inherent biases and limitations of a study, readers are better equipped to make informed clinical decisions.
Speaking of the importance of research data sharing, Dr. Aruquipa admits that it is a complex matter. A large anonymized database, be it national or international, could significantly aid clinical and epidemiological research while safeguarding patient privacy for personal or sensitive data. However, several barriers exist. In low-income and middle-income countries, public health systems often suffer from a notification bias. Real-world data are underreported, preventing it from reaching scientists. Additionally, within private practice and sponsored clinical research, there are institutional or contractual agreements regarding data confidentiality. Overcoming these obstacles demands a careful balance between ethical considerations and regulatory frameworks.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nupur K. Das
Nupur Das is a Research Assistant Professor at the Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. His current research projects cover mammalian iron homeostasis with specific emphasis on the intestinal pathophysiological aspects of it. Connect with him on X @nupurkanti or LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Das, a healthy peer-review system is one that is completely devoid of any form of bias. It should be founded on the objective assessment of the scientific evidence and logical reasoning presented within a manuscript. The role of a peer reviewer is crucial as they have the distinct opportunity to enhance the quality of the manuscript through providing rational and constructive criticism. This means that the review process should be based on the merits of the research itself, rather than any external factors such as the author's reputation, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships. By doing so, the system ensures that only the highest quality research is published, contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
In Dr. Das' opinion, a reviewer should be sufficiently conversant in the subject area the manuscript is dealing with. He or she should be prepared to spend sufficient time for a thorough reading of the manuscript as well as for the relevant literature search. While preparing the reviewer report, a reviewer i) should be kind and considerate in approaching the authors, ii) should refrain from assigning from unreasonable and/or unrealistic tasks for the revision.
“I admire the JGO editorial team for their efficient and careful processing of the submitted manuscript for peer review. I find the manuscripts worthy of evaluating. They are immensely helpful to improve my knowledge. I feel honored to be part of the process,” says Dr. Das.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ahmed Dehal
Dr. Dehal is a board-certified surgical oncologist and Area Research Chair at Panorama City Medical Center, as well as a Clinical Associate Professor at the Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine. He holds a Master’s degree in Public Health with a focus on clinical research and previously worked as a cancer research scientist at the American Cancer Society. Dr. Dehal has published more than 40 peer-reviewed articles and multiple book chapters and serves as a manuscript reviewer for several national and international journals. He has extensive experience working with large national datasets, including NSQIP, NCDB, and SEER, as well as institutional databases from both the Kaiser Permanente and Providence healthcare systems. Notably, Dr. Dehal has published at least 10 studies using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) database. Clinically, he has a broad interest in gastrointestinal oncologic surgery, with a particular focus on gastric cancer. His research has consistently centered on gastric cancer, with a special interest in the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the surgical management of locally advanced disease. He has presented his work at multiple national meetings and published several studies exploring various aspects of gastric cancer biology, staging, and treatment. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Dehal, a top-notch reviewer should possess several essential qualities. Integrity and objectivity are of utmost importance. Reviewers need to be honest and unbiased, free from any conflicts of interest. They must base their evaluations solely on the scientific merit of the work, rather than being influenced by personal opinions or external factors. In-depth knowledge of the topic is another crucial trait. Reviewers should have expertise in the relevant subject area to accurately assess the scientific validity, clinical relevance, and contribution of the study to the existing body of literature. This allows them to make informed judgments about the quality and significance of the research. The ability to appraise and critique the literature is also vital. A good reviewer should be familiar with the current state of research in the field, enabling them to place the study's findings in context, identify any gaps in knowledge, and determine whether the manuscript adds new insights or contradicts existing knowledge. Finally, a strong background in methodology and statistics is necessary. Reviewers should have a solid understanding of research design, statistical analysis, and appropriate methodologies. This enables them to critically evaluate the rigor of the study, detect any methodological flaws, and assess the validity of the conclusions drawn from the research.
Dr. Dehal believes that the existing peer-review system has several limitations. One of the main issues is subjectivity and bias, as reviewers' personal opinions and preferences can sometimes influence their evaluations. The process is also often time-consuming, which can delay the publication of research findings. Additionally, there is a limited ability to detect errors and fraud in the research, which can undermine the credibility of the scientific literature. To address these limitations, he suggests several potential solutions. Providing reviewer training and standardization ensures that reviewers have the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct fair and accurate evaluations. Implementing open peer review, where the identities of reviewers and the review process are made public, can increase transparency and accountability. Incentivizing reviewers, such as offering recognition or rewards for their work, can also encourage more high-quality reviews and help to improve the overall efficiency of the peer-review system.
“I chose to review for the Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology because it aligns with my broad interest in gastrointestinal oncologic surgery. Additionally, having firsthand experience with its peer-review process, I found it to be well-rounded and professional,” says Dr. Dehal.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Adam Daniel Durma
Adam Daniel Durma, MD, PhD, is affiliated with the Military Institute of Medicine – National Research Institute in Warsaw, Poland, as well as the Warsaw University, Faculty of Medicine. His research areas encompass neuroendocrine neoplasms, thyroid cancer, and nuclear imaging, with recent projects focusing on the imaging diagnostics and treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Durma thinks that peer review is crucial as it serves to support the advancement of science. It enables the dissemination of modern knowledge by ensuring that research meets certain standards. Through the evaluation process, peer review helps to filter and validate scientific work, contributing to the overall progress of the field.
According to Dr. Durma, a constructive review is one that comprehensively assesses a piece of work, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses with the aim of improving it. In contrast, a destructive review fails to focus on the core research problem. Instead, it often looks for reasons to reject the work, rather than offering suggestions for enhancement. A constructive approach is essential for the development of scientific research, as it allows for the refinement of ideas and the improvement of the quality of the work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Junpei Yamamoto
Junpei Yamamoto, MD, PhD, serves as the deputy chief of the Division of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology at Osaki Citizen Hospital and a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology at Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine. His research interests center around diabetology, endocrinology, and atherosclerosis.
According to Dr. Yamamoto, peer review plays a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of scientific research. By evaluating studies from multiple perspectives, it ensures the objectivity, reliability, and scientific validity of the work. This process acts as a quality-control mechanism, filtering out research that may not meet the rigorous standards of the scientific community.
Dr. Yamamoto emphasizes that objectivity and fairness are essential qualities for a reviewer. Reviewers must be able to assess research impartially, carefully examining whether the methodology and analysis techniques employed are valid, and determining if the interpretation of results is both reasonable and objective. This unbiased evaluation helps maintain the high standards of scientific publications.
“My motivation for peer review is, first, to contribute to the advancement of science, which may one day help many patients; and second, to gain new insights and broaden my own horizons. It is not easy to conduct the peer-review process in the midst of many other jobs, but I believe that peer review is valuable both socially and personally. Just as the efforts of past peer reviewers are the foundation of current science, so the peer review today is a force for creating the science of the future,” says Dr. Yamamoto.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jose F Delgado
Jose F. Delgado is a bioengineer specializing in nanomedicine and imaging technologies for treating neurodegenerative diseases and cancer. With a bachelor’s degree in Nanotechnology and Molecular Engineering from Universidad de las Américas Puebla, he completed postbaccalaureate and doctoral training at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the University of Maryland, developing novel hydrogels for targeted chemotherapy delivery. Currently a postdoctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins University under Dr. Jeff Bulte, his work focuses on nanotheranostics using MRI and Magnetic Particle Imaging. Dr. Delgado’s research bridges engineering and medicine, emphasizing the critical role of peer review in ensuring scientific integrity. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Delgado highlights that peer review is essential to ensure the publication and validation of rigorously conducted academic research. What we publish can have either a positive or negative impact on society at large; therefore, it is of paramount importance that experts from various fields assess the reports being submitted. Moreover, as society increasingly implements Artificial Intelligence tools, peer review has become even more critical to ensure the accuracy of the information provide, especially considering that AI-based tools such as ChatGPT can sometimes produce hallucinations. Peer review helps safeguard the truthfulness and reliability of the content.
Dr. Delgado identifies time constraints as a major bottleneck in peer review. Many scientists are extremely busy with their own research and responsibilities such as grant writing, lab management, and experimental reporting. This time constraint can, in some cases, affect the quality of academic reviews. Introducing additional staffed members within journals to assist with the peer-review process may serve as a helpful complement to reviewers. While this could improve the system, the solution is more complex and may require broader structural changes.
Dr. Delgado thinks that an objective review is one that purely assesses the science, for example, the experimental controls, statistical analysis, and overall quality of the study, without considering factors such as the authors’ affiliations, countries of origin, or personal identities. In contrast to relying on affiliations, impact factors, or prominent research groups, objective peer review focuses solely on the merit of the work itself. Since we, as humans, are inevitably subject to bias, conducting peer review in an anonymous format is essential to promoting objectivity.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Masako Shomura
Masako Shomura is an oncology and clinical nursing expert, serving as a professor in the Department of Nursing at Tokai University's School of Medicine in Kanagawa, Japan. With a PhD in Nursing, she has advanced patient-centered care through research on self-management programs for cancer patients, particularly those with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Her recent work evaluates how combination therapies like atezolizumab and bevacizumab impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in HCC patients, emphasizing multidisciplinary approaches to manage adverse events. She has also explored the link between physical activity, self-efficacy, and postoperative recovery in gastric cancer patients, with her contributions supported by multiple JSPS KAKENHI grants. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Shomura thinks that a reviewer should possess deep field knowledge, a broad understanding of diverse research methods, and a strong drive to enhance the manuscript. These qualities enable thorough evaluation and constructive feedback to improve research quality.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Shomura emphasizes that following reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, CARE) is vital. They maintain research quality by ensuring findings are relevant, practical, and clearly presented, which is essential for reproducibility and advancing evidence-based practice.
“Many volunteers contribute to breakthrough scientific advancements. Consider becoming a reviewer to shape the future of academia,” says Dr. Shomura.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Leonardo da Fonseca
Leonardo da Fonseca is a medical oncologist and researcher at the Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo – University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Brazil. He earned his medical degree from the University of São Paulo, completing a clinical oncology fellowship and a PhD in hepatocellular carcinoma prognosis. He later trained in Hepatic Oncology at Barcelona’s Hospital Clínic (BCLC group), where he obtained a Master in Clinical Research. His research focuses on hepatobiliary malignancies, exploring biomarkers, prognostic classification, real-world data, and therapeutic innovations. Learn more about him here.
Dr. da Fonseca believes that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity, serving as a rigorous quality-control mechanism to ensure research is methodologically sound and ethically conducted. It fosters constructive dialogue among scientists, refining ideas and elevating research standards through collaborative critique. By validating the rigor of studies, peer review upholds the credibility of scientific literature, making it a foundation for evidence-based advancements in medicine.
Dr. da Fonseca emphasizes that an objective review evaluates a manuscript purely on scientific merit—assessing methodological rigor, data validity, and logical conclusions—independent of authors’ identities or affiliations. To maintain objectivity, he highlights the following four rules: 1) expertise check; 2) methodology focus; 3) evidence over bias; and 4) specific feedback.
According to Dr. da Fonseca, disclosing conflict of interest (COI) is essential for transparency and trust in scientific publishing. Financial or non-financial conflicts can subtly influence study design, data interpretation, or reporting—even unconsciously. While a declared COI does not invalidate a study, it equips reviewers, editors, and readers to critically contextualize findings. Undisclosed conflicts, however, can severely erode the credibility of both the research and the journal, underscoring the necessity of upfront transparency.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Betul Gok Yavuz
As a third-year internal medicine resident at the University of Missouri–Columbia and incoming hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago, Betul Gok Yavuz brings a robust background in tumor biology and translational research. In 2018, she graduated with high honors from Hacettepe University’s Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) in Turkey, earning a PhD in Tumor Biology and Immunology for her work on cancer-associated fibroblasts modulating macrophage polarization in breast cancer. Following graduation, she pursued postdoctoral fellowships at the University of Illinois at Chicago and MD Anderson Cancer Center, focusing on translational and clinical research in leukemia and hepatocellular carcinoma. Her current interests center on unraveling tumor microenvironment interactions, identifying novel therapeutic targets, and integrating bioinformatics with translational oncology to develop biomarkers. Beyond her academic pursuits, she finds balance in birdwatching and hiking with family, baking diverse cakes, and hosting friends. Connect with her on X @ BetulGokYavuz1.
JGO: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Betul: A reviewer should have the skills necessary to critically evaluate a paper. These skills include statistical knowledge, translational science understanding, and clinical expertise, depending on the paper’s subject area. Therefore, it is important that reviewers select papers within their own field of expertise. Another essential quality is the ability to provide constructive feedback. A good reviewer should always consider: What can be done to improve this paper? Even if a manuscript is not accepted for publication, the authors should gain insights from the review that can help them enhance their work—thereby contributing to the advancement of science indirectly.
JGO: What should reviewers bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Betul: Reviewers should first consider the overarching question the paper aims to address. Does it attempt to solve an important scientific problem? If the paper passes this initial filter, the reviewer should then examine the methodology: Are the methods appropriate for the research question? Do they align with the study’s objectives? Reviewers should then evaluate whether the results contribute meaningfully to the field—even when the findings are negative—and whether the conclusions are clearly and adequately supported by the data.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kazunari Tanaka
Kazunari Tanaka graduated from Asahikawa Medical University in 2010 and currently serves as Deputy Director of the Center for Gastroenterology at Teine Keijinkai Hospital. His clinical and research focus lies in hepatocellular carcinoma, with a particular emphasis on optimizing immunotherapy strategies. Recently, he has been actively involved in multicenter collaborative studies aimed at developing practical biomarkers to guide the selection of first-line treatments for patients with advanced liver cancer.
JGO: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Tanaka: Peer review is fundamental to maintaining scientific integrity. It ensures the quality and validity of research, helps prevent the dissemination of incorrect information, and promotes continuous improvement. Ideally, reviewers should aim not only to evaluate the scientific merit of a study but also to support authors in enhancing the clarity, accuracy, and overall rigor of their work.
JGO: What should reviewers bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Tanaka: I believe that reviewers should maintain objectivity and fairness while being constructive and encouraging. They should carefully assess the methodology, interpretation of results, and overall contribution of the work to the field. I also strive to identify subtle flaws or oversights that the authors themselves may have missed.
JGO: How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Tanaka: Cultivating the right mindset toward peer review is pivotal. I see peer review not as an obligation but as an integral part of my professional growth. It presents a valuable chance to stay abreast of the latest research trends and hone my critical thinking skills. This kind of critical reading is markedly different from perusing published literature, making it a precious form of academic training. By engaging in peer review, I not only contribute to the academic community but also continuously enhance my own ability to assess and analyze research, which in turn enriches my professional repertoire.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mary Linton Peters
Mary Linton B. Peters, MD, MS, FACP, is a gastrointestinal oncologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), a senior scientist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Her research focuses on medical decision-making, clinical trial design, and pancreatic cancer genetics. Dr. Peters earned her SB in Biology from MIT in 1992 and an MS in Engineering-Economic Systems (Medical Decision Analysis) from Stanford University in 1995. Before pursuing medicine, she was a partner at Strategic Decisions Group’s Life Sciences practice. She obtained her MD from the University of Massachusetts Medical School in 2011, completed an internal medicine residency at BIDMC in 2014, and finished a hematology/oncology fellowship at BIDMC in 2017. She is a fellow of the American College of Physicians and the Society of Decision Professionals. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Peters highlights peer review’s role in maintaining scientific integrity. It encourages the scientific community to refine questions and ensure results are reliable, fostering collective confidence in research while preventing overconfidence. She believes reviewing others’ work is as valuable for growth as teaching is for learning, often leading to improvements in one’s own work.
For objective reviews, Dr. Peters adopts a collaborative approach, focusing on helping researchers strengthen their work. She ensures feedback is actionable, provides relevant references, and checks the tone by considering how the comments would be received. This approach avoids the unconstructive style sometimes associated with critical reviewers.
Balancing peer review with her busy schedule as a scientist and doctor, Dr. Peters views peer review as a reciprocal responsibility, given the benefits it brings to her own work. While she may decline requests during tight deadlines, she generally accepts them, prioritizing a few reviews quarterly if she has not completed any recently. To manage time, she sets strict limits for each review and finds unconventional settings—such as plane rides or outdoor spaces—to make the task feel less like a chore. She also notes that reviews offer learning opportunities, as she documents insights on writing, methods, or structure to enhance her own work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marta Magdalena Fudalej
Marta Fudalej, MD, PhD, is a medical oncologist in training affiliated with the National Medical Institute of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration in Warsaw, Poland, and also a researcher associated with the Medical University of Warsaw. Her research primarily focuses on gastrointestinal neoplasms, with a special emphasis on pancreatic cancer. She specializes in cancer diagnostics and tumor biology, concentrating on cancer biomarkers, immunohistochemistry, and biomarker-driven tumor diagnostics. Her recent projects center on inflammatory-associated biomarkers relevant to pancreatic cancer prognosis. With an extensive publication record of over 44 scientific articles, she covers topics such as pancreatic cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the tumor microenvironment, inflammation, immunosuppression, and immunotherapy. Additionally, she actively participates in cancer prevention initiatives; notably, she took part in OncoAcademy, an educational program for high school students, where she delivered lectures on cancer prevention and awareness. Her academic excellence has been recognized by the Polish Ministry of Health, which awarded her the Minister of Health Scholarship.
In Dr. Fudalej’s view, the qualities a reviewer should possess include subject matter expertise, which enables critical assessment of study design and clinical relevance. Reviewers must show objectivity and provide constructive, respectful feedback to help authors improve their work. Timeliness, confidentiality, and ethical vigilance are also crucial, ensuring responsible and professional conduct during the review process. Ultimately, a good reviewer maintains the standards of scientific publishing through thoughtful, fair, and rigorous evaluation.
Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Fudalej points out that reviews vary greatly in depth, accuracy, and helpfulness. Junior reviewers may lack experience, while senior reviewers could be overburdened. Implementing structured training programs or certifications through journals or academic societies can enhance the quality and consistency of reviews, especially from early-career researchers. Since peer reviewing is mostly unpaid and uncredited, it can lower motivation among qualified experts. Improvement can be achieved through formal recognition via platforms like Publons or ORCID, and certificates or inclusion in academic evaluations might also be beneficial.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Fudalej firmly agrees that adhering to reporting guidelines like PRISMA and CARE during manuscript preparation is crucial. It ensures the quality, transparency, and integrity of biomedical research. Following these guidelines demonstrates good scientific practice and enhances the quality of published literature.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Bruno Mirandola Bulisani
Bruno Mirandola Bulisani, MD, PhD, is a Brazilian surgeon specializing in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Digestive Surgery at Vincit Institut in São Paulo. He earned his PhD in Health Sciences from Faculdade de Medicina do ABC—focused on the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer—and previously completed a master’s degree in minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery. He serves as a professor, training residents and mentoring young surgeons. Certified in robotic surgery by Intuitive, he has pioneered advanced techniques and presented at international congresses. He has authored publications in peer-reviewed journals, acts as an active reviewer to advance surgical research, and is a board member of SOBRACIL (Brazilian Society of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery). His core research interests include gastric cancer, colorectal liver metastases, intestinal endometriosis, rare pelvic tumors, and health economics.
Dr. Bulisani acknowledges peer review’s role in ensuring scientific studies’ validity, importance, and innovation—adding value for authors, reviewers, editors, and journals. However, he notes that there are some obvious limitations: lack of standardized reviewer guidelines, varying widely across journals, causing inconsistencies, delays in the review process, variable quality tied to reviewers’ expertise and time, and potential undervaluation of innovative ideas that contradict established concepts. To improve the system, he suggests having clearer, standardized editorial guidelines, continuous reviewer education, greater recognition of reviewers’ contributions and adoption of technology-based tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, statistical validation software) to support reviewers and enhance consistency.
In the peer-review process, biases are inevitable. Dr. Bulisani thinks that they may arise from the evaluation of the author’s identity and affiliation, from methodological preferences, or even from the interpretation of concepts that may align with or contradict the reviewer’s own opinions. Extending reviewer deadlines, for example, allows for broader, more comprehensive topic assessment, aiding in understanding of innovative or contrasting ideas. He often minimizes bias by focusing on a study’s methodological rigor and statistical soundness, guided by evidence-based medicine principles and comparisons to prior research. This approach helps him consider the broader medical community’s perspectives rather than relying solely on his own. He also highlights the importance of transparency. If he perceives a potential conflict of interest or doubts his impartiality, he immediately informs the editorial office and declines the review, preserving the process’s credibility and reinforcing fairness.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Abdul Rehman
Abdul Rehman, MD, MBA, is an ABIM-certified internist/hospitalist currently practicing at TidalHealth Peninsula Regional in Salisbury. He also actively engages in clinical research in affiliation with the TidalHealth Richard A. Henson Research Institute. He earned his medical diploma from Aga Khan University (Karachi, Pakistan), completed his Internal Medicine residency training at Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School (Newark, NJ, United States), and holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Rutgers Business School. His research interests are broad, with a primary focus on non-invasive diagnosis of cancers—specifically through virtual biopsy and liquid biopsy. Connect with him on X @jsmawais .
Dr. Rehman views peer review as the backbone of science, closely tied to scientific integrity. Rigorous peer review is essential to ensure that published scientific research meets necessary standards and is free from all forms of bias and errors. Without it, poorly conducted research could taint the body of published literature, endangering scientific progress by making it nearly impossible to distinguish credible research from misinformation or irrelevant content.
In Dr. Rehman’s opinion, reviewers must acknowledge the responsibility bestowed on them by the scientific community. Since peer review is the foundation of credible scientific evidence, it is crucial for reviewers to carry out this task with integrity, attention, and conscientiousness. They should also be aware of their unconscious biases and potential conflicts of interest that might affect their judgment, and take necessary steps to reduce the impact of these biases on the review process. Additionally, reviewers should remain humble and recognize their own limitations and weaknesses. Given that reviewing a manuscript demands time, expertise, energy, and focus, reviewers should only accept review invitations if they possess the required expertise, time, and resources.
“Traditionally, peer review has been a voluntary service provided by scientific experts behind the scene that often comes without much recognition or reward. However, all peer reviewers should realize that their work does not go unnoticed and it certainly reaps benefits for reviewers themselves & the entire scientific community alike. For reviewers, peer reviewing manuscripts sharpens critical thinking, provides exposure to divergent viewpoints, and enables sensitization to flawed scientific methodologies. For the scientific community, rigorous peer review ensures that the scientific literature embodies credible research, which can give way to future discoveries and newer inventions for the benefit of the public at large. So, continue to peer review for you are the saviors of science and guardians against misinformation!” says Dr. Rehman.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Worawat Songjang
Dr. Worawat Songjang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medical Technology at the Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Naresuan University, in Phitsanulok, Thailand. After earning his PhD from the Biomedical Program in 2018, he began his career as a university lecturer in 2021. His research lies in the fields of cancer biology and immunology, with a special focus on the molecular mechanisms of cancer cell growth, metastasis, and the tumor microenvironment. He also has experience in generating dendritic cell cancer vaccines and in immune cell isolation and cultivation. Currently, his work focuses on the role of the high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) protein in cancer biology, the tumor microenvironment, and biochemical parameter testing. His published research has demonstrated the association of HMGB1 with tumor metastasis and chemotherapy response, validating its potential for use as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Songjang believes that peer review is a critical quality-control process for academic papers. Experts in each field assess a study to confirm that its methodology is valid, its findings are original, and its conclusions are backed by the data. This evaluation not only screens out poor research but also strengthens good research through helpful feedback. In the end, this system builds the trust that scientists and the public place in the findings.
However, Dr. Songjang points out that the peer-review system naturally has limitations as it is run by people. It can be slow, and the quality of review varies. More importantly, reviewers sometimes have biases—such as favoring papers from "big-name" researchers over those from newcomers. In his opinion, a double-blind review system is a good solution to help address this issue of bias.
Dr. Songjang follows a systematic process for every manuscript he reviews to make sure his review is objective. First, he assesses the novelty of the research question by thoroughly searching the existing literature on the topic. Next, he critically analyzes the experimental design to determine whether it is relevant and sufficient to address each of the stated objectives. Finally, he conducts a comprehensive reading of the entire manuscript to evaluate the clarity of the information and the soundness of the discussion.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Bibek Aryal
Dr. Bibek Aryal is a clinician-scientist with a global background in hepatobiliary surgery and cancer research. He completed postgraduate training in hepatobiliary surgery, a PhD, and a postdoctoral fellowship in cancer biology at Kagoshima University, Japan, followed by a Clinical Cancer Outcomes Research Fellowship at Allegheny Health Network in Pittsburgh, USA. Currently, he serves as a Hepatobiliary Surgeon at Grandee City Hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal, while continuing independent research. His work in gastrointestinal oncology focuses on two key goals: developing simple, accessible biomarkers for early cancer detection and reducing health disparities. His research explores liquid biopsy—particularly platelet-derived markers—to enhance diagnostic tools. He is also passionate about expanding cancer research and clinical trial access in low- and middle-income countries, bridging clinical insight with translational research and health policy to advance equitable cancer care globally. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Aryal believes that a healthy peer-review system functions as an engine for improvement, not merely a judge to accept or reject. It aims to make good science even better through reviews that are critical yet educational, offering new perspectives or clearer ways to present findings.
In Dr. Aryal’s opinion, reviewers should remember that every manuscript represents months or even years of dedicated work by a research team. While assessing novelty and methodological rigor, the goal is not only to judge the science but also to provide constructive feedback that strengthens the work—respecting the effort and vision behind it.
“I view peer review as a fundamental act of scientific citizenship. It is the essential, unseen work that sustains our research ecosystem, and on a personal level, it keeps me at the vanguard of my field. More profoundly, it is a professional covenant: I feel a duty to pay forward the same expert critique that has strengthened my own work. This collective commitment is the bedrock of scientific progress, ensuring the work we build upon is sound. It is a small investment of time for the immense reward of a trustworthy and dynamic field,” says Dr. Aryal.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
