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
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)
