In 2025, GS 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.

Chae Woon Lee, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Korea

Ashok R. Shaha, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA

Lukasz Fulawka, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Olesya A Kharenko, Syantra Inc., USA

Hing Jun Xian Jeffrey, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

Bruno Fernandes Santos, Federal University of Sergipe, Brazil

Andreas Wolter, Interdisciplinary Breast Center, Germany

Gloria Hopkins Sura, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA

Carlo Ferrari, Vizzolo Predabissi Hospital, Italy

Gary Takahashi, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, USA

Robert M. Eisele, Oranienburg, Germany

Jasmine Walker, Medical College of Wisconsin, USA

Clement L. K. Chia, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore

Isobel Yeap, Sydney University Medical School, Australia

Edward Nahabet, University of California, USA

Chae Woon Lee

Chae Woon Lee, MD, works as a Clinical Assistant Professor in Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, specializing in Radiology, especially breast and thyroid imaging. She is focusing on bibliometric analysis and diffusion weighted MRI of early breast cancer.

GS: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Lee: The peer-review system is essential because it serves as the primary method for evaluating the quality and significance of research. Through this process, experts in the field critically assess a study’s methodology, findings, and conclusions, ensuring that the research meets academic standards. Peer review not only helps to identify potential errors or biases but also strengthens the study by providing constructive feedback for improvement. Ultimately, this system plays a crucial role in determining whether research is worthy of publication, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in various disciplines.

GS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Lee: One major limitation of the existing peer-review system is that the evaluation process is often carried out by only two or three reviewers, and in some cases, just one. This limited number of perspectives can lead to biased or overly narrow feedback, as the evaluation may be influenced by the personal opinions or expertise of just a few individuals. As a result, an article might be judged differently if reviewed by a broader range of experts. To improve the system, researchers should actively participate in the peer-review process, ensuring that each article receives diverse perspectives and more comprehensive feedback. Encouraging a larger pool of reviewers can enhance the fairness, objectivity, and overall quality of research evaluation.

GS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?

Dr. Lee: As reviewers, we dedicate our valuable time to evaluating and improving research, playing a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and advancement of science. Well done!!!

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ashok R. Shaha

Ashok Shaha, MD, holds the esteemed positions of Attending Surgeon and Professor of Surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. With over 35 years on the staff, he has been deeply engaged in endocrine and head and neck surgery. His influence extends far beyond his clinical and academic roles, as he has served as the president of both the American Head and Neck Society and the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons. His contributions to the fundamental understanding of thyroid cancer, particularly in developing rational management strategies based on prognostic factors and risk group analysis, have been invaluable. Dr. Shaha has also been a dedicated educator, actively involved in training head and neck fellows. He served as the chairman of the training council for 10 years, shaping the future of the field. Additionally, he held the positions of secretary and director at the International Federation of Head and Neck Oncologic Societies. Currently, his primary focus remains on thyroid cancer. He has even conducted research on experimental animals, successfully developing a tracheomalacia model and its reconstruction. Moreover, he has played a significant role in the academic community by reviewing numerous publications in thyroid and head and neck surgery. His risk group stratification system, categorizing cases into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, has been widely adopted globally.

According to Dr. Shaha, an objective review requires a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, a meticulous analysis of the submitted manuscript, and the complete removal of personal biases. Reviewers must be self-critical as well as critical of the work under review to ensure a thorough and unbiased assessment. Before rejecting a manuscript, reviewers should be extremely rigorous, ensuring that all feedback is constructive rather than demeaning.

From a reviewer's perspective, Dr. Shaha stresses that authors should adhere to the guidelines of the journal to which they are submitting their work. These guidelines ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal's subject focus and specialty. Journals maintain standard formats for ease of publication and to establish a consistent practice pattern. Authors are expected to follow these guidelines based on the specific publication requirements of the journal.

Additionally, Dr. Shaha advises reviewers to carefully evaluate their schedule, expertise, and dedication to scientific progress before accepting a review assignment. It is crucial to determine whether they possess the necessary time and knowledge to complete the review adequately. He also emphasizes that the manuscript should be read multiple times before formulating final comments.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Lukasz Fulawka

Dr. Lukasz Fulawka is a board-certified pathologist and the Founder and Leader of the Molecular Pathology Centre Cellgen in Wroclaw, Poland. He is affiliated with Wroclaw Medical University as researcher and lecturer, and is currently the Secretary of the Wroclaw Regional Branch of the Polish Society of Pathologists. His clinical expertise lies in gynecological and breast pathology, with research interests focusing on histopathological image analysis using artificial intelligence. He completed his PhD at Wroclaw Medical University, where his thesis explored computer-assisted image analysis in the histopathological diagnostics of breast cancer. Dr. Fulawka completed his pathology residency at the Lower Silesian Oncology Center in Wrocław, later serving as a Senior Pathologist and was responsible for initiation and development of molecular diagnostics laboratory. He continues to lead innovative projects in molecular diagnostics at Cellgen, emphasizing the development and implementation of novel molecular tests and tools. Learn more about him here.

GS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?

Dr. Fulawka: The core purpose of the peer-review system is to provide an objective assessment of a manuscript submitted for publication. While absolute objectivity is unattainable—since some level of subjectivity is inherent to any review process—a healthy peer-review system strives to minimize this bias as much as possible. It requires a shared commitment from the entire scientific community to maintain fairness, integrity, and constructive critique in the review process.

GS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Fulawka: In my opinion, the greatest limitation is that some reviewers may develop a sense of impunity, using their anonymity to issue unfair or overly harsh critiques without accountability. Fortunately, this is a rare occurrence, and the majority of reviewers approach their role responsibly. However, I believe many of us, as authors, have encountered biased reviews at some point. Did we feel powerless in such situations? How many of us even considered the option of appealing? While final decisions lie with the editor, editors may not always possess deep expertise in the highly specialized subject matter of the manuscript. Perhaps it is time to consider the creation of an independent, global body to address appeals in such cases. Of course, authors can submit their manuscripts to another journal, and often do—but this leads to delays in the dissemination of research findings and consumes valuable time that could be better spent on scientific work.

GS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Fulawka: As authors, we expect our manuscripts to be reviewed fairly and objectively. Who ensures this happens? We do—all of us in the scientific community. Each researcher should feel a sense of responsibility to contribute to the peer-review process, and in most cases, we do. Being a researcher is, at its core, a service to society. Those who choose this path understand that not all valuable contributions are compensated financially. Peer review is a prime example of such a contribution—one driven by a commitment to scientific rigor and the advancement of knowledge.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Olesya A Kharenko

Olesya A. Kharenko has over 17 years of experience working in the biotech industry and academia. She has over 13 years of research and development experience leading oncology and discovery teams addressing resistance to current therapies as well as pre-clinical development of small molecule therapeutics and tool compounds. She has extensive experience in breast cancer, translational biology, drug discovery, epigenetics, and medicinal chemistry. She holds a Ph.D. degree in bioinorganic chemistry from Bowling Green State University, OH, USA. She has authored and co-authored over 35 peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals, and she is an inventor on several patents. Currently, she is a Principal Scientist at Syantra Inc. developing and executing strategies to identify/validate biomarkers and molecular targets in oncology and immuno-oncology. She has also served as an invited Guest Editor in Frontiers Oncology/Pharmacology. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

GS: What role does peer review play in science?

Olesya: Peer review is a crucial component in scientific research and publishing. It plays a key role in critical data assessment, analysis, and validation before it gets published. The peer-review process is instrumental in assessing the validity of the experimental design, originality of the scientific ideas, as well as data interpretation.

GS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Olesya: A reviewer should have a deep understanding of the subject, technical expertise, and good communication skills. It is important to evaluate the work thoroughly and fairly with a constructive and fair feedback avoiding personal or scientific biases.

GS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Olesya: Although peer review is voluntary and time-consuming, it is a vital part of scientific publishing. I feel it is an important contribution to the scientific community, and I view it as an opportunity to give back for the training I have received. I also love staying up to date with the latest scientific discoveries and trends.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hing Jun Xian Jeffrey

Dr. Hing Jun Xian Jeffrey is a Consultant in the Division of Breast Surgery at Changi General Hospital. He holds academic roles as Clinical Assistant Professor at Duke-NUS Medical School, Senior Clinical Lecturer at NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, and Clinical Lecturer at Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine. His research focuses on enhancing breast cancer care, refining surgical techniques (minimally invasive and oncoplastic approaches), and evaluating patient outcomes. Recent work includes pragmatic lymphedema surveillance methods, safety improvements in breast surgery tumescent solutions, and long-term oncological outcome analyses. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Hing thinks that peer review is essential for upholding the rigor and credibility of scientific research. A thorough review process accelerates scientific progress by validating impactful studies that shape clinical practice and future inquiry. It serves as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring only methodologically sound and innovative work enters the academic record.

According to Dr. Hing, reviewers must critically assess manuscripts for more than just methodological biases. They should evaluate:

• real-world impact: how findings advance scientific understanding or improve clinical outcomes.
• innovation & relevance: the novelty of the work and its applicability to broader field needs.
• reproducibility: the study’s design and data validity to ensure results can be replicated. by prioritizing these dimensions, reviewers foster research that drives tangible advancements in medicine and upholds the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

“Despite the heavy workload of clinical and academic pursuits, I allocate specific, dedicated time slots within my schedule to review manuscripts. This disciplined approach allows me to stay abreast of the latest developments, critically evaluate emerging evidence, and contribute meaningfully to scientific progress without compromising my primary commitments. Ultimately, engaging in peer review enriches my own practice and supports the continuous evolution of medicine and science,” says Dr. Hing.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Bruno Fernandes Santos

Bruno Fernandes Santos is a neurosurgeon and academic researcher with extensive experience in neurosciences and applied technologies. His career integrates clinical neurosurgical practice with rigorous scientific research, focusing on therapeutic advances and innovative surgical techniques. Currently, he is engaged in critical review of scientific articles across multiple academic fields, with a particular focus on neurosciences. His recent projects include studies on minimally invasive neurosurgical techniques and artificial intelligence applications in complex neurological procedures. He holds the position of Associate Professor of Neurosurgery at the Federal University of Sergipe and serves as a permanent faculty member of its Health Sciences Graduate Program. Follow him on Instagram @brunofernandesneuro.

Dr. Santos indicates that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity and a fundamental pillar of the modern scientific method. Beyond simple quality control, it acts as a critical checkpoint: validating methodological approaches, protecting integrity by identifying ethical issues or data manipulation, and providing constructive feedback that often significantly improves final paper quality. Without this rigorous evaluation, the scientific community would lose its ability to self-regulate and maintain the high standards ensuring research trustworthiness and impact.

Dr. Santos believes that objective reviews are method-driven, free from personal biases or conflicts of interest, with consistent application of criteria regardless of authors or institutions to enhance scientific work. To ensure objectivity, he uses standardized checklists like CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA, and organizes feedback into clear categories (methodology, statistical analysis, interpretation, presentation) for comprehensive coverage. This structured approach keeps focus on scientific merit rather than personal preferences or institutional affiliations.

“Time management is indeed one of the greatest challenges in academic writing. Balancing clinical responsibilities, research, teaching, and peer review requires both strategy and discipline. Some friends joke that my day must have 36 hours, but I simply approach this through structured weekly planning, dedicating specific blocks of the week exclusively to review work, for example. I also make use of intervals between surgeries or consultations for preliminary readings, jotting down initial notes on my smartphone. Strategic selectivity is another crucial tip. I accept reviews only in areas of my expertise, which allows me to gain both time and quality in my evaluations. Peer review isn't just a professional obligation but a fundamental ethical responsibility. It's through this process that we contribute to the advancement of science and, ultimately, to improving the care we provide to our patients,” says Dr. Santos.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Andreas Wolter

Dr. Andreas Wolter is a German and European Board-certified Plastic Surgeon, currently serving as Head of the Center for Transgender Surgery, Postbariatric Surgery, and Liposuction at SANA Hospital Düsseldorf (Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Interdisciplinary Breast Center) in Germany. He completed his PhD in Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery at the University of Witten-Herdecke and holds an affiliation with Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. His clinical and scientific expertise spans the full spectrum of breast surgery—including augmentation, reduction mammaplasty, heterologous/autologous breast reconstruction—and advanced postbariatric body contouring. A key focus of his work is gender-affirming chest surgery for individuals with gender dysphoria, as well as liposuction for lipedema. Future projects will further advance surgical innovation in transgender/nonbinary top surgery, postbariatric reconstruction, and cutting-edge aesthetic/reconstructive breast techniques. Recognized for his academic achievements, he is preparing for an appointment as Professor (apl. Professur) in Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery at the University of Witten-Herdecke. He is an active member of numerous prestigious societies, including the German Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery (DGPRAEC), European Board of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (FEBOPRAS, as a Fellow), and American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS, as an International Member). Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Wolter considers that reviewers are a cornerstone of scholarly publishing—their work validates research, elevates publication quality, fosters scientific networks, and mitigates biases from personal/institutional affiliations. To him, a reviewer must be a distinguished field expert to ensure critiques are meaningful and constructive; embody neutrality, diligence, reliability, humility, and fairness; and provide substantial, well-founded feedback focused on enhancing the manuscript’s scientific merit and overall quality. He notes that without such qualities, the integrity and credibility of scientific communication would be compromised.

Dr. Wolter identifies key flaws in the current peer-review system:

• Bias: personal, institutional, or unconscious influences skew evaluations;
• Slow turnaround: delay the publication of critical research;
• Uneven workload: a small group of experts bears most responsibility, leading to fatigue and reduced quality;
• Lack of transparency: weaken accountability and trust.

To improve it, he suggests:

• Enhancing reviewer training and recognition to boost quality and participation;
• Increasing transparency (e.g., conflict-of-interest disclosure, open peer review);
• Using digital tools to detect flaws and streamline processes;
• Expanding the reviewer pool (e.g., involving mentored early-career researchers) to balance workload.

While biases cannot be totally eliminated, Dr. Wolter points out that authors should try to minimize them by focusing strictly on the manuscript’s scientific quality, methodology, and originality—not authors’ identity or affiliation; adopting double-blind review systems to curb unconscious bias; disclosing conflicts of interest and withdrawing from reviews if impartiality is at risk; and prioritizing constructive, evidence-based critique to ensure personal opinions do not overshadow scientific merit.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Gloria Hopkins Sura

Dr. Gloria Hopkins Sura is an Assistant Professor of Cytopathology and Molecular Genetic Pathology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Her academic work focuses on three key areas: optimizing molecular testing strategies for minimally invasive specimens, evaluating pre-analytical variables that affect RNA sequencing, and refining cytopathology laboratory workflows—including validating non-traditional sample types and developing rapid molecular diagnostics. Additionally, she serves as Executive Officer of the Translational Research Program for the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, where she contributes to designing and integrating biomarker-driven clinical trials.​ She earned her undergraduate degree in Biology from the University of Hawaii at Mānoa and her medical degree from Poznań University of Medical Sciences in Poland. She completed residency training in Pathology at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, followed by fellowships in Cytopathology and Molecular Genetic Pathology at Houston Methodist Hospital. She is board-certified in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Cytopathology, and Molecular Genetic Pathology. Connect with her on X @Gloria_SuraMD.

Dr. Sura believes that objectivity is foundational for reviewers. They must conduct a careful evaluation of a study’s design, methodology, and data interpretation—this thorough assessment is essential to upholding scientific quality. Equally important, feedback should be constructive. Its purpose is not only to strengthen the manuscript itself, but also to help authors refine their scientific writing and communication skills, supporting their growth as researchers.

In Dr. Sura’s opinion, it is essential for authors to share research data. Data sharing promotes transparency, reproducibility, and confidence in scientific findings—key pillars of credible research, as they allow other scientists to verify results and build on existing work. Beyond this, data sharing enables secondary analyses (uncovering new insights from existing data) and cross-disciplinary collaborations, which extend the reach and significance of the original research, driving broader progress in the scientific community.

“The contributions of peer reviewers are indispensable to the advancement of science, even if they are not always publicly visible. The review process is not only a mechanism for ensuring the quality and credibility of scientific work, but also an exercise that benefits both reviewer and author by fostering improvement in scientific writing, critical thinking, and the ability to effectively share information within the broader research community,” says Dr. Sura.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Carlo Ferrari

Carlo Ferrari, MD, is a General Surgeon at Vizzolo Predabissi Hospital (Milan, Italy). He completed his residency program at Università degli Studi di Milano and spent over a year in Switzerland as a visiting resident, where he broadened his surgical training and research expertise. His research focuses on pancreatic surgery and the development of targeted treatments to improve surgical outcomes. In particular, he has investigated the role of surgical drainages after high-risk pancreatectomies and contributed to the design of clinical trials aimed at developing targeted therapies using pancreatic adenocarcinoma organoids. Clinical surgical research is a fundamental part of his daily work, as he believes it is essential to continuously bridge innovation with clinical practice. He is committed to integrating research and technology into patient care to enhance safety, optimize recovery, and advance surgical science.

GS: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Ferrari: Peer review is essential to ensuring the quality, accuracy, and credibility of scientific research. It serves as a filter that validates methodologies, strengthens interpretations, and guarantees that only robust and meaningful findings are disseminated. This process safeguards scientific integrity and fosters continuous improvement in research.

GS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Ferrari: Reviewers should aim for fairness, objectivity, and constructive feedback. It is important to assess the scientific rigor, originality, and clarity of a manuscript, while respecting the efforts of the authors. A reviewer’s role is not only to identify weaknesses but also to highlight strengths and provide guidance that can help improve the work.

GS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?

Dr. Ferrari: Reviewers are the unsung heroes of science. Their commitment, expertise, and time investment make a profound difference in advancing knowledge and maintaining scientific standards. To my fellow reviewers: your efforts may not always be visible, but they are invaluable and deeply appreciated by the scientific community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Gary Takahashi

Gary Takahashi, a retired physician once specializing in hematology and medical oncology at OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, has pivoted to artificial intelligence post-retirement. After earning a master’s in Applied AI from the University of San Diego, he now serves as an adjunct professor there, developing AI healthcare education programs while exploring local open-source models.

With cross-disciplinary experience, Dr. Takahashi points out a core limitation in peer review: the scarcity of qualified reviewers, especially for research merging clinical medicine and machine learning. Competent reviewers must grasp study methodologies to validate their rigor, yet few possess expertise in both fields—a gap hindering thorough evaluation.

According to Dr. Takahashi, objective reviews anchor in established scientific principles, free from subjective bias. He cultivates impartiality by adopting the authors’ perspective, considering what clarifications would reasonably strengthen the manuscript. This empathetic approach ensures feedback is constructive rather than arbitrary.

Dr. Takahashi reckons that disclosing Conflicts of Interest (COI) is non-negotiable. Financial or political motives can subtly skew research interpretation, as scientists, like all humans, may have vested interests in specific outcomes. When COIs exist, rigorous experimental methodology becomes even more critical to uphold research credibility.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Robert M. Eisele

Robert M. Eisele, MD, PhD, was born in 1970 in Stuttgart, Germany. From 1990 to 1996, he studied human medicine at Free University Berlin (later Humboldt University Berlin). He worked as a surgeon at Charité Berlin from 1997 to 2012, becoming a board-certified specialist in 2008. Between 2012 and 2018, he served as senior consultant and head of the Hepatopancreatobiliary & Transplantation Surgery Section at Saarland University Medical Center in Homburg/Saar. Since 2015, he has been a board-certified general surgeon and visceral surgery subspecialist. He acted as Deputy Clinical Director from January 2016 to April 2018. In 2018, he pioneered thermoablation of thyroid nodules in Berlin’s metropolitan area. Since January, 2020, he has overseen the day-surgical center in Oranienburg, with a core focus on local ablative treatment methods. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Eisele considers reviewer independence the paramount prerequisite for a successful peer-review system. Competent physicians with their own publishing experience understand the typical obstacles in sharing research results. This expertise allows them to effectively assess whether manuscript authors have done rigorous work.

Objectivity—for the author, journal, and scientific community—is of great importance to Dr. Eisele. Fairness is the foremost condition. He asks himself, “How would I structure this paper? Can the manuscript be further improved? Does the conclusion align with established knowledge? Is there novel, even provocative content—and is it worthy of consideration?” Reviewing also offers valuable learning opportunities.

“Each and every experience is important and adds knowledge to an existing problem. We won’t make progress if we do not analyze experience, report it, exchange our findings and what we have learned. Science is rarely a one-man show; most of us find ideas, build up theories and confirm proposals in dialogue, discussion and exchanging ideas,” says Dr. Eisele.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jasmine Walker

Jasmine Walker is an assistant professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Her clinical practice focuses on breast surgical oncology. She is originally from the rural community of New Knoxville, Ohio. From there, she attended Yale University where she majored in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology. Prior to attending medical school, she relocated to Indianapolis, IN, where she spent three years teaching high school and also earned her master’s degree in teaching. She then attended medical school at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed general surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Centre in Nashville, TN. While at Vanderbilt, she also completed a Master of Public Health. She then completed a breast surgical oncology fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI, prior to joining the faculty at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

GS: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Walker: Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. It helps ensure that studies have rigor and that findings make sense within a broader context. Each individual has their own areas of expertise and familiarity with the literature, so it can be helpful for peers with varied experience review your work to ensure you have considered alternative perspectives and relevant studies that either support or refute your findings.

GS: 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. Walker: In general, standardization helps to ensure a common process is followed to allow comparison and ensure quality across bodies of work. What is most important is that there is transparency and clear communication, so studies can be understood and processes replicated. That is more important than following a specific format.

GS: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Walker: It is difficult to find the time to meet all the demands of a busy clinical practice, as well as responsibilities outside of work/career. I try to prioritize opportunities to perform peer review. I keep a running list of tasks I need to accomplish and try to work through them systemically. Often, I will read the articles for the first time when I have a short span of time so I have time to consider and digest the content before returning to do a more thorough review at a later time.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Clement L. K. Chia

Dr. Clement L. K. Chia is a Senior Consultant Breast and Thyroid Surgeon and Head of the Breast Surgery Service at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, NHG Health, Singapore. He holds dual adjunct academic appointments as Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, and the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore. His clinical expertise encompasses oncoplastic breast surgery, the management of breast cancer in older women, and endocrine surgery. In the realm of research and innovation, his work focuses on digital health, medical education, and medical technology innovation—with a particular emphasis on patient education, digital informed consent, and novel surgical devices. He leads multiple interdisciplinary projects designed to enhance patient understanding, optimize clinical decision-making, and drive translational impact, with a sharp focus on scalability, regulatory alignment, and real-world implementation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Chia recognizes the peer-review system as essential for scientific integrity but highlights key structural flaws: reviewer fatigue, long delays in publication, inconsistent review quality, lack of incentives for thorough feedback, and limited transparency/accountability due to its closed nature.

He proposes a multi-pronged solution:

• Formal academic credit and recognition for reviewers
• Structured training programs to standardize and improve feedback quality
• AI-assisted tools to screen methods and reporting guidelines, complementing (not replacing) human judgment

Adoption of open or partially transparent review models to increase accountability and encourage constructive dialogue

Dr. Chia views acknowledging the inevitability of bias as the first step toward mitigating it. In his reviews, he adopts a structured, criteria-based approach that prioritizes methodological rigor, clarity of research question, appropriateness of analysis, and alignment between data and conclusions—independent of author identity, institution, or perceived prestige. He consciously separates personal academic preferences from objective assessment and makes deliberate efforts to review within my domain of expertise. When uncertainty arises, he highlights it explicitly rather than over-asserting opinion. Maintaining a reflective mindset—asking whether he would make the same critique if the manuscript reached the same conclusions through a different lens—also helps reduce unconscious bias.

In Dr. Chia’s opinion, disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI) is essential for maintaining trust, transparency, and interpretability in scientific research. A disclosed COI does not automatically invalidate a study; rather, it provides critical context for readers, reviewers, and editors to appropriately appraise potential sources of influence. COIs may shape study design, outcome selection, data interpretation, or reporting emphasis—often subtly rather than overtly. Transparent disclosure allows these influences to be openly considered rather than inferred. Ultimately, undisclosed COIs pose a far greater threat to scientific credibility than disclosed ones, as they undermine trust in both the research findings and the scientific process itself.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Isobel Yeap

Dr. Isobel Yeap is an advanced trainee in Plastic Surgery from Sydney, Australia. She completed a Master of Surgery (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery) with Sydney University and currently teaches as a clinical lecturer at Sydney University Medical School. She has been involved in clinical research in areas of reconstructive breast surgery, head and neck surgery and burns surgery.

Peer review plays a vital role in enhancing research quality, reducing publication bias, and upholding rigorous ethical standards. Dr. Yeap finds the peer-review process rewarding, as it offers a fresh way to engage actively with cutting-edge research. Reviewing for Gland Surgery has motivated her to stay current with the literature and exposed her to diverse perspectives from around the world. This experience has been invaluable to her development as a trainee and has deepened her enthusiasm for pursuing further research.

Dr. Yeap believes a constructive review requires humility and an open mind. Rather than dismissing ideas that differ from one’s own, a good reviewer takes time to understand the study and the authors’ goals. Such reviews may also point authors toward relevant publications they missed, strengthening their discussion. In contrast, a destructive review casually labels the work nonsensical or insufficiently novel without considering the authors’ intent. Since most authors invest significant effort in their research, she emphasizes giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Although Dr. Yeap finds it challenging to balance the demands of plastic surgery training, keeping up with current research, and actively participating in peer review, she firmly believes that reviewing manuscripts makes her a better clinician—and that being a clinician makes her a better reviewer. She is disciplined about setting aside dedicated time each week to stay current with the literature, such as listening to research podcasts during her commute. Grateful for the opportunity, she strives to make the most of every peer-review invitation she receives.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Edward Nahabet

Dr. Edward Nahabet is an Assistant Clinical Professor in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of California, Los Angeles and also holds an appointment at the West Los Angeles VA. He received his medical degree from Case Western Reserve University and completed both his Plastic Surgery Residency and Microsurgery Fellowship at UCLA. His clinical practice focuses on breast reconstruction, lower extremity reconstruction, head and neck reconstruction, and aesthetic surgery of the face and body. His academic interests include outcomes research in breast reconstruction technique-based surgical innovation. He also serves as one of the curriculum coordinators for the UCLA Plastic Surgery Residency Program, with a particular interest in leveraging digital platforms and emerging technologies to enhance surgical education and training. Through his combined clinical, educational, and research efforts, he works to advance patient-centered care and the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Learn more about him here.

GS: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Nahabet: Peer review plays a critical role in keeping science—and particularly academic medicine—accountable. From a surgeon’s perspective, published research directly influences how we counsel patients, choose techniques, and make operative decisions. Peer review helps ensure that the data guiding those decisions are methodologically sound, appropriately interpreted, and clinically meaningful. It also serves as an important checkpoint that pushes authors to be precise, transparent, and honest. In a field where research can translate quickly into clinical practice, peer review helps maintain trust in the literature and preserves the integrity of the scientific process.

GS: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Nahabet: An objective review focuses on the quality of the research question, the rigor of the methodology, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data—independent of the authors, institution, or whether the findings align with my own practice. I try to be mindful of my own cognitive biases, set aside preconceived notions, and read each manuscript with fresh eyes, asking whether the work is internally consistent, transparent, and clinically meaningful.

GS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Nahabet: Any factor that introduces a lack of impartiality, whether financial, professional, or personal, can be considered a potential conflict and should be transparently disclosed. While a COI does not automatically invalidate research, undisclosed or unrecognized influences can affect study design, interpretation, or reporting. Transparency allows reviewers and readers to appropriately interpret the findings and preserves trust in the scientific process.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)