In 2026, 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.
Lior Har-Shai, Rabin Medical Center, Israel
Philip S Brazio, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, USA
Raghavan Vidya, University of Birmingham, UK
Adam Ofri, Northern Breast Care, Australia
Aoi Morishita, Akita University Hospital, Japan
Kei Ishii, Kyoto University Hospital, Japan
Naotake Funamizu, Ehime University, Japan
Arith Reyes, Columbia University Medical Center, USA
Takanobu Mashiko, Kanto Central Hospital, Japan
Lior Har-Shai
Dr. Lior Har‑Shai, MD, is a plastic and reconstructive surgeon and Director of the Facial Nerve Clinic at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, Israel. He is affiliated with the Gray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at Tel Aviv University. He earned his medical degree from the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, and completed his plastic and reconstructive surgery residency at Rabin Medical Center, followed by a clinical fellowship in microsurgery at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. His clinical practice focuses on facial reanimation for patients with facial paralysis and synkinesis, as well as breast reconstruction, including breast microsurgery. His research interests include facial anatomy and innervation, the pathophysiology and treatment of synkinesis, advances in breast reconstruction techniques, and the use of cryotherapy for hypertrophic scars and keloids. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Har-Shai thinks that peer review plays a fundamental role in maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific research. It draws on the expertise of field‑specialized reviewers who can critically evaluate the rigor, relevance, and validity of submitted work. On the one hand, peer review allows reviewers to identify “diamonds in the rough” and help authors refine their work into clear, well‑presented research. On the other hand, reviewers act as gatekeepers of the scientific literature, ensuring that scientifically unsound, poorly executed, or plagiarized studies do not enter the formal medical record.
When reviewing a manuscript, Dr. Har-Shai always reminds himself that behind every submission is a group of clinicians or scientists who have invested significant time and effort with the goal of advancing medical knowledge. While it is often easy to identify limitations or areas for improvement, he believes that it is important to approach each manuscript with empathy and openness. He tries to place himself in the authors’ position and understand what they are aiming to convey, and then provide constructive feedback that helps to strengthen their message and the overall quality of the work.
Dr. Har-Shai reckons that transparency regarding both the innovations and limitations of a study is essential in medical research. Data sharing should therefore be encouraged, as it allows other researchers to better understand, validate, and build upon existing findings and methodologies. At the same time, the expectation of data sharing promotes higher scientific rigor, encouraging authors to ensure robust, accurate, and reproducible analyses. Together, these elements strengthen the reliability of the scientific literature and support meaningful progress in the field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Philip S Brazio
Dr. Philip S Brazio is an Assistant Professor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, specializing in microsurgical breast, extremity, and lymphatic reconstruction. He completed medical school and General Surgery residency at the University of Maryland and Shock Trauma Center. He completed his Plastic Surgery residency at the University of Southern California and LA County Medical Center, and a fellowship in microvascular and supermicrosurgical lymphatic reconstruction at Stanford University. Dr. Brazio is board-certified in General Surgery and Plastic Surgery. Dr. Brazio combines physiologic reconstruction techniques, including lymphovenous anastomosis and vascularized lymph node transfer, with volume reduction surgery such as liposuction to achieve meaningful improvement for patients. He serves as the fellowship director for the Cedars-Sinai Reconstructive Microsurgery fellowship. Dr. Brazio’s research focuses on optimizing extremity and lymphatic reconstruction outcomes. He is active through the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery in advocating for patient access to lymphatic reconstruction. Learn more about him here.
GS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Brazio: Every peer reviewer approaches a manuscript with their own frame of reference and their own biases for what is important in their field. A standardized framework that asks reviewers to at least examine (but not necessarily requiring comment, if there are no issues) the basic components of the paper, including stated aims, study population, methods, data analysis, conclusions in relation to the above, etc., can go a long way in improving consistency.
GS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Brazio: I find that two items can frequently cause issues in peer review. One is under scrutiny of whether claims made by authors are actually supported by results, even in highly rated and cited journals. Avoiding this requires consistent examination of surrogate outcome measures, confounders, and appropriate statistics. The other issue may cause undeserved over-scrutiny: reviewers may at times not take manuscripts’ aims at face value, wishing they were something different or something more. Authors are then confronted with requests for data or discussion that are tangential or peripheral to the aim of the paper itself, leading to back-and-forth discussion or unnecessary additions to the paper.
(by Naomi Hu, Masaki Lo)
Raghavan Vidya
Dr. Raghavan Vidya is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham and a Consultant Oncoplastic Breast Surgeon at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. She trained in General Surgery after graduating from the University of Madras, India, and completed an MD (Research) at the University of Edinburgh, focusing on aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer. Her research portfolio includes over 160 peer-reviewed publications, with key interests in breast reconstruction, surgical education, genomics, and clinical trials. She is actively involved in translational research, integrating genomic medicine into breast cancer care and advancing innovation in surgical techniques and training. She serves as the Royal College International Surgical Training Programme Lead for Breast Surgery, leading global education initiatives. An active Higher Surgical Trainer, she is deeply engaged in training and contributes to national and international teaching programmes. She is also Honorary Secretary and Trustee of the Association of Breast Surgery and Associate Director of Genomics in the West Midlands. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
GS: What qualities should a reviewer possess?
Dr. Vidya: A peer reviewer plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the quality and credibility of scientific literature. Essential qualities include strong subject expertise and the ability to critically appraise study design, methodology, and interpretation. Equally important is objectivity—reviews must remain fair, unbiased, and independent of personal or institutional influence. A good reviewer should adopt a constructive approach, offering clear, actionable feedback that helps improve the manuscript rather than merely criticizing it. Attention to detail, ethical integrity (including confidentiality and disclosure of conflicts of interest), and professionalism are fundamental. Lastly, timeliness and effective communication are crucial to ensure an efficient review process and meaningful engagement with authors.
GS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Vidya: Despite its central role in academic publishing, the peer-review system has notable limitations. Bias—whether related to author identity, institutional affiliation, or geography—remains a concern. The traditional lack of transparency can also reduce accountability. In addition, review quality can be inconsistent, and delays in the review process may hinder the timely dissemination of important findings. Reviewer fatigue, due to increasing submission volumes, further strains the system. Several strategies can help address these challenges. Greater adoption of open peer review may improve transparency and accountability. Structured training and mentorship programs can enhance the consistency and quality of reviews. The integration of technological tools, such as plagiarism detection and statistical review support, can strengthen the evaluation process. Providing formal recognition or incentives for reviewers may improve engagement and sustainability. Expanding and diversifying the reviewer pool is also critical to reduce bias and workload. Finally, post-publication peer review offers an additional mechanism for ongoing scrutiny and quality assurance.
GS: From a reviewer’s perspective, how important is it for authors to follow reporting guidelines such as PRISMA and CARE?
Dr. Vidya: Adherence to reporting guidelines is essential and should be regarded as a standard requirement in scientific publishing. Guidelines such as PRISMA and CARE promote completeness, transparency, and methodological clarity. For reviewers, manuscripts prepared in accordance with these frameworks are significantly easier to evaluate, as key elements of study design, analysis, and reporting are presented systematically. This facilitates a more efficient and thorough review process while reducing the risk of overlooking critical details. Moreover, following reporting standards enhances reproducibility, minimizes selective reporting, and strengthens the overall reliability of research. Rather than being viewed as administrative formalities, these guidelines are fundamental tools that support high-quality scientific communication and uphold the principles of evidence-based medicine.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Adam Ofri
Dr. Adam Ofri is a Sydney-based oncoplastic breast and general surgeon with dual practices at Northern Breast Care (North Sydney) and GOALS (Bondi Junction). He completed Fellowship of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (FRACS) in General Surgery in 2020, followed by dedicated post-fellowship training in breast surgery, and is a full member of BreastSurgANZ. He has a strong academic focus, serving as a Clinical Principal Investigator for a targeted axillary dissection registry and as a lecturer for the University of Sydney Breast Surgery Diploma. His research interests center on de-escalation of breast cancer treatment, including genomic risk stratification in DCIS (DCISionRT), optimization of neoadjuvant therapy pathways, and surgical innovation in axillary management. He is actively involved in clinical research, education, and development of data-driven approaches to personalize breast cancer care. Learn more about him here.
GS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Ofri: Peer review serves as the primary quality-control mechanism in scientific publishing, ensuring that research is methodologically sound, internally valid, and appropriately interpreted before entering the literature. It functions both as a filter—preventing flawed or overstated conclusions—and as a refinement process that strengthens manuscripts through critical, structured feedback. In fields such as surgical oncology, where evidence is often heterogeneous and practice-changing, peer review is essential to maintain rigor, promote transparency, and support reproducibility, ultimately safeguarding the translation of evidence into clinical care.
GS: How do you minimize bias during peer review?
Dr. Ofri: Minimizing bias requires a deliberate, structured approach. I prioritize methodological appraisal over narrative persuasion, anchoring my review in study design, statistical validity, and adherence to reporting standards such as CONSORT or STROBE. I consciously separate my clinical or academic priors from the manuscript’s findings, focusing on whether the data support the conclusions rather than whether they align with my views. Where potential intellectual or academic conflicts exist—particularly in areas closely aligned with my own work—I either explicitly acknowledge this or recuse myself to preserve objectivity.
GS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Ofri: Full disclosure of COI is essential to maintaining transparency and trust in scientific research. While the presence of COI does not inherently invalidate a study, it provides necessary context for interpreting findings, particularly where financial or intellectual influences may shape study design, analysis, or reporting. In practice, declared COI prompts closer scrutiny of methodological safeguards—such as independence of analysis and prespecified endpoints—whereas failure to disclose COI significantly undermines credibility regardless of the study’s apparent quality.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Aoi Morishita
Aoi Morishita is a breast surgeon based in Japan, affiliated with Akita University Hospital and collaborating medical institutions. Her clinical and research work focuses on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, with a particular interest in improving diagnostic accuracy and optimizing patient management strategies. She has been actively involved in clinical research, including studies on quality indicators in breast imaging and axillary lymph node assessment. Beyond her daily clinical duties, she also participates in basic research and a wide range of academic activities. She is committed to integrating clinical practice with research to advance personalized breast cancer care.
Dr. Morishita reckons that peer review is essential for maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific research. It helps verify appropriate methodology and ensures that research conclusions are fully supported by available data. It also enables researchers to receive valuable insights from other experts in the field, which can deepen the interpretation of study findings and inspire new research directions. Peer review is of special importance in clinical research, as published outcomes can directly influence daily patient care and treatment strategies.
Dr. Morishita believes that institutional review board (IRB) approval is fundamental to ensuring research is conducted ethically as IRB protects the rights, safety, and personal privacy of all research participants. It also enhances transparency and academic accountability for researchers and their institutions. Without proper IRB approval, a study may violate established ethical standards, damage public and participant trust, and lose all scientific credibility, making it ineligible for formal publication and academic recognition.
“Balancing clinical duties, research, and peer review can be challenging. I usually allocate time for peer review during quieter periods in my schedule, such as after clinical work or on weekends. I approach each review efficiently by focusing on clinical relevance, methodological validity, and clarity of presentation. This process also helps me stay updated with current medical knowledge and develop my skills in critical appraisal,” says Dr. Morishita.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
Kei Ishii
Kei Ishii, MD, PhD, is a breast surgeon and research scientist at the Department of Breast Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Japan. His core basic research focuses on mammary gland regeneration, utilizing advanced cell-sorting techniques to investigate normal breast tissue under varying hormonal conditions. Alongside clinical care and laboratory research, he develops medical digital tools. His ongoing flagship projects include AIBS (AI Breast Surgeon), an AI clinical decision-support platform that delivers optimized breast cancer treatment suggestions, and AI-powered imaging analysis tools capable of extracting clinically meaningful lesion features from radiological scans. By integrating clinical practice, fundamental research, and digital health technologies, he strives to advance precision breast surgery and lift overall healthcare efficiency and quality. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Ishii believes that a healthy peer-review system is founded on constructive communication, mutual respect, impartiality and full transparency. It should never act merely as a rigid publication filter, but operate as a collaborative mechanism to elevate the rigor, readability and reliability of scientific publications. Reviewers deliver punctual, specific and actionable feedback to guide authors in polishing manuscripts, while editors safeguard balanced, bias-free evaluation procedures. Equally vital is formal acknowledgment of reviewers’ voluntary labor, as most balance review tasks alongside heavy clinical, research and teaching workloads. Meaningful recognition sustains long-term viability and widespread respect for peer review across academia.
Dr. Ishii thinks that objective reviews of the manuscripts are solely based on scientific merit, methodological soundness and data credibility, without being swayed by personal academic biases, institutional standing, perceived novelty or commercial prospects of the research. He adopts a standardized evaluation framework to sustain impartiality. He first verifies whether study design, statistical methods and result interpretations sufficiently validate the stated conclusions, and deliberately set aside his own research preconceptions to judge only the evidence presented in the text. Even studies that contradict established theories merit fair assessment if backed by solid, replicable data. He proactively declares any relevant conflicts of interest and centers his assessment on the quality of the research itself, rather than the identities of the authors.
In Dr. Ishii’s opinion, data sharing is indispensable to drive progress in contemporary medicine. It bolsters research reproducibility and transparency, enabling independent scholars to verify published outcomes and preserve public confidence in scientific literature. Shared datasets also accelerate innovation through secondary data mining, cross-institutional data pooling and joint analysis — a value especially prominent in medical AI development, where high-standard curated clinical data forms the foundation of trustworthy clinical artificial intelligence tools. Nevertheless, data openness must be paired with rigorous patient privacy safeguards, strict ethical governance and secure management of sensitive clinical records. When governed responsibly, data sharing maximizes the translational value of research and delivers long-term benefits to patients.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Naotake Funamizu
Dr. Naotake Funamizu, MD, PhD, FACS, is an Associate Professor and HBP surgeon at Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine in Ehime, Japan. He graduated from The Jikei University School of Medicine and has pursued clinical and academic work in HBP surgery. He also conducted research on microRNAs in pancreatic cancer at the National Cancer Institute. His main interests include pancreatic cancer, perioperative risk assessment, surgical outcomes, nutritional status, frailty, gut microbiota, and treatment tolerance. Through his clinical practice and research, he aims to improve perioperative care and long-term outcomes for patients with HBP malignancies. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Funamizu believes that reviewers should bear in mind that peer review is both an evaluation process and a constructive academic dialogue. Reviewers need to assess whether the research question is meaningful, whether the methods are appropriate, whether the conclusions are supported by the results, and whether the limitations are clearly acknowledged. At the same time, reviewers should remain fair, respectful, and specific in their comments. Even when a manuscript has important weaknesses, the review should help authors understand how the work could be improved. In his view, the role of a reviewer is not only to judge a manuscript, but also to help improve scientific clarity, methodological rigor, and responsible interpretation.
In Dr. Funamizu’s view, data sharing is essential for transparency, reproducibility, and scientific progress. Appropriate data sharing allows other investigators to verify findings, perform additional analyses, and develop new research questions. This is particularly valuable in clinical research, where sample sizes are often limited and external validation is essential. However, data sharing must be balanced with ethical and legal responsibilities, especially when patient information is involved. Therefore, data should be shared as openly as possible when institutional, ethical, and legal conditions allow, while protecting patient privacy and maintaining public trust in clinical research.
Lastly, Dr. Funamizu would like to express his respect for all reviewers who continue to support scientific publishing behind the scenes. Peer review is often invisible and time-consuming work, especially for busy clinicians and researchers, but it is essential for maintaining the quality and credibility of medical literature. Every careful review contributes to better manuscripts, more accurate interpretation of data, and ultimately better clinical practice. He also considers peer review to be a valuable learning opportunity, because critically reading the work of others can improve one’s own research, writing, and clinical thinking.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Arith Reyes
Dr. Arith Reyes is a breast surgeon at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, USA. She received her bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania and her medical degree from Washington University in St. Louis. She completed her general surgery residency at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, followed by a breast surgery fellowship at Columbia University Medical Center. She is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons. Her research interests focus on clinical outcomes in patients with benign and malignant breast diseases.
GS: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Reyes: Peer review is essential because it provides an independent evaluation of whether scientific work is appropriately conducted, interpreted, and presented. Authors are often deeply immersed in their own research, which can make it difficult to identify weaknesses or areas requiring clarification. Reviewers provide a critical outside perspective that can detect errors, strengthen the analysis, and improve the communication of the findings.
GS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Reyes: A healthy peer-review system should be rigorous, fair, constructive, and timely. Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the quality of the research and provide actionable feedback with the goal of helping authors improve their work. Editors should select reviewers with appropriate expertise and manage conflicts of interest. The strongest system recognizes that peer review is a collaborative process in which authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for maintaining the integrity and quality of the scientific literature.
GS: The burden of being a scientist or doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time for peer review?
Dr. Reyes: Peer review requires a significant commitment of time, so I accept review assignments selectively and only when I believe I have the appropriate expertise and can deliberately schedule sufficient time to provide a careful evaluation. I view peer review as part of my professional responsibility to the scientific community, particularly because my own work also benefits from the time and expertise of other reviewers.
(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)
Takanobu Mashiko
Dr. Takanobu Mashiko, MD, PhD, is the Head of the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Kanto Central Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. He is a board-certified plastic surgeon whose clinical and research interests include breast reconstruction, autologous fat grafting, regenerative medicine, and wound healing. He is currently leading a multicentre research project evaluating the clinical outcomes of autologous fat grafting in breast reconstruction in Japan. Through both clinical practice and basic research, he aims to generate evidence that can be translated into safer and more effective reconstructive treatments for patients. Learn more about him here.
GS: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Mashiko: Peer review is an essential quality-control process because published scientific manuscripts may influence treatment decisions and ultimately affect patient care. Therefore, research findings should be assessed critically and presented in a balanced manner. I also believe that peer review is a form of academic collaboration. Reviewers contribute not only by identifying weaknesses but also by helping authors strengthen their work and communicate its significance more effectively.
GS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Mashiko: A healthy peer-review system should be fair, constructive, and timely. Manuscripts should be judged on their scientific quality and relevance, regardless of the authors' background or reputation. Reviewers should provide specific, respectful, and practical comments while distinguishing essential revisions from personal preferences. Editors should manage conflicting opinions, prevent unnecessarily harsh reviews, and avoid excessive delays. The goal of peer review should be to improve the reliability and clarity of scientific work, not to create unnecessary barriers to publication.
GS: What do reviewers have to bear in mind when reviewing papers?
Dr. Mashiko: Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have the necessary expertise, sufficient time, and no relevant conflicts of interest, while maintaining confidentiality. They should assess whether the methods are appropriate, the results support the conclusions, and the limitations and ethical issues are properly addressed. Comments should be objective, respectful, and constructive, focusing on scientific quality rather than personal preferences.
(by Alan Liu, Masaki Lo)
