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

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)