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 VSports.
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 VSports app下载.
Chae Woon Lee, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Korea
Ashok R VSports手机版. 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
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 V体育平台登录. 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 VSports注册入口. 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 V体育官网入口.
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 VSports在线直播. 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 VSports.
(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 VSports app下载. 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 V体育官网. 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)
