In 2025, HBSN 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.
Mitsugi Shimoda, Tokyo Medical University, Japan
Nikolaos Machairas, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Akhil Jain, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, USA
Takehiro Noji, Hokkaido University Hopspital, Japan
Ken Liu, University of Sydney, Australia
Marten A. Lantinga, University of Amsterdam Medical Center, the Netherlands
Dong-Sik Kim, Korea University College of Medicine, Korea
Matteo De Pastena, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria, Italy
Georgios Antonios Margonis, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
Joel Lewin, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Australia
Gil-Chun Park, University of Ulsan, Korea
Rodrigo Valenzuela, Rodrigo Valenzuela, University of Chile, Chile
Matteo Donadon, University Maggiore Hospital, Italy
Mohamed Elshaer, University Hospital Coventry, UK
Koichiro Hata, Kyoto City Hospital, Japan
Hiroyuki Suzuki, Kurume University, Japan
Tsubasa Tsutsumi, University of Chicago, USA
Koji Tomiyama, University of Rochester, USA
Yee Lee Cheah, Houston Methodist Hospital, USA
Pierre Peyrafort, Orléans University Hospital, France
Chinedu Nwaduru, University of Utah, USA
Jonas Santol, Clinic Favoriten, Austria
Anaïs Tribolet, University Hospital of Marseille, France
Jesús Rivera Esteban, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Spain
Vincent E. de Meijer, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Takeshi Urade, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Takanori Ito, Nagoya University Hospital, Japan
Yuki Bekki, University of Rochester Medical Center, USA
Schaima Abdelhadi, University Medical Center Mannheim, Germany
Aldo Rocca, University of Molise, Italy
Stéphanie Truant, Lille University Hospital (CHU Lille), France
Masato Yoneda, Yokohama City University, Japan
Mitsugi Shimoda
Dr. Mitsugi Shimoda, affiliated with the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery at Tokyo Medical University, Ibaraki Medical Center, has a diverse research portfolio spanning hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery, nutrition, simulation and navigation surgery, and sports physiology. He is currently engaged in several research projects funded by competitive grants, such as exploring novel receptors for the development of therapeutic strategies targeting renalases, assessing sarcopenia in gastrointestinal malignancy patients, and studying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease after pancreatectomy. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Shimoda’s opinion, there are two significant limitations of the current peer-review system. Firstly, reviewers work without compensation, which may lead to a lack of motivation or insufficient dedication in some cases. Secondly, there are instances of non-specialized reviewers assessing research papers.
To reduce potential biases during the review process, Dr. Shimoda suggests two approaches. First, by hiding the authors' affiliations to prevent any preconceived notions based on the author's institution or reputation, reviewers can focus solely on the quality and content of the research. Second, involving colleagues in the review process enables multiple perspectives which can help identify and counteract individual biases, leading to a more comprehensive and objective evaluation of the paper.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nikolaos Machairas
Dr. Nikolaos Machairas, MD, PhD, FACS, is an Assistant Professor of Surgery at the 2nd Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. He completed his surgical training in Greece, Belgium, USA and UK, including fellowships at the Mayo Clinic (USA) and the Royal Free Hospital (UK). His research focuses on hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, liver transplantation, and surgical oncology, with over 230 publications in highly esteemed peer-reviewed journals and over 10,000 article citations. He is an active member of several international surgical societies and serves on the editorial boards of multiple medical journals. His recent projects include exploring minimally invasive liver surgery and the role of transplantation in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. He is also a reviewer for leading surgical and oncology journals and has presented extensively at national and international conferences. Learn more about Dr. Machairas here.
HBSN: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Machairas: Peer review is essential in order to ensure quality, accuracy, and reliability of surgical research. It acts as a filter which will prevent flawed or misleading studies from being published. At the same time, it is important to provide constructive feedback to improve research clarity and impact. In surgery, where new techniques and treatments directly affect patient care, peer review helps validate findings, ensuring they are based on solid evidence. Additionally, the process helps maintain scientific integrity by highlighting biases, errors, or ethical concerns. Ultimately, peer review is the vanguard of credibility in medical literature, promotes evidence-based practice, and advances patient care by ensuring that only high-quality research is shared with the medical community.
HBSN: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Machairas: The peer-review system as it is formed to date, while essential, has major limitations such as bias, delays, and variability in quality offered. Reviewers are quite likely to have unconscious biases, leading to favouritism or rejection of innovative and maybe ground-breaking ideas. The process can be slow, delaying the dissemination of important basic science or clinical findings. Additionally, another major issue is the quality of reviews, which varies considerably especially in mid/low quality journals with some being overly critical or lacking depth. There is also on the other hand a growing burden on reviewers, leading to fatigue and potential oversight. In order to improve peer review, we should seek greater transparency,better reviewer training, open peer-review options, and incentives for reviewers. Using AI to screen for plagiarism and methodological flaws can also enhance efficiency and deter not substantial research being published. Encouraging a constructive review culture will most probably help maintain high standards while at the same time ensuring fairness and innovation in scientific publishing.
HBSN: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Machairas: Peer reviewing is mainly driven by a researcher’s commitment to scientific integrity, professional growth, and contribution to the medical community. As previously mentioned, we should ensure that solely high-quality research is published, directly impacting patient care and advancing surgical knowledge. Reviewing keeps me up-to-date with the latest developments in my field, whilst sharpening my critical thinking and analytical skills. While it is unpaid and most commonly anonymous, the personal satisfaction of improving research quality, supporting fellow scientists, and strengthening the credibility of medical literature is for me the main and most powerful motivation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Akhil Jain
Dr. Akhil Jain, affiliated with the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, specializes in medical oncology and personalized medicine. His clinical research interests center around breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers. He has made significant contributions to numerous nationwide studies, systematic reviews, and collaborative projects related to cancer epidemiology, outcomes research, and cardio oncology. Additionally, he is actively engaged in academic peer reviewing and scientific writing, with a firm commitment to promoting evidence-based practices in oncology. Connect with him on X @AkhilJainMD.
Dr. Jain points out that the current peer-review system has several notable limitations. Reviewer bias can skew the evaluation of manuscripts, and the lack of transparency in the process may lead to concerns about fairness. To enhance the system, he suggests implementing open peer-review models, which would increase transparency and allow for more public scrutiny. Reviewer training programs could help improve the quality of reviews by ensuring that reviewers have the necessary skills and knowledge. A better recognition system for reviewers would incentivize them to perform their tasks diligently, and the use of AI-assisted screening tools could streamline the initial checks of manuscripts, reducing the burden on human reviewers and potentially speeding up the process.
According to Dr. Jain, a good reviewer should be objective, meaning they can evaluate a manuscript without being influenced by personal opinions or biases. Thoroughness is essential, as reviewers need to carefully examine all aspects of the research, from the methodology to the conclusions. Constructiveness is key, as the goal is to help authors improve their work rather than simply criticizing it.
“Contributing to peer review is a way to give back to the academic community. It helps maintain scientific integrity and keeps me updated with emerging research trends. The opportunity to shape research quality and support colleagues is deeply rewarding,” says Dr. Jain.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takehiro Noji
Dr. Takehiro Noji, MD, PhD, FACS, is Professor of Hokkaido University Faculty of Health Sciences Division of Nursing and chief of HPB surgery in Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University Hospital, Japan. His research focuses on hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, perioperative managements and surgical oncology: especially for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. He is an active member of several international surgical societies. He is also a reviewer for leading surgical and oncology journals and has presented extensively at national and international conferences. Learn more about him here.
HBSN: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Noji: In general, peer review plays a critical role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and advancement of scientific research. It is a process where experts in the same field evaluate a researcher’s work before it is published. Below are key aspects of its role. In other words, the peer-review process is a kind of quality assurance for scientists. They are expected to act as judges.
HBSN: How do you make sure your review is objective?
Dr. Noji: The first is to determine the basics: whether the paper is well structured and whether the data are presented according to the claims. In recent years, OA papers that do not even have this basic appearance have sometimes been sent for peer review. Next, I determine whether the data and arguments presented in the paper contribute to advancing the field. Especially in clinical research, I review papers that do not necessarily have to make new claims.
HBSN: 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. Noji: I believe it's not necessary to strictly adhere to these physical appearances, but they should be used as guidelines. If the ethical review for clinical research has been conducted and reviewers can determine the paper's format is ethically sound, there should be no issue. In recent years, there has been a tendency to overapply these conventions. This has led to papers that don't follow them and a lack of understanding of the research content, as overusing these styles has made it difficult to comprehend the research. There have also been cases where conforming too closely to these conventions has made the research content hard to understand or contribute meaningfully.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ken Liu
A/Prof. Ken Liu, holding qualifications such as MBBS, BSc, PhD, and FRACP, is a prominent figure in the medical field. He serves as a clinician scientist and a staff specialist transplant hepatologist at the Australian National Liver Transplant Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and holds the position of Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Sydney. Before becoming a consultant, he completed an international fellowship at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His PhD research, conducted in the laboratory, focused on exploring novel systemic treatments targeting tumor vasculature and immune response in primary liver cancer using mouse models. With over 150 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters to his name, his research interests span laboratory and clinical studies on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver transplantation, and frailty and sarcopenia in end-stage liver disease. He has significantly contributed to national and international guidelines on HCC and liver transplantation and regularly reviews for top hepatology journals like Gastroenterology, Gut, and Journal of Hepatology. Learn more about him here.
Regarding a healthy peer-review system, A/Prof. Liu emphasizes the importance of a large, dedicated community of reviewers. This ensures that the diverse range of research submitted in a field is thoroughly evaluated, preventing the rejection of good manuscripts due to reviewers' lack of expertise. The system should not rely on a limited number of individuals. Given that reviewers are often busy professionals themselves, adequate support is crucial to avoid overburdening them and allow for proper reviews.
A/Prof. Liu indicates that when reviewing papers, novelty is a key consideration, especially in terms of potential impacts on clinical practice. However, this should be evaluated in relation to the journal's impact and quality. Even non-novel research that offers local validation or clinical insights deserves publication. Reviewers must also ensure that study conclusions are well-supported by the findings, as authors may overstate or overgeneralize results. It is the reviewers' responsibility to keep authors grounded in their actual data.
“Peer review is a task that should go hand in hand with publishing papers. You cannot have one without the other. Just like conducting a well-designed study, robust peer review to scrutinize each submitted manuscript is also necessary in maintaining standards and advancing the scientific field. Furthermore, it always provides the opportunity to learn something new,” says A/Prof. Liu.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marten A. Lantinga
Marten A. Lantinga, MD, PhD, is a consultant gastroenterologist-hepatologist at the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands, and serves as a junior editor for the United European Gastroenterology Journal. His research focuses on precision pharmacotherapy in chronic liver disease, emphasizing antimicrobial stewardship and antibiotic pharmacokinetics in cirrhosis. Current projects include a prospective PK study of antibiotic pharmacokinetics in end-stage liver disease patients, aiming to tailor drug dosing, reduce overuse, and enhance value-based hepatology care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Lantinga thinks that peer review is the essential quality-control mechanism that transforms manuscripts into reliable, citable science. Independent experts verify study methodology and findings before research reaches clinicians, policymakers, and patients. In an age of pre-prints and rapid information spread, detailed peer review acts as a fail-safe to maintain public trust in published medical research, ensuring only rigorous, validated findings enter the scientific record.
According to Dr. Lantinga, reviewers must prioritize constructiveness and fairness, aiming to improve studies rather than merely judge them. Key focuses include methodological transparency, ethical compliance, and whether conclusions align with the data. Reviewers should declare conflicts of interest, uphold confidentiality, and tailor comments to the journal’s audience, balancing critical evaluation with solutions to strengthen the research. This approach ensures peer review remains a collaborative process to advance scientific integrity.
“Reviewing is an investment in the scientific community of which I am a part. It keeps me up to speed with emerging topics, sharpens my critical-appraisal skills, and can even spark new research ideas. There is also a mentoring dimension: guiding authors through constructive feedback. Although unpaid, the professional recognition, networking opportunities and satisfaction of upholding research quality are rewarding enough,” says Dr. Lantinga.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Dong-Sik Kim
Dong-Sik Kim, MD, PhD, is in the Division of HBP Surgery & Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine. His research focuses on small-for-size syndrome, posthepatectomy liver failure, and surgical treatment of liver tumors, including liver resection and transplantation.
Dr. Kim thinks that peer review ensures the quality and credibility of scientific research. Experts evaluate its accuracy, validity, and originality, improving manuscripts via constructive feedback and blocking flawed or unethical work from publication. This process upholds scientific integrity and trust in published findings.
According to Dr. Kim, an objective review is evidence-based and unbiased, focusing on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and clarity. He accepts review invitations in subject areas where he is a true expert and have no conflict of interest (COI), ensuring his evaluation remains impartial.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matteo De Pastena
Matteo De Pastena is an Italian general and pancreatic surgeon currently affiliated with the Pancreas Institute at Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona, where he serves as a consultant surgeon and temporary professor at the University of Verona. He has performed more than 500 pancreatic resections and possesses extensive experience in minimally invasive approaches. His primary research area is pancreatic surgery, with specific interests in minimally invasive and robotic techniques. He has actively participated in several notable projects, including randomized trials comparing surgical technologies, ergonomic analyses, and studies on antibiotic stewardship in pancreatic surgery. He is particularly focused on developing prevention and mitigation strategies for postoperative complications, especially pancreatic fistula. He holds committee positions in prominent surgical societies and is a member of the editorial board for several medical journals. He has an extensive publication record with over 100 indexed articles, reflecting his significant contributions to surgical oncology and innovation in pancreatic resections. Learn more about him here.
Dr. De Pastena reckons that peer review is vital for maintaining scientific rigor, credibility, and quality. As a gatekeeping mechanism, it validates research methods, findings, and interpretations before publication. Experts critically assess manuscripts to identify errors, biases, or oversights, offering constructive feedback to refine work. This process upholds academic standards, drives knowledge advancement, and fosters trust within the scientific community.
In Dr. De Pastena’s opinion, a proficient reviewer must be knowledgeable, impartial, thorough, and constructive. Expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter allows rigorous evaluation of methodology, data analysis, and result interpretation. Reviewers should remain unbiased, transparent, and professional, providing clear, actionable feedback to enhance the work. Strong communication skills and the ability to evaluate research objectively and respectfully are also essential to ensure constructive dialogue and scientific integrity.
“The primary motivation for engaging in peer review is a commitment to scientific integrity and the advancement of knowledge. Peer reviewing provides a unique opportunity to stay updated on the latest research developments, contribute to the quality of scientific literature, and reciprocate the efforts of fellow researchers who review one's work. Additionally, peer review encourages professional growth, enhances critical appraisal skills, and facilitates networking within the scientific community,” says Dr. De Pastena.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Georgios Antonios Margonis
Georgios Antonios Margonis is an Instructor in AI and Precision Medicine at MIT’s Operations Research Center and a Senior Scientist in Surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. With prior roles at Harvard, Johns Hopkins (2014–2019), and a Habilitation from Charité’s Department of Surgery (2020), his work focuses on hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers and soft tissue sarcomas, integrating genetic biomarkers for treatment guidance. Since 2020, he has developed techniques to decompound real-world data and refine clinical trial granularity, aiming to enhance AI-driven treatment decisions. Author of over 170 peer-reviewed papers, he has received 20+ national/international awards, including the IHPBA “Kenneth Warren” Award and U.S. O-1 status for extraordinary ability.
Dr. Margonis reckons that peer review demands that reviewers act as both critical judges and constructive advisors. As judges, they safeguard scientific quality and credibility, filtering out low-value research in an era of information overload. As advisors, their anonymous feedback must prioritize fairness and integrity, aiming to strengthen manuscripts—provided no irreparable flaws in research integrity or methodology exist. Crucially, peer review should not stifle innovation. Reviewers must evaluate creative ideas with scientific rigor while acknowledging that early-stage concepts may lack extensive validation. The goal is to nurture novel work without lowering standards, balancing rigor with openness to evolution.
While perfect objectivity is impossible, Dr. Margonis indicates that a rigorous approach minimizes bias:
Neutral mindset: he approaches manuscripts as a neutral evaluator, not a competitor, rereading comments to eliminate emotional language.
- Consistent standards: applying the same methodological checklist used for his own research ensures uniform rigor.
- Constructive critique: for flawed but promising work, he grants revision opportunities. “Authors might be right, and I might be wrong”—rejection is a last resort, after fair chance to address concerns.
Though peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, Dr. Margonis lists several reasons that motivate him to do so, “First, peer review sharpens your critical thinking skills—you read something new, try to understand its message, and identify its limitations. Second, it encourages you to read more widely, which helps you grow intellectually. Third, it’s part of the academic ecosystem—if no one reviews because it’s unpaid, then who will review our papers? Peer reviewing is part of the mutual responsibility we have as scientists.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Joel Lewin
Joel Lewin is a HPB and General Surgeon practicing at Mater Hospital and Greenslopes Private Hospital in Brisbane, Australia. He has a strong focus on minimally invasive and robotic surgery for pancreas, liver, and hernia conditions. Actively engaged in clinical research on minimally invasive HPB surgery, he recently published work on the outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in Australia’s low-volume settings. His current collaborative projects include adapting light-activated recombinant human tropoelastin to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula in pancreas surgery. Additionally, he is a founding member of the Australian & Aotearoa New Zealand Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (AANZMIPS) collaborative. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Lewin believes that in an era of abundant poor-quality publications and widespread AI use, peer review by trusted, impartial experts remains the keystone to ensuring research methodological accuracy, quality, and relevance to advancing scientific and clinical knowledge. It is also key to maintaining the wider community’s trust in the scientific process, as research integrity and accuracy are upheld through focused, detailed, and clear feedback to authors.
Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Lewin notes that due to publication pressure on academic units, authors whose papers require major revisions may opt to submit to less rigorous journals instead of undertaking the hard work of improving their research and manuscript. He emphasizes that authors should strive for quality over quantity, and academic institutions should establish mechanisms to reward such quality-focused efforts.
“Reviewing publications in a non-biased and scientific way sharpens your ability to critically appraise scientific papers and keeps you up to date with the new frontiers being explored in your chosen field,” says Dr. Lewin.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gil-Chun Park
Dr. Gil-Chun Park is a hepatobiliary and transplant surgeon at Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine in Seoul, Korea. Affiliated with the Division of Liver Transplantation and Hepatobiliary Surgery, he specializes in living donor liver transplantation and complex hepatobiliary surgery. His research focuses on living liver donor morbidity and outcomes, as well as surgical and transplant oncology for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). He actively engages in clinical research to improve donor and recipient outcomes and has advanced minimally invasive techniques in donor hepatectomy. Additionally, he acts as a peer reviewer for multiple scientific journals, fostering the spread of high-quality, ethical research in liver transplantation, oncology, and organoids.
Dr. Park believes that reviewers must be fair, objective, and respectful. They should verify a study’s scientific soundness, originality, and significance, and provide comments that help authors refine their work even if it is rejected, with the aim of supporting solid science and clear communication.
Speaking of what drives him to conduct anonymous and unpaid peer review, Dr. Park says that it is a crucial part of science, ensuring research integrity and rigor. He also values the opportunity to learn and assist fellow researchers, and sees it as a meaningful way to contribute to the academic community.
“Although my schedule is demanding, I consider peer review a valuable part of academic work. I usually set aside time on weekends, when I can focus without interruption and give the manuscript the attention it deserves,” says Dr. Park.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rodrigo Valenzuela
Rodrigo Valenzuela is a nutritionist with a Master’s, PhD in Nutrition and Food (Univ. of Chile) and 2019–2021 postdoc experience at University of Toronto. Currently Associate Professor & Dept. Director at Univ. of Chile’s Faculty of Medicine, he teaches across multiple programs. His research focuses on fats/fatty acid metabolism, and liver health, with recent projects on pregnancy-related PUFA bioavailability and fatty acid metabolism & breast cancer. Learn more about him here.
HBSN: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Valenzuela: The peer-review system is essential to ensure the quality and transparency of published research. The peer-review process must i) be rigorous, ii) be conducted by experienced researchers, iii) carefully review the methodologies used, and iv) be free of conflicts of interest that could undermine the veracity of the evaluation.
HBSN: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Valenzuela: Reviewers should have experience as researchers and in publishing scientific manuscripts. This is essential for a reviewer to always consider i) the objective of the study, ii) the methodology used, and iii) the results and basis for the discussion. Furthermore, it is very important for the reviewer to consider the scope of the study.
HBSN: Why do you choose to review for HBSN?
Dr. Valenzuela: Since HBSN is a high-quality scientific journal, the published articles are written by researchers recognized in the scientific community. Furthermore, the novelty of the manuscripts is remarkable. Finally, I must highlight HBSN's thorough review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matteo Donadon
Matteo Donadon, MD, PhD, is a General Surgeon, Full Professor of Surgery, and Director of Surgical Oncology Program & General Surgery Residency at Italy’s University del Piemonte Orientale (University Maggiore Hospital, Novara).
He earned his medical degree and general surgery residency at the University of Milan, a PhD in Hepatobiliary Oncology at Rome’s University of Sacred Heart, and was a research fellow at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston). Focused on liver, biliary and pancreatic surgery, he has secured competitive grants/awards, coauthored 300+ publications (h-index 45). Connect with him on LinkedIn.
HBSN: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Donadon: Several limitations may be listed. Bias, subjectivity, and lack of transparency can lead to inconsistency and lower overall quality. It is also a slow and time-consuming process, usually associated with lack of recognition and very limited post-publication feedback. A combination of greater transparency, incentives and overall recognition could improve its fairness and effectiveness.
HBSN: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Donadon: The peer-review process is time-consuming and usually slow. As an author, I always try to meet journal deadlines to ensure the process is timely as requested. I also try to find quality time for that, but it is not always possible.
HBSN: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Donadon: Yes, it is very important. Any research can be biased by COI. Thus, authors should disclose any COI potentially related to that specific research they are reporting. It is a matter of integrity, honor and reputation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mohamed Elshaer
Mohamed Elshaer, with an array of esteemed medical credentials, is a robotic HPB surgeon at University Hospital Coventry in the UK. He trained in HPB and transplant at Cambridge University Hospital, and completed fellowships in robotic HPB surgery at Coventry, HPB surgical oncology at Leicester, and liver transplant at the Royal Free Hospital. Registered as a specialist in the UK, his research delves into robotic surgery's role in liver and pancreatic resections, meta-analysis, multicentre studies, and oncological trials. With over 2000 article citations, he also imparts his knowledge as a Royal College of Surgeons faculty member and course instructor in multiple surgical skills courses.
Dr. Elshaer believes that a healthy peer-review system starts with stringent paper selection, ensuring only top-notch and relevant work is considered. An efficient editorial team is key, assigning manuscripts to apt experts for up-to-date evaluations. Anonymity in review prevents author-related biases. Reviewers must meet deadlines, follow journal instructions, and adhere to standardized guidelines, minimizing bias and maintaining consistency.
According to Dr. Elshaer, it is essential for authors to always disclose any conflict of interest (COI), as this can significantly influence the integrity and interpretation of research. For example, studies sponsored by large companies that manufacture surgical instruments or robotic systems may unintentionally bias the outcomes in favour of their products. Similarly, research funded by profit-driven organisations differs fundamentally from studies supported by national research bodies or non-profit institutions. This is particularly important in clinical research and patient related outcomes, as it allows reviewers to critically assess potential biases and better understand the context behind the findings.
“Although the peer-review process is often anonymous and non-profitable, I am motivated to participate for several reasons. Firstly, it allows me to stay up to date with the latest research developments in my field of expertise. Secondly, reviewing offers an opportunity to provide valuable feedback to colleagues, which I see as a way to return the effort others invest when reviewing my own research papers. Lastly, I feel a professional responsibility to critically evaluate research articles to prevent substandard research from being disseminated and potentially compromising our evidence-based practice,” says Dr. Elshaer.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Koichiro Hata
Prof. Koichiro Hata currently serves as Deputy Director of Medical Care and Director of Surgery at Kyoto City Hospital, in addition to holding the position of Clinical Professor at Kyoto University Faculty of Medicine—where he actively engages in teaching medical students and young surgeons. His areas of specialization include hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery and liver transplantation. Prior to 2023, he was an Associate Professor in the Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation at Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine. In 2020, he concurrently served as Director of the Organ Transplant Unit at Kyoto University Hospital, where he performed numerous complex transplant and hepatobiliary procedures. Over his 30-year surgical career—more than 20 of which were spent at Kyoto University—he has also made significant contributions to research and medical education. Recently, he has applied his extensive experience in liver resection to advance robotic hepatectomy techniques. On the international stage, he acts as the Japan representative for the European Society of Surgical Research (ESSR) and serves as a Board Member of the Global Journal of Surgery and Surgical Leadership Studies (GJSSLS). He also actively contributes to multiple Japanese surgical and transplant societies.
HBSN: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Prof. Hata: An effective reviewer should demonstrate subject expertise, objectivity, and the capacity to provide clear, constructive feedback. Timeliness, professionalism, attention to detail, and rigorous adherence to ethical standards are critical. I have reviewed numerous manuscripts over my career and endeavor to accept as many invitations as possible within my schedule. While I cannot accept every request, I regard an invitation from HBSN as a top priority, given its vital role in advancing liver transplantation and hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery in Asia.
HBSN: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Prof. Hata: There are key limitations of the current peer-review system: delays in the review process, inconsistent quality of evaluations, lack of transparency, and inherent reviewer bias. Enhancements such as reviewer training, standardized evaluation criteria, double-blind review, and meaningful incentives may address these issues. A further challenge is that many potential reviewers—particularly liver transplant and hepatobiliary surgeons—decline review invitations due to heavy clinical workloads and insufficient recognition of review contributions in professional performance evaluations. Peer review is a fundamental duty for all scientists.
HBSN: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Prof. Hata: Yes. Adherence to reporting guidelines is essential in manuscript preparation, as these frameworks provide a standardized structure that enhances clarity, transparency, and reproducibility. Proper use of these guidelines ensures comprehensive reporting of methods and outcomes, which reduces bias and facilitates thorough evaluation by reviewers and readers. From a reviewer’s perspective, manuscripts that follow such guidelines help expedite the review process and improve the overall quality and credibility of published research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hiroyuki Suzuki
Hiroyuki Suzuki, MD, PhD, holds dual roles: Assistant Professor in the Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Kurume University School of Medicine, and postdoctoral fellow in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center. His research centers on steatotic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, he assessed the clinical equivalence of NAFLD and MASLD labels in relation to atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk and gastrointestinal cancer prognosis. Using longitudinal cohorts and multi-omics data, he refines noninvasive blood-based biomarkers and clarifies immune-oncogenic pathways driving HCC. His long-term goal is to translate reliable, reproducible biomarkers into personalized surveillance and chemoprevention for chronic liver disease patients. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Suzuki highlights the indispensability of peer review to top medical journals. Subject-matter experts critically evaluate manuscripts’ scientific content, study design, statistical analyses, and conclusion validity—safeguarding quality and accuracy. Peer review also detects and corrects flaws/bias in protocols, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, enabling improvements pre-publication. Crucially, it upholds scientific integrity by filtering unreliable work and reinforcing transparency/reproducibility standards, protecting medical literature credibility and ensuring clinicians, researchers, and the public can trust published findings.
According to Dr. Suzuki, core principles of reviewers should bear in mind include clarity, impartiality, and timeliness, plus disclosing conflicts and maintaining manuscript confidentiality. Reviewers must assess study design, statistics, and whether conclusions align with data (not author reputations), check transparency, reproducibility, ethics, and patient safety, and provide concise, actionable comments that distinguish critical issues from minor refinements.
“Thoughtful, fair, and timely reviews are quiet engines of progress. By reducing bias, clarifying methods, and strengthening reproducibility, your work builds findings that clinicians, policymakers, and patients can trust—and moves us toward better care and a better world,” says Dr. Suzuki.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tsubasa Tsutsumi
Dr. Tsubasa Tsutsumi launched his medical career with a graduation from Kurume University School of Medicine in 2009, later earning his Ph.D. from the same institution’s graduate school—laying a solid foundation in clinical and translational research. In 2024, he joined the University of Chicago as a Staff Scientist in the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition within the Department of Medicine, expanding his work to a globally recognized academic medical center. His research centers on two critical areas of liver and metabolic health: the role of metabolic abnormalities in steatotic liver disease (SLD), and the association between SLD and multi-organ comorbidities. A notable recent project leverages advanced MRI techniques—echoing the imaging innovation seen in institutions like UKSH—to analyze the relationship between abnormal intramuscular fat distribution and the prognosis of patients with Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). This work bridges imaging technology with clinical outcomes, aligning with trends in precision medicine and multi-modal research. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
HBSN: What do reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Tsutsumi: When I started my research career, I often focused on the Discussion section to grasp a paper's novelty. However, I have recently come to appreciate the importance of how thoroughly the Methods section is written. I now believe that a reviewer's primary responsibility is to provide readers with robust scientific knowledge. To do this, we must critically evaluate whether the study design is reproducible and whether the correct statistical methods have been employed. This ensures the integrity and reliability of the findings presented.
HBSN: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Tsutsumi: Yes, I believe it is absolutely crucial for authors to share their research data. There are two primary reasons for this. First, transparency and reproducibility are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Sharing raw data allows other researchers to verify and replicate findings, which builds confidence in the conclusions and strengthens the integrity of the scientific record. Second, data sharing accelerates scientific progress. When datasets are made publicly available, they can be used for new analyses—including meta-analyses or the application of novel analytical techniques that may not have existed when the data were first collected. This maximizes the value of the original research effort and can lead to new discoveries without the need for redundant data collection. Ultimately, it fosters a more collaborative and efficient scientific community.
HBSN: 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. Tsutsumi: The work of a reviewer can be solitary. It is an unpaid role that carries significant responsibility and demands hours—sometimes even days—of dedicated effort. However, it is also a special opportunity to engage with the latest, unpublished findings that researchers have spent countless hours discovering, and to share this experience with other enthusiastic reviewers. I believe we should all take pride in knowing that the dedication of each and every one of us supports the very foundation of science.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Koji Tomiyama
After graduating from Okayama University Medical School in Japan, Dr. Koji Tomiyama completed his surgical residency and PhD program at the same university. He then advanced his research career as a research fellow for two years at the University of Pittsburgh’s Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute, followed by an ASTS transplant surgery fellowship at Baylor University Medical Center. In 2010, he joined Kyoto University’s Department of Surgery (Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation) as faculty. He further specialized in HPB surgery by completing an AHPBA surgical oncology fellowship at the University of Toronto. Since 2016, he has been at the University of Rochester, currently serving as Associate Professor, Surgical Director of Liver Transplant, and ASTS Transplant Fellowship Program Director. His clinical focus includes liver transplantation (with expertise in living donor liver transplantation and transplant oncology), donation after cardiac death (DCD), and complex HPB cases—such as in situ/ex vivo liver cold preservation and 3D simulation for liver surgery. His basic and translational research centers on transplant oncology, the clinical use of Histotripsy, and exploring Histotripsy’s mechanism in oncological applications.
Dr. Tomiyama indicates that peer review plays a major role as one of the best methods to control the quality of scientific publications when properly utilized. He also emphasizes that reviewers must keep in mind: publishing articles with inaccurate or misleading information could have negative future impacts on the scientific community, leading to further confusion—and all reviewers should work to avoid this.
“Reviewing manuscripts is one of the best opportunities to learn cutting-edge knowledge, different viewpoints and opinions from various experts from different fields. Through the review process, we have opportunities to discuss and exchange opinions with authors with different expertise and backgrounds, which would eventually become a contribution to the medical scientific society by providing proper, reliable, and valuable information to accumulated scientific knowledge,” says Dr. Tomiyama.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yee Lee Cheah
Dr. Yee Lee Cheah was appointed Director of Robotic Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) at the JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, in 2023—solidifying her role as a leader in advanced transplant surgery. Her academic and clinical trajectory reflects deep expertise in transplantation and hepatobiliary (HPB) surgery: she graduated from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and obtained her AFRCS (Ireland) in 2003. She completed her General Surgery Residency at the Brown University Program (Rhode Island, USA) and an ASTS-accredited fellowship in Transplantation & Hepatobiliary Surgery at the Lahey Clinic (Massachusetts, USA) in 2010. Prior to joining Houston Methodist, Dr. Cheah contributed to leading programs globally: she was part of the Asian American Liver Centre (Singapore)—the largest adult LDLT program in Southeast Asia—before returning to Lahey Hospital in 2017 as its Director of LDLT. At Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (LHMC), she pioneered robotic HPB/transplant surgery initiatives, including launching the first series of robotic donor hepatectomy in the USA in 2018. Her clinical focus centers on living donor liver transplantation, robotic transplantation, and HPB surgery, while her research prioritizes living donor safety and innovations in robotic surgery. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Cheah’s opinion, a strong reviewer must embody four core traits: objectivity, clarity, constructiveness, and directness throughout the review process. Equally critical is subject-matter expertise—reviewers must deeply understand the manuscript’s focus—and familiarity with the journal’s scope and guidelines, ensuring feedback aligns with the publication’s standards.
Dr. Cheah thinks that data sharing is context-dependent but valuable. It is most impactful when collaboration across research teams enhances the data’s volume, variety, comparability, or novelty—strengthening the collective ability to advance research goals. While she notes that data sharing is not “crucial in all circumstances,” she stresses that authors should remain open to the practice if it aligns with their research objectives, as pooled results and diverse perspectives can drive more meaningful scientific progress.
“Allocating time to do review is a real problem for me at times with such a heavy clinical load, so I need to be super-organized in my time management, and make sure I am aware of the journal deadline and schedule my peer review accordingly. I usually schedule a few time blocks for each review in case I miss some blocks due to responsibilities elsewhere,” says Dr. Cheah.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Pierre Peyrafort
Pierre Peyrafort is a young surgeon from Corrèze, France, with specialized training from Tours University Hospital in hepatobiliary surgery and liver transplantation, and from Orléans University Hospital in all types of robot-assisted minimally invasive digestive surgery. He is also an active member of the ACHBPT (Association des Chirurgiens Hepatobiliaires et Pancréatiques de France). Parallel to his clinical training, he conducted a master’s degree study on intestinal microbiota and liver transplantation, supervised by the SUPORT (SUrvival oPtimization in ORgan Transplantation) university hospital federation. He has also worked on liver graft bipartition, noting that liver transplantation remains one of his favorite research subjects—though he also views robotic surgery as a significant advancement and an exciting new field of study.
Dr. Peyrafort believes that peer review is the cornerstone of modern science. Today’s science relies more than ever on publications, which have a strong impact on everyday medical practice due to their greater visibility and accessibility. Furthermore, in a world where AI leads in both article writing and editing, maintaining the human element and leveraging skills—rather than just knowledge, which AI can handle—makes reviewers indispensable to the system.
Dr. Peyrafort reckons that disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is essential, as COIs can clearly influence study design and thus results—this is especially critical for economic and communication-related issues. However, if COIs are not concealed, prohibiting them is unnecessary and counterproductive. Progress often stems from interdisciplinarity, which may give rise to COIs without being harmful.
“Peer reviewing is primarily an ethical issue. As doctors, it is important for us to demonstrate altruism. Our daily practice should compel us to do so, and there is no reason why our scientific practice should be any different. That is the philosophical motivation. In practice, peer review helps authors improve the dissemination of their work and enables staff to maintain their knowledge by keeping up to date with developments in their field,” says Dr. Peyrafort.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Chinedu Nwaduru
Dr. Chinedu Nwaduru MD, MSc, is a research physician in the Division of Transplant and Advanced Hepatobiliary Surgery at the University of Utah, USA. He completed his medical training in Nigeria and pursued postgraduate training in Integrated Immunology at Oxford, England. His research focuses on transplant immunology, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and mitochondrial bioenergetics, with a particular interest in purinergic signaling pathways that govern graft viability and post-transplant recovery. He is an active member of several international surgical societies. He is also a reviewer for leading journals in immunology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Nwaduru believes that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity and process. It ensures that research findings are accurate, credible and methodologically sound; all of which are important for advancing science. By having experts in the same field evaluate one’s work, peer review helps maintain quality control, filter out flaws, and provide constructive feedback that strengthens the final publication. It encourages transparency and upholds ethical standards in research, allowing for knowledge to advance through collective scrutiny and shared expertise.
Additionally, Dr. Nwaduru thinks that reviewers should approach each manuscript with objectivity and a spirit of constructive critique in the review. They must evaluate the paper based on the scientific rigor and clarity, ensuring the data presented support the conclusions the author(s) have put forward. It is crucial to evaluate whether the work done adds value to the field, not necessarily novel – because even non-novel works can offer clarity and add value to the field as well. Above all, the goal is not merely to judge but to help authors improve their work, providing feedback that is specific, balanced and respectful whilst safeguarding the integrity of science.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jonas Santol
Jonas Santol completed his medical studies at the Medical University of Vienna. He was fortunate to gain early exposure to liver surgery-focused research while writing his diploma thesis in the lab of Professor Patrick Starlinger. After graduation, he pursued a PhD under the guidance of Professor Alice Assinger and Professor Starlinger—including one year of full-time work in their Vienna lab and one year as a research fellow at the Mayo Clinic Rochester, within the Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery. His PhD research focuses on the mechanisms of postoperative liver regeneration, with a special emphasis on the microbiome. Following his return from the United States to Vienna, he began his general surgery residency at the Department of Surgery at Clinic Favoriten, Vienna—a high-volume hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) surgery center led by Professor Thomas Gruenberger. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
With the increase in published papers over the last few decades, Dr. Santol thinks that peer review is now more important than ever. Rigorous peer review guarantees that manuscripts are kept to the highest standards both scientifically and ethically. This is important as scientific publications can impact clinical practice, steer future scientific discovery and shape public opinion. To him, when reading papers published in a high-quality journal such as HBSN, the findings have undergone stringent peer review, where possible limitations have been highlighted and the presented results can be trusted.
“Papers from our lab were reviewed by anonymous, unreimbursed reviewers who provided timely, constructive criticism that improved our manuscripts’ readability and structure. I see peer review as giving back to the scientific community—it is as integral to the scientific process as writing a manuscript. I also encourage early-career physician-scientists like myself to engage in peer review. I learned much from Professor Starlinger about approaching manuscript reviews, and this experience taught me to ‘think like a reviewer’ when planning studies or writing papers—a tremendous benefit,” says Dr. Santol.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Anaïs Tribolet
Dr. Anaïs Tribolet is a Chief Resident (Chef de Clinique Assistant) in the Department of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation at the University Hospital of Marseille. She has a strong clinical and academic interest in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery, liver transplantation, and extreme liver surgery. Her surgical and research interests also encompass minimally invasive surgical techniques, including laparoscopic and robotic approaches. She is actively involved in advancing surgical methods and improving patient outcomes in liver and pancreatic procedures. Her recent projects focus on refining laparoscopic and robotic techniques to enhance precision and recovery in hepatobiliary surgery.
HBSN: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Tribolet: An ideal peer-review system is fair and clear. It makes sure all submissions are judged without bias and with scientific care. It keeps reviews confidential and provides quick feedback to help research progress. Each paper should be reviewed by several experts in the field to ensure a thorough and balanced evaluation. Clear guidelines and reviewer training are also important to keep reviews consistent and of high quality. It is also important for the peer-review system to identify and manage any conflicts of interest.
HBSN: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Tribolet: A good reviewer should have a strong knowledge of the subject matter and a solid understanding of research methodology and scientific writing. They must show respect for the authors’ work, pay close attention to detail, and provide constructive suggestions to help improve the research. Additionally, maintaining confidentiality, delivering timely reviews, and remaining curious and open-minded to new ideas are essential qualities that contribute to a thorough and valuable peer-review process.
HBSN: Why do you choose to review for HBSN?
Dr. Tribolet: I choose to review for HBSN because it is a respected journal in the field of hepatobiliary surgery, which aligns closely with my clinical and academic interests. The journal is known for its commitment to publishing rigorous and high-quality research. Reviewing for HBSN is a meaningful way to contribute to the scientific community and support the advancement of surgical research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jesús Rivera Esteban
Dr. Jesús Rivera Esteban serves as a consultant hepatologist at Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda (Madrid, Spain) and an Affiliate Professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid. His clinical and research work centers on steatotic liver diseases—including metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and alcohol-related liver disease—as well as post-transplant metabolic disorders, sarcopenia, and lifestyle interventions within the Liver Transplant Unit. He earned his PhD from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, where he received the Extraordinary Thesis Award for his research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the use of elastography in diagnosis and prognosis. He has contributed to major European consortia and trials such as HEPAMET, REHALC, EU-PEARL, LIVERSCREEN, and LITMUS, in addition to supporting Spain’s National Liver Health Plan. Bridging clinical hepatology, transplantation, and metabolic health, he has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers and actively participates in national and international research projects. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Rivera indicates that a healthy peer-review system should be transparent, constructive, and unbiased. It must ensure methodological and statistical rigor, providing timely and evidence-based evaluations that raise scientific standards. To achieve this, reviewers should be field-specific experts and independent of authors, avoiding conflicts of interest. Equally important, editorial boards should support reviewers throughout the process, offer flexibility with deadlines, and provide incentives or recognition for their contributions.
Moreover, Dr. Rivera thinks that reviewers should assess the methodological robustness of the manuscript and ensure that the statistical analyses are appropriate to meet the study objectives. The text should be written in clear and precise language, and the results must be presented accurately and logically. The discussion should properly contextualize the findings within the current literature, contrast them with previous evidence, and be honest about the study’s limitations, explaining how these were addressed or mitigated. Finally, it is essential that the research question has scientific validity and tackles a specific problem or contributes a meaningful advance in the field.
“Peer review is one of the cornerstones of scientific progress. Taking part in it allows me to stay up to date with new research, contribute to improving the quality of scientific work, and ensure that studies in hepatology meet high academic standards. It’s also a way to give back to the scientific community and support the growth of colleagues and future researchers,” says Dr. Rivera.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Vincent E. de Meijer
Prof. Vincent E. de Meijer serves as Professor of Surgery at the University of Groningen, Head of Liver Transplantation at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), and Chair of the UMCG Comprehensive Transplant Center. Trained at Erasmus University Rotterdam, he obtained his PhD following a research fellowship at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. In liver transplantation, he has pioneered advancements in machine perfusion techniques. His research focuses on implementing prolonged hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion for donor livers—a strategy aimed at minimizing nighttime transplantations and reshaping clinical practice. He also co-developed a protocol for sequential hypothermic and normothermic machine perfusion, which enables viability assessment of high-risk, previously unused donor livers and facilitates their safe transplantation. Additionally, his work explores multiday liver machine perfusion, providing a platform to study ex situ liver physiology, regeneration, and therapeutic interventions. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Prof. de Meijer highlights key peer-review limitations: slowness, lack of transparency, and excessive time demands. He criticizes rapid desk rejections after years of author effort and wasted time on repetitive reformatting due to journal mismatches. He proposes a radical centralized model: authors upload only title, abstract, and cover letter to an open server; journals proactively contact suitable submissions, eliminating reformatting/resubmission burdens. For milder reforms, he supports universal open peer review for better transparency and "submit-as-you-want" initial formats to save time.
Additionally, Prof. de Meijer advises knowledgeable reviewers to prioritize methodology, noting common flaws like unclear hypotheses, poorly described outcomes, and non-adherence to guidelines (e.g., STROBE, CONSORT, ARRIVE). Reviewers should use these checklists systematically, recognize the years of effort involved, and provide respectful, constructive feedback—even for unsuitable manuscripts—to help authors improve and succeed elsewhere.
“Peer review is an essential part of academia and should be performed by researchers who are actively engaged in the field. I currently receive new peer-review invitations almost daily. An increasing number of these invitations, however, come from predatory journals that I immediately decline. Unfortunately, I also have to decline a substantial number of requests from reputable journals due to my heavy clinical workload as a surgeon-scientist. This, combined with the lack of recognition for peer-review contributions, places strain on the system. With over 100 manuscripts reviewed for high-impact journals, I have only once been invited to write an accompanying editorial. Rewarding exceptional peer reviews with opportunities like invited commentaries could motivate reviewers, encourage high-quality assessments, and increase the likelihood of reviewers accepting future invitations,” says Prof. de Meijer.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takeshi Urade
Takeshi Urade, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery at Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. His clinical practice focuses on hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgical oncology, with specialized emphasis on minimally invasive liver resection—including advanced laparoscopic and robotic procedures. His main research interests lie in intraoperative imaging and image-guided surgery, particularly indocyanine green fluorescence, hyperspectral and spectral imaging, and 3D simulation—all aimed at enhancing the precision and safety of anatomical liver resection. He is also actively engaged in medical device development, leading translational projects focused on novel visualization workflows for the operating room. He has authored multiple peer-reviewed articles and participates actively in national societies and guideline initiatives related to liver surgery and intraoperative imaging. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Urade believes that in the field of surgery, peer review serves as a critical safety and quality filter. It ensures that new surgical techniques and medical devices are supported by solid evidence, rather than mere clinical impression or enthusiasm. Beyond quality control, he thinks that peer review is also a constructive process: it helps authors improve the clarity and robustness of their work, thereby strengthening the scientific literature as a whole.
In Dr. Urade’s view, a competent peer reviewer must possess three core attributes: solid subject-matter expertise—critical for evaluating specialized content like intraoperative imaging techniques; methodological literacy—to assess the rigor of surgical research designs; and a strong ethical mindset to ensure fair, unbiased evaluations that uphold scientific integrity.
“Peer reviewing keeps me close to new ideas and technologies in hepatobiliary surgery, which stimulates my research and clinical thinking. Beyond personal benefit, I believe that rigorous peer review is one of the most direct ways to support the progress of surgery as a scientific discipline. By helping to maintain the quality and reliability of the literature, I feel I am indirectly contributing to better surgical practice and, ultimately, better patient care,” says Dr. Urade.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takanori Ito
Takanori Ito, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Nagoya University Hospital, Japan. His clinical and research focus lies in hepatology, with specialized emphasis on immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury, biomarker development, and optimizing sequential immunotherapy strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. He is actively involved in numerous large-scale, multi-center collaborative studies both within Japan and internationally, and has contributed to national diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for ICI-induced liver injury. His research scope also extends to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), non-invasive fibrosis assessment, and the mechanisms underlying difficult-to-treat immune-related adverse events. Beyond his research and clinical duties, he supports the career development of young physicians as a member of the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine’s early-career development committee. He has earned multiple prestigious honors, including awards from the Japanese Society of Hepatology (JSH) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Dr. Ito believes that peer review is essential for upholding the credibility and scientific rigor of published research. By having field experts independently evaluate a study’s methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions, the process effectively identifies errors, biases, and overstatements while ensuring new findings are appropriately contextualized within existing knowledge. Notably, peer review also offers significant benefits to reviewers themselves. Engaging critically with new manuscripts exposes them to the latest evidence, evolving methodologies, and emerging trends in hepatology. This continuous learning enhances scientific literacy and fuels the reviewer’s own professional growth. In this way, peer review not only safeguards research quality but also strengthens the academic community as a whole.
According to Dr. Ito, reviewers should prioritize fairness, transparency, and scientific validity in their assessments. They must evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit, setting aside personal preferences or academic competition. Feedback should be constructive, specific, and supported by clear reasoning to enable authors to effectively improve their work. Reviewers also bear the responsibility of carefully examining core elements: the robustness of the study design, appropriateness of statistical methods, coherence between results and conclusions, clinical significance, and adherence to ethical standards. Additionally, it is important to link reviews to broader trends and unmet needs in contemporary medicine—assessing whether the manuscript addresses relevant clinical questions or contributes meaningfully to scientific priorities ensures journals publish work that advances the field. In this role, reviewers shape not only individual study accuracy but also the direction of medical science.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yuki Bekki
Dr. Yuki Bekki is an Assistant Professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, with a robust academic and clinical background rooted in hepatobiliary surgery and transplantation. He earned his MD in 2010 and PhD in 2017 from Kyushu University in Japan, where he also completed a fellowship in transplant and hepatobiliary surgery in 2018. He further refined his expertise with additional training at Mount Sinai Hospital in the United States in 2020. His clinical practice focuses on hepatobiliary surgery—with an emphasis on minimally invasive approaches—and abdominal transplantation, covering liver, kidney, and pancreas transplantation, as well as live donor liver transplantation. His research interests span three key areas: neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for hepatobiliary cancers, organ utilization and outcomes in transplantation, and perfusion technologies including ex situ machine perfusion and normothermic regional perfusion. He is dedicated to advancing evidence-based care and translating innovative research into clinical practice.
According to Dr. Bekki, peer review is essential for ensuring the quality, rigor, and reliability of scientific publications. It helps prevent the dissemination of misleading or inaccurate information and strengthens the scientific process. Peer review is also a collaborative effort—serving as a reviewer not only supports the field, but also enhances one’s own ability to conduct high-quality research.
Dr. Bekki identifies a core structural limitation of the current peer-review system: its heavy reliance on the altruism and voluntary efforts of academic clinicians and researchers. He notes that as clinical and academic workloads continue to escalate, many qualified reviewers face significant time constraints that limit their capacity to accept review invitations—even when they are honored to contribute to the peer-review process. To address this challenge, he advocates for targeted measures to recognize and support reviewers. Key strategies include instituting formal acknowledgment of review contributions in academic portfolios, allocating protected time for peer-review work within clinical or research schedules, and developing structured incentives that value the time and expertise reviewers invest. These changes, he argues, would help alleviate the burden on reviewers and strengthen the sustainability of the peer-review system.
“Participating in peer review offers an invaluable opportunity to learn emerging ideas and engage with cutting-edge researchers—both authors and fellow reviewers. It allows reviewers to deepen their expertise and broaden their scientific perspective while contributing meaningfully to the advancement of medicine. Every review strengthens our field, and we should take pride in the important work reviewers do behind the scenes,” says Dr. Bekki.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Schaima Abdelhadi
Dr. Schaima Abdelhadi is a board-certified visceral surgeon and clinician-scientist in the Department of Surgery at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Germany. Her clinical and research focus lies in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, with particular emphasis on minimally invasive and robotic liver resections, as well as perioperative risk factors and oncologic outcomes. She is actively involved in and leads several clinical studies, including randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical techniques, fluorescence-guided surgery, and perioperative risk factors after liver resection. Alongside her clinical work, she is pursuing her habilitation, which focuses on the impact of minimally invasive and complex resection strategies on oncologic and functional outcomes in liver surgery, and she is engaged in national and international research collaborations in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
HBSN: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Abdelhadi: Peer review serves not only as a quality control mechanism but also as a collaborative process that helps refine ideas, improve methodology, and ensure transparency and reproducibility. A constructive peer review can strengthen a manuscript beyond what the authors initially envisioned by identifying blind spots, methodological limitations, or alternative interpretations of the data. In this sense, peer review is less about judgment and more about collaborative efforts to uphold scientific standards and responsibility toward patients, readers, and the scientific community.
HBSN: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Abdelhadi: An objective review focuses on the scientific question, methodology, data interpretation, and clinical relevance rather than personal preferences or academic competition. For me, objectivity means evaluating whether the conclusions are supported by the data and whether the study design appropriately addresses the research question. To maintain objectivity, I consciously separate my role as a reviewer from my own research interests. At the same time, having authored manuscripts myself, I am aware of how much time and effort go into a study before submission. When working intensively on a project over a long period, it is easy for authors to overlook certain aspects or to consider them self-evident. A reviewer, approaching the work for the first time, can often identify these blind spots more readily. In my view, the peer review process serves precisely this purpose and helps address such blind spots constructively and respectfully, to strengthen the manuscript.
HBSN: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Abdelhadi: Time is indeed a limited resource in clinical practice. I usually allocate dedicated time slots outside routine clinical hours and accept review invitations selectively, prioritizing topics that align with my expertise. I also see peer review as a reciprocal process. Having benefited from thoughtful reviews myself, I consider it important to contribute in the same way. At the same time, I find the review process highly educational. Reviewing manuscripts allows me to view scientific work from a different perspective than that of an author, which continuously sharpens my own critical thinking and writing. This mindset makes the time investment both meaningful and rewarding.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Aldo Rocca
Aldo Rocca, MD, FACS, is an Associate Professor of General Surgery at the University of Molise (Campobasso, Italy), where he directs the General Surgery Residency Program and serves as Rector’s Delegate for Research. His clinical and academic work focuses on hepato-biliary-pancreatic and colorectal surgery, with a particular interest in minimally invasive and robotic techniques. His recent projects include artificial intelligence, Hub-and-Spoke training models in HPB surgery, radiomics, and robotic applications in surgery. He is Social Media Editor forUpdates in Surgery and serves on the editorial boards of Scientific Reports, BMC Surgery, and Open Medicine. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Rocca’s view, peer review plays a key role in science: its independent nature serves as a guardian of scientific reliability. Unfortunately, the growing volume of papers and the spread of the “publish or perish” culture are compromising the quality of the peer-review process.
According to Dr. Rocca, the most important principle for a reviewer is to assess the paper’s relevance and its potential contribution to the scientific community. If the data are consistent and the manuscript is sound, the reviewer should help the authors communicate their message as clearly and effectively as possible. At the same time, reviewers must verify the ethical integrity of the work and the reliability of the data. Redundant manuscripts should be discouraged.
“Peer review is one of the most valuable—and often least visible—services we provide to science. Every careful report helps protect patients and readers from weak evidence, strengthens good ideas, and supports authors in communicating their work more clearly. My suggestion is ‘less is more’: be rigorous but constructive, help raise standards behind the scenes, and avoid an overload of assignments,” says Dr. Rocca.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Stéphanie Truant
Prof. Stéphanie Truant is a hepatobiliopancreatic and liver transplant surgeon at Lille University Hospital (CHU Lille), France, and has served as Head of the Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation since 2021. She maintains a broad clinical practice covering complex hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery as well as liver transplantation. Her research focuses on pancreatic cancer—particularly biomarkers of chemoresistance—in collaboration with the University of Lille, CNRS, Inserm, and CHU Lille’s UMR9020–U1277 CANTHER unit (Cancer Heterogeneity, Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies). She also leads studies using French national administrative healthcare databases, with a specific focus on pancreatic surgery outcomes and the impact of surgical centralization. Her current work further explores the management of oligometastatic pancreatic cancer and extended liver surgery, including ALPPS procedures and assessment of future liver remnant volume and function. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Prof. Truant considers peer review essential for ensuring scientific quality: constructive feedback strengthens manuscripts, refines interpretations, enhances literature reliability, and advances patient care. However, the system has limitations, including challenges to reviewer independence in specialized fields (where authors and reviewers often overlap), time constraints limiting in-depth evaluation, and difficulties assessing complex methodologies (e.g., advanced statistics or AI). She advocates a more interactive review process with direct dialogue between reviewers and specialists to improve quality, rigor, and transparency.
Prof. Truant stresses that reviewers, while reviewing manuscripts, should focus on assessing scientific validity, methodological rigor, and study relevance—rather than judging the authors themselves. Objectivity and awareness of potential biases are essential, especially in specialized fields. Reviewers should also acknowledge the limits of their expertise and seek additional methodological or statistical input when necessary. Finally, feedback must remain constructive and respectful, with the goal of helping authors improve their work and contributing to scientific advancement and better patient care.
“I recall reviewing a manuscript addressing a clinically important question with major implications for patient care. However, the methodology had clear sources of bias that could undermine the validity of its conclusions, which I highlighted in my review. Despite the authors providing limited, somewhat dismissive responses, the manuscript was ultimately accepted—likely due to the senior author’s reputation. This experience reinforced the importance of methodological rigor, reviewer independence, and the need for peer review to prioritize scientific quality over author prestige,” says Prof. Truant.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Masato Yoneda
Masato Yoneda, MD, PhD, is Professor and Chair of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Yokohama City University, Japan. An internationally recognized expert in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), he focuses on non-invasive diagnosis and prognostic stratification using vibration-controlled transient elastography and MR elastography. He serves as principal investigator and steering committee member for multiple international MASLD and MASH cohorts and clinical trials, and has contributed to developing global guidelines and consensus statements. His work aims to translate advanced imaging and biomarkers into routine clinical practice to improve long-term MASLD outcomes. He has received numerous academic honors, including UEG Week Best Abstract and Travel Grant Awards, Hepatology Research High Citation Award, three Journal of Gastroenterology High Citation Awards, the Aoki Award, Yokohama City University Medical Society Award, and the President’s and Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Faculty. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Yoneda thinks that major limitations of the existing peer-review system include heavy reviewer burden, inconsistent review quality, and prolonged time for editorial decisions. A positive recent development is that more journals now offer certificates, awards, and other incentives or recognition for reviewers. Further improvements can be achieved through wider adoption of structured review forms, enhanced reviewer training, and greater transparency via open peer review and publication of review reports—all of which can boost the process’s fairness, accountability, and efficiency.
In Dr. Yoneda’s opinion, reviewers should prioritize scientific validity, methodological rigor, and clinical or biological relevance. It is also critical to evaluate manuscripts in a balanced, unbiased manner and provide respectful, constructive, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their work’s quality and clarity—rather than focusing solely on reasons for rejection.
“I once reviewed a manuscript that was poorly written but contained a genuinely interesting and potentially important idea. Through multiple rounds of review and constructive dialogue between reviewers and authors, the study design, data analysis, and presentation gradually improved. The paper was eventually published and gained considerable attention. This experience reminded me that peer review is not merely a gatekeeping process, but also a collaborative effort that helps good science reach its full potential,” says Dr. Yoneda.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
