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
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)
