In 2024, JSS 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.
January, 2024
Won Hyung A. Ryu, Oregon Health & Science University, USA
Oscar Krol, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, USA
February, 2024
Patrick Chang, Allegheny Health Network, USA
March, 2024
Robert F McLain, Cleveland State University, USA
May, 2024
Takeo Furuya, Chiba University, Japan
July, 2024
David W. Polly Jr, University of Minnesota, USA
September, 2024
Joshua Wind, Inova Health, USA
January, 2024
Won Hyung A. Ryu
Dr. Won Hyung (Andrew) Ryu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurological Surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, USA. He completed his neurosurgical residency at the University of Calgary and fellowship training in complex and minimally invasive spine surgery at Rush University. Dr. Ryu’s academic focus is on spine surgery with a subspecialty interest in minimally invasive spine surgery and spine oncology. Aside from a busy clinical practice, he continues to be active in clinical and translational research. His research projects range from spine oncology, utilization of artificial intelligence in the management of spinal disorders, simulation-based surgical education, and large database analysis. Dr. Ryu is an executive committee member for the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerve along with a contributing member of the AANS/CNS Joint Guidelines Review Committee. Learn more about him here.
The responsibility of a peer reviewer, according to Dr. Ryu, is to provide an independent and unbiased assessment of scientific research to ensure that published studies have upheld proper standards of the scientific process. This requires the reviewers to be knowledgeable about research methodology, statistics, and the subject matter of interest. Furthermore, reviewers should have an in-depth understanding of the current body of evidence and published research. Utilizing these qualities, reviewers should provide constructive criticism and suggestions to improve the quality of the scientific manuscript. The peer-review process is essential in maintaining the quality of the scientific process and journal integrity.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Ryu believes that reporting guidelines are beneficial for all stakeholders of scientific research, including the authors, the journal, and the readers. They establish standardization of communication along with ensuring key components of the scientific process have been considered for the research project and manuscript.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Oscar Krol
Oscar Krol, a graduating medical student at SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, will begin a surgical prelim year in 2024 with PENN State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. In 2021, he decided to pursue a two-year research fellowship with NYU Langone Department of Orthopedic and Neurological Surgery: Division of Spine Surgery. This position got him involved with every phase of the research process, from abstract conceptualization and analysis all the way to manuscript submission and publication. This fellowship founded his desire to stay involved in academics as a clinician. The experience taught him how valuable it is for physicians to have familiarity with the research process in order to better utilize literature in clinical practice. Additionally, he finds satisfaction and enjoyment in being able to contribute some part, however large or small, to the ever-evolving body of literature which is the foundation for modern medicine.
In Dr. Krol’s experience, a healthy peer-review system is one where open collaboration and debate is encouraged. Being challenged, respectfully, by peers is crucial to provide opportunity for discussion, growth, different perspectives, and ultimately results in higher-quality evidence-based literature. He learned early on to try to leave ego out of academics, because when the goal is not to be right but to learn and advance medicine, the peer-review system works at its best.
To minimize the any potential biases during reviewing, Dr. Krol believes the first step is to acknowledge that these biases will exist, especially if the work being reviewed is potentially challenging to some aspect of the work the reviewer has performed themselves. There are several ways bias can surface and reviewers should be honest with themselves to decide whether they can provide an objective review or perhaps it is better for another peer to offer their insights.
“Throughout my research experience, I have extensively discussed, and circulated my own manuscripts among fellow researchers, followed by a formal review during the publication peer-review process. The feedback and insight received provided ample opportunities to revise and strengthen work to become a higher-quality contribution to literature. Collaboration was absolutely essential and guided my growth as a researcher. Now with more experience, I enjoy paying it forward and also find satisfaction in contributing to literature in a different way, which is essential for further development as an academic clinician,” says Dr. Krol.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Patrick Chang
Patrick Chang is a rising MD graduate of Drexel University College of Medicine and a research affiliate with Allegheny Health Network (AHN) Neuroscience Institute. His primary research with the AHN Neuroscience Institute focuses on spine deformity, spine quality, and patient-reported outcomes. He has a basic science research background working with Drexel University’s graduate Neurobiology and Anatomy Department investigating therapies for Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia. Under the Humanities division at Drexel University College of Medicine, he explores topics of medical humanities, including neurotics, the experience of illness, social determinants of health, and the relationship between art and medicine.
Speaking of the qualities a reviewer should possess, Dr. Chang points out that, first and foremost, a reviewer should be honest. That honesty can come in different forms, but it should always be with the priority of establishing a learning environment. Any submissions presented are a culmination of hard work and discovery, and it is our job as the reviewers to simulate the reader’s experience whilst ensuring that what is being read is held to the professionalism befitting of an academic journal. As a reviewer, he more greatly upholds the inquisitive and critical-thinking approach than assuming that one is inherently knowledgeable in the topic being presented. He believes that it is the reviewer's prerogative to verse themselves in any background knowledge that may enhance their understanding of the material while taking note that it is okay to point out where clarification may be needed. The process of reviewing should be less like an evaluation and more of a communication to determine if the key findings that the submitters are attempting to convey are properly elucidated. He adds, “At the end of the day, we have the privilege of participating in the greater machine of collective knowledge, so our intentions to ensure the quality of that knowledge and its delivery should be of essential priority over any associated accolades that may be achieved from the review process.”
According to Dr. Chang, an objective review is grounded on evidence for any logical suggestion or interpretation mentioned that is not premised on feedback related to the subjective read of the individual reviewer. That is not to say that some subjectivity is without its merits. For instance, he believes that it is perfectly appropriate to pose questions for clarification because something simply does not make sense to the reviewer, as that could be valuable feedback for the submitters as they improve the writing of their material for their target collegial audience. However, the premise of the review should be stationed in universally agreed-upon standards. Grammar, formatting, and professionalism are excellent points of scrutiny, especially with international papers. For medical journals, a proper fund of medical knowledge can be addressed with evidence to ensure that the conclusions being drawn follow a rational pattern and are not driven by researcher bias. Open-ended academic questions that further the discussion presented by the submitters can also be posed for inspiration.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Chang believes that reporting guidelines are validated tools that can help any author understand the process of an objective review of their submission, and to that end, he is not opposed to the implementation of these guidelines to fulfill reproducible self-evaluations. However, he thinks the quality of any written material, be that a submission or a review, is in its utility as constructive information, and therefore the use of reporting guidelines is not of necessary import if the information itself can be shared more concisely and understandably.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Robert F McLain
Dr. Robert McLain is a spine surgeon and educator who has spent his career treating a wide variety of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar disorders. As an acknowledged expert in the diagnosis and treatment of complex spinal disorders, including scoliosis, fractures, tumors and infections, Dr. McLain’s recent focus has been on disc replacement surgery for the cervical and lumbar spine. Trained in Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Iowa, he completed an NIH Research Fellow before Spine Surgery Fellowship. He has authored over 190 peer-reviewed articles and chapters and served as the Principle Investigator on many research and surgical trials. He is a recipient of the AOA’s North American and American-British-Canadian Traveling Fellowships, and OREF and NASS Research awards. He has also served as an editor/reviewer for several top-tier academic journals. He has earned Top Doctor recognition annually since 2006 and Crain’s Healthcare Hero Award in 2012. He is the Past-President of the Mid America Orthopaedic Association, and the President-elect of the Western Orthopaedic Foundation, 2024. Connect with him on Facebook.
Dr. McLain points out a few qualities that he believes a reviewer should possess. First of all, reviewers need to remain curious. They need to be excited by their field and maintain an unwavering interest in the new developments and trends that advance their specialty and its underlying science. At the same time, they have to have a little streak of cynicism: they cannot take things at face value and assume the authors have thought their experiment, their analysis, or their conclusions through correctly. And they have to be interested enough in the process to read carefully, read the supporting literature – if they do not know it already – and think about how a flawed study or manuscript might be made better, or see where a great sounding paper might be making an unsound assumption. The best reviewers will be constructive, will educate and guide, as well as criticize. “My very first manuscript was a case report, four pages in length. The editor’s comments - from an esteemed JBJS reviewer - was 4 1/2 pages, single-spaced, and contained a wealth of advice and recommendations that have stuck with me to this day!” adds Dr. McLain.
Dr. McLain believes that reviewers must ensure that the methods used were appropriate to the study and that they were carried out carefully and properly. They must also ensure that the conclusions proposed are supported by the data and the analysis. Finally, the reviewers have to make a judgement – whether the findings and the observations are of sufficient interest and value to the readership of that particular journal, or whether they would be better presented in another journal.
“The world of medical science and clinical research continues to expand. While we need more avenues to present our ongoing work and discoveries, it is crucial that open-access and any other journal maintain strict guidelines for peer review and critique,” says Dr. McLain.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Takeo Furuya
Takeo Furuya works at Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine. He got a master degree in Niigata University School of Medicine in 2001 and PhD degree in postgraduate course of Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine in 2009. His research area focuses on ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament, cervical spondylotic myelopathy, spinal cord tumor, metastasis in spine lesion, spinal cord injury, and stem cell therapy and other regenerative therapy for spinal cord injury. He is involved in Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Clinical Guideline Committee (2018-present), the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related research (JSSR), Committee for Promotion of Collaboration among Spine-related Societies (2021-Present), AO Spine Japan Council (2022-present).
In Dr. Furuya’s opinion, the benefit of peer review to the reader is that the paper has been proven to have a certain level of reliability. The advantage for the authors is that they can improve the quality and integrity of their papers by interacting with the reviewers.
Dr. Furuya reckons that peer review must be conducted in an impartial manner. Although there may be research submissions that go against reviewer's own opinion at times, it is inappropriate to give a negative evaluation for that reason. He places emphasis on whether the structure of the paper is appropriate for a scientific paper, and whether the paper is logically organized from hypothesis to results and their considerations. If the paper contains only data that are convenient for authors, or if it cites only papers that are convenient for them, this will be asked during the peer-review process.
“Until a few years ago, I basically accepted all peer-review requests, but the enormous volume of requests has recently made it impossible for me to keep up with deadlines. Therefore, recently I started to accept requests only in my field of expertise, even within the spine. The peer-review system in the past was based on the honor of being asked to review scientific papers and the volunteer spirit of those who accepted the review requests. However, today we live in a world where the working style of medical doctors is under discussion, and whether the time medical doctors spend at their desks is work or research by him/herself is a significant unresolved issue. Another aspect is that some researchers are so busy submitting papers that they mechanically decline all requests for peer review. Peer-review requests are concentrated on a few well-intentioned researchers. The development of article search, translation software, and AI technology has made it easier to write papers than before, and the number of submissions is increasing exponentially. It is time to reconsider the current reward-free peer-review system,” says Dr. Furuya.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
David W. Polly Jr
Dr. David W. Polly Jr graduated from West Point and entered the Army Corps of Engineers before attending Medical School. He earned his medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), completed his residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and pursued a fellowship at the Twin Cities Scoliosis Spine Center. His initial efforts focused on pragmatic biomechanical research on spinal instrumentation, with a particular interest in spine deformity. In the early 2000s, he had the opportunity to participate in study groups that significantly advanced the state of the art in spine surgery. His current interests include spine deformity, sacroiliac joint and buttock pain, patient outcomes, patient-specific risk stratification, optimizing patient-specific sagittal alignment, and surgical techniques to achieve that alignment.
JSS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Polly Jr: Look at the value of the information: Is it new? Is it additive to existing knowledge? Will it be a useful addition to the literature? If so, I try to positively guide the authors toward creating the best possible version. Guidelines like STROBE, PRISMA and CONSORT are invaluable in streamlining this process. I really gravitate to the figures, tables, and diagrams.
JSS: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Polly Jr: Data sharing is a maturing aspect of research. The challenge of collecting high-quality data is very real. We owe it to the community to get the maximum out of the patients and researchers who made the effort to collect this data. Determining who should have access to data and how to allocate credit for data collection is an evolving issue. I believe that simply requesting data does not merit unfettered access to it. There should be a clear reason to look at data, a defined analysis plan, and a capable team to successfully carry out the project. When these criteria are met, access should be granted.
JSS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes?
Dr. Polly Jr: This is demanding, uncompensated work, but essential—without it, quality declines. It can also be inspiring to see what’s coming next.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Joshua Wind
Dr. Joshua Wind is a board-certified neurosurgeon at Inova Health in Virginia. He specializes in general neurosurgery with a focus on minimally invasive and motion preserving spine surgery. He has held faculty appointments at the University of Virginia, George Washington University and Johns Hopkins University. He graduated cum laude and Alpha Omega Alpha from Loyola University Chicago – Stritch School of Medicine. He then completed his internship and neurosurgical residency at George Washington University Hospital. This training included a fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, where he received specialized training in pituitary tumours and neuro-oncology. He is involved in clinical research, serving as an investigator for clinical trials involving bone growth stimulators, cellular based allografts, and lumbar arthroplasty devices. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Wind, a constructive review brings feedback to a submitting author that can be used to shape and hone a manuscript, such that it is improved for publication. The goal of the review is to not only determine that a submission meets criteria for publication, but also to pose questions and comments that could help the author to better present their data and conclusions.
Dr. Wind indicates that peer review is the vital component of the scientific publication process, whereby research is evaluated and critiqued, ensuring its validity and asking questions that help drive forward scientific process. The process is critical for ensuring that research is of high quality, and also for probing the questions that help authors to push forward scientific investigation.
“JSS provides a multidisciplinary journal focusing on clinical spine surgery. This gives scientists from orthopaedics, neurosurgery, neurology, physiatry and other disciplines the opportunity to focus on clinical spine surgery in a peer-reviewed, open access format that is not hidden behind paywalls,” says Dr. Wind.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
