In 2025, 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.
Daisuke Fukuhara, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Japan
Tan Chen, Geisinger Health, USA
Gokhan Sertcakacilar, University of Health Sciences, Turkey
Tamara Soh, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
Fedan Avrumova, Hospital for Special Surgery, USA
José Manuel Orenday-Barraza, NYC Health + Hospitals/Harlem, USA
Tomoyuki Asada, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Glen Zi Qiang Liau, National University Hospital, Singapore
Dong Hyun Lee, SNU Seoul Hospital, Korea
Fabio Roberti, The George Washington University, USA
Paul G. Mastrokostas, Maimonides Medical Center, USA
Misaki Sakashita, Tokyo University of Science, Japan
Matthew Henry Pelletier, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Prince of Wales Hospital, Australia
Spyridon Komaitis, the Queen’s Medical Centre, UK
Daisuke Fukuhara
Dr. Daisuke Fukuhara graduated from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine in 2018 and completed his internship at Rakuwakai Marutamachi Hospital.
Then, he trained as a resident in Orthopedics at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine. Currently, he serves as an assistant professor in the Department of Orthopedics at Nippon Medical School Hospital. His specialty is spine surgery, particularly full-endoscopic spine surgery (FESS), which enables him to treat spine diseases minimally invasively as well as necessary and sufficient. He has received multiple awards in the field of full-endoscopic spine surgery. Learn more about him here.
Speaking of the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Fukuhara thinks that reviewers often lack sufficient time to thoroughly assess manuscripts, leading to rushed or less comprehensive reviews. To improve this, establishing reward systems could be effective. Additionally, providing training and feedback would help improve the quality and consistency of reviews. Offering training for reviewers and feedback on their evaluations would enable them to provide more high-quality, constructive reviews.
“I find it a privilege to contribute to maintaining high academic standards. It allows me to stay informed about the latest research, critically appraise articles, and provide constructive feedback that can improve the quality of scientific work. Additionally, it is a valuable educational experience, helping me hone my skills in evaluating research while learning from other experts in the field. Peer reviewing also facilitates communication with like-minded colleagues, fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing,” says Dr. Fukuhara.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tan Chen
Dr. Tan Chen is a double board-certified and fellowship-trained orthopedic spine surgeon and assistant professor at Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania, USA, specializing in minimally invasive techniques, outpatient surgery, enhanced recovery, and complex spinal reconstructions. He completed his undergraduate studies in neuroscience with high honors at Dartmouth College and Harvard University, followed by his medical studies at Michigan State University. At the University of Toronto, he completed his residency in orthopedic surgery and subsequently a combined orthopedic and neurosurgical fellowship in complex spine and trauma surgery. His research interests include enhanced recovery after surgery, patient outcomes, emerging technologies and techniques, medical education and healthcare economics. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Chen’s opinion, the current peer-review system is critical to medical publication, but it has several limitations including reviewer bias, lack of transparency, and reviewer time constraints. Peer reviewers often introduce personal bias, especially when reviewing research that contradicts their own view. Introducing double- or triple-blind reviews, as well as a diverse reviewer pool can help neutralize this. Lack of transparency is a major issue as the review process is often opaque. This can make it difficult for authors to improve their work effectively. Journals could implement open peer review, where reviewer comments and identities are publicly disclosed. This would increase accountability and help authors understand the rationale behind decisions. Lastly, reviewers are often voluntary and limited by time, which can lead to rushed evaluations. Journals could offer compensation, such as financial incentives or professional credits, for those who participate in the review process.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. According to Dr. Chen, he always tries to remain as objective as possible and be aware of any personal biases or perspectives that he carries. This is especially true when reviewing articles which disagree with his medical practice and beliefs.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Chen thinks that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is essential in research to ensure ethical standards and participant protection. The board ensures that protocols involving human participants comply with ethical guidelines, legal requirements, and minimizes risks. Without IRB oversight, research could engage in unethical practices, face legal and regulatory consequences, reputational damage, and even lose funding sources.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gokhan Sertcakacilar
Dr. Gokhan Sertcakacilar is an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, affiliated with the University of Health Sciences in Istanbul, Turkey. He completed his residency in Anesthesiology at the same institution, followed by a research fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation’s Department of Outcomes Research. His academic interests include perioperative outcomes, regional anesthesia, and noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring. Dr. Sertcakacilar has authored over 30 peer-reviewed articles and contributed to several book chapters. He serves on the Editorial Board of BMC Anesthesiology and is an active peer reviewer for multiple scientific journals. Recently, he co-authored a multicenter randomized controlled trial published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine and a cohort study featured in Anesthesiology. He frequently delivers lectures and leads hands-on workshops in regional anesthesia. His current focus is on integrating evidence-based monitoring and anesthesia techniques to enhance surgical outcomes and patient safety.
JSS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Sertcakacilar: A competent reviewer should have sufficient expertise in the relevant field, a critical but constructive mindset, and a strong sense of academic integrity. They should also be familiar with research methodologies, statistical analysis, and the ethical standards of scientific publishing. In addition, successful reviewers should avoid both personal biases and conflicts of interest, and be committed to fairness and confidentiality. They should be able to provide detailed, balanced feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also offers constructive suggestions for improvement. Throughout my experience as a reviewer, I have found that providing respectful, actionable, and precise feedback not only supports authors, but also enhances my own critical thinking and scientific writing skills. Furthermore, time commitment and clear communication are essential to maintaining the efficiency of the publication process.
JSS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Sertcakacilar: Peer review serves as a cornerstone of the scientific method, ensuring that published research meets established standards of quality, credibility, and relevance. It provides a systematic evaluation of research by independent experts, thereby detecting methodological flaws, enhancing clarity, and strengthening the validity of scientific claims. Peer review acts as a filter that prevents the dissemination of unsubstantiated findings while encouraging continuous improvement through critical feedback. Furthermore, it fosters intellectual exchange and accountability within the scientific community. In my view, peer review is a constructive and collaborative process that improves the quality of research, promotes scientific progress, and builds public trust in science.
JSS: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Sertcakacilar: An objective review requires evaluating a manuscript solely on its scientific merit, regardless of the authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, or reputational factors. Objectivity requires focusing on the rigor of the methodology, the validity of the data analysis, and the relevance of the results. To maintain objectivity, each manuscript should be systematically evaluated against predefined criteria such as study design, statistical soundness, ethical compliance, and clarity of reporting. All reviews should be provided based on evidence, and a structured, criteria-driven approach should be used to ensure fairness and impartiality throughout the review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tamara Soh
Dr. Tamara Soh is an esteemed orthopaedic and spine surgeon at Tan Tock Seng Hospital in Singapore. Specializing in minimally invasive spine surgery, with a focus on robotic-assisted and endoscopic techniques, her research delves into innovative approaches in these areas. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Speaking of a healthy peer-review system, Dr. Soh emphasizes that it should enable reviewers to offer objective and critical evaluations of research. Such assessments allow authors to refine their work and enhance the methodologies of current and future studies. By doing so, the overall quality of research improves, which ultimately benefits patients.
Despite peer review often being anonymous and unremunerated, Dr. Soh is motivated by its significance. She believes that peer review ensures the research published meets high-quality qualitative and quantitative standards. This process enriches the academic community, facilitating knowledge sharing, fostering collaborations, and creating new research opportunities. For her, participating in peer review within her passionate field is a privilege.
Dr. Soh also shared an interesting aspect of her review experience. She often speculates about the identity of the authors of the articles she reviews and finds it intriguing to see if her guesses are correct when the articles are finally published. Her insights and experiences highlight the importance and unique aspects of the peer-review process in the medical field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Fedan Avrumova holds the position of Rama and Shashi Marda Spine Research Fellow and Clinical Research Coordinator within the Integrated Spine Research Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. She obtained a Master of Science in Interdisciplinary Biomedical Sciences from New York Medical College. Her research focus lies in integrating advanced imaging modalities, surgical navigation, and minimally invasive techniques in spine surgery. She places particular emphasis on augmented reality–assisted surgical planning and the accuracy of MRI registration in robotically navigated systems. Under the guidance of Dr. Darren Lebl and Dr. Celeste Abjornson, Fedan continues to lead a strong research program. She has authored more than twenty-five articles in peer-reviewed international journals, all of which are indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Fedan reckons that a healthy peer-review system protects the integrity and progress of scientific research. It ensures that published works meet strict standards of quality, validity, and reliability. It needs to combine surgical expertise with methodological rigor, so that innovations in instruments, navigation, and clinical outcomes can truly promote patient care. Such a system should be based on fairness, transparency, and constructive participation, encouraging open dialogue in the global research community. Constructive dialogue is equally important: reviewers should point out the strengths of a manuscript and put forward specific suggestions to address its weaknesses. An effective peer-review process also values diverse perspectives, using the different expertise of reviewers and authors to evaluate various methodologies, study designs, and clinical approaches. In the end, a healthy peer-review system not only acts as a filter for quality but also serves as a collaborative platform for learning, mentorship, and the continuous development of medical science.
According to Fedan, reviewers must judge whether a manuscript addresses a meaningful clinical question or presents a real innovation instead of repeating established concepts. They should strictly evaluate all aspects of the methodology, ensuring that each part is transparent, properly justified, and free from bias. Moreover, considering both the author's and the reader's perspectives helps to make sure that the manuscript is well-organized, methodologically sound, and clearly conveys its clinical significance. Feedback should recognize strengths, such as novel techniques or robust datasets, and provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. Through timely, thorough, and balanced evaluations, peer reviewers maintain scientific integrity and advance the discipline.
“Peer reviewers are vital to upholding the integrity and progression of scientific research. By rigorously evaluating study design, methodology, and data interpretation, they ensure that published work adheres to the highest standards of rigor, transparency, and reproducibility. Their efforts safeguard the quality of the scientific record and guide the responsible dissemination of findings that inform clinical practice and future investigations. In this way, peer review not only underpins scholarly publishing but also drives the continual evolution of scientific knowledge across disciplines,” says Fedan.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
José Manuel Orenday-Barraza
Jose Manuel Orenday-Barraza is a Mexican physician currently undertaking his residency at NYC Health + Hospitals/Harlem in New York City. His research career initiated at the Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía in Mexico City, later advancing through fellowships at the Arkansas Neuroscience Institute and the University of Arizona in Phoenix. During these periods, he contributed to spine and cranial neurosurgery projects, involving meta-analyses, cadaveric dissections, illustrations, and surgical video editing. He subsequently completed two preliminary surgical years at the University of Minnesota—one in Neurosurgery and another in General Surgery. With over 30 peer-reviewed publications, predominantly in spine surgery, Orenday-Barraza has been honored with the Charles Kuntz IV Scholar Award from the AANS/CNS Spine Section. His current academic focus lies in Artificial Intelligence and surgical/interventional innovation, and he collaborates on research with spine and neurosurgeons across the U.S. and internationally. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JSS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Orenday-Barraza: Peer review plays a critical role in keeping science honest and meaningful. It acts as a filter to help ensure that published research is sound, relevant, and based on solid evidence. It’s one of the main ways we maintain trust in the scientific process.
JSS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Orenday-Barraza: As a reviewer, I think it’s important to be fair, constructive, and respectful. The goal is to help improve the work while also protecting the standards of the field. That means focusing on the science itself—its methods, results, and clarity—while keeping personal opinions and biases out of it. Also, discussing with other experts can offer useful insights and help avoid confirmation bias during the review.
JSS: The burden of being a doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Orenday-Barraza: As a resident, balancing clinical duties with academic responsibilities is challenging. I allocate time for peer review by carefully scheduling it during evenings or weekends and prioritizing reviews that align with my expertise. I also set clear time limits to ensure timely completion without compromising my clinical performance. This disciplined approach allows me to contribute effectively to the scientific community while fulfilling my primary responsibilities.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tomoyuki Asada
Dr. Tomoyuki Asada currently serves at Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Dr. Asada indicates that peer review is vital to science, refining logic and enhancing clarity. It subjects connections between observations and ideas to objective scrutiny, sharpening reasoning and elevating research quality. Authors and reviewers, as collaborators, engage in mutual learning through respectful dialogue, driving science forward.
Dr. Asada advises reviewers to look beyond presentation to assess data value, impact, and logical consistency—rooted in meticulous observation. They should bear in mind evaluating whether data are used effectively and explore its untapped potential, acting as collaborators to help authors communicate their work optimally, ensuring valuable findings benefit the academic community and society.
In addition, Dr. Asada advocates the promotion of data sharing. Despite constraints like security and compliance, reproducibility demands transparency. Sharing data and analysis methods enables broader evaluation and diverse interpretations. In clinical medicine, global access to data fosters new insights by combining varied expertise, transforming isolated observations into universal knowledge and advancing science collectively.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Glen Zi Qiang Liau
Dr. Glen Liau is an Orthopaedic surgeon at the National University Hospital (NUH) and Alexandra Hospital, and an Assistant Professor at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, where he specializes in adult reconstruction and joint replacement arthroplasty surgery. He is currently completing his clinical and research fellowship with the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at Stanford University. His research focuses on robotic-assisted joint replacement, innovative surgical techniques and devices for Orthopaedic procedures. He holds the first known patent on AI algorithm for soft tissue balancing and bone cuts in robotic total knee arthroplasty. Dr Liau has received multiple national and international innovation and research awards and is the principal investigator of several funded studies totalling more than $1.5M as of 2025. He also serves as Deputy Chief Medical Informatics Officer at NUH, leading initiatives in EMR optimization and clinical decision support. In recognition of his service and contributions, he has been invited to speak at numerous conferences and has mentored future clinician-scientists across various levels of training. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JSS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Liau: A good reviewer must possess a deep understanding of the subject matter, a critical yet constructive mindset, and a strong sense of integrity. Timeliness, clarity in communication, and the ability to provide actionable feedback are equally essential. Beyond evaluating scientific merit and methodology, a reviewer should be committed to upholding ethical standards, fostering academic rigor, and supporting authors in improving the quality of their work.
JSS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr Liau: While peer review remains the cornerstone of scientific publishing, it faces several challenges—including variability in review quality, delayed timelines, lack of transparency, and the frequent undervaluation of reviewer contributions. Many dedicated reviewers remain anonymous and unrecognized despite the critical role they play in upholding scientific integrity. Structured reviewer training, clearer evaluation frameworks, and judicious use of AI-assisted checks can help improve both consistency and efficiency. In this regard, I commend JSS for its innovative initiative to spotlight a “Reviewer of the Month.” Recognizing and appreciating reviewers publicly not only motivates continued excellence but also affirms the importance of peer review as a scholarly contribution. Such initiatives foster a culture of accountability, recognition, and engagement — elements that are vital to strengthening the academic review ecosystem.
JSS: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr Liau: Absolutely. Reporting guidelines like STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and CARE ensure that manuscripts are presented with clarity, transparency, and completeness. They enhance reproducibility and reduce ambiguity in methodology and interpretation. For reviewers, adherence to these guidelines simplifies the evaluation process and elevates the overall scientific quality. Encouraging their use is a step toward standardizing excellence in research reporting and fostering trust in published findings.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Dong Hyun Lee
Dong Hyun Lee is a spine surgeon at the Spine Center, SNU Seoul Hospital (Seoul, Korea), with adjunct roles at CHA University and the Catholic University of Korea. He specializes in minimally invasive and endoscopic spine surgery, focusing on preserving spinal function and stability. He uses fusion-deferral strategies for personalized care, with endoscopic fusion as a key approach when fusion is needed. His work also explores integrating navigation, robotics, and computer-assisted systems into endoscopy, plus optimizing fusion materials (water-based endomaterials, biologic cages, DBM composites) to boost precision and healing, aiming to advance endoscopy for spine decompression and fusion.
JSS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Lee: Reviewers should provide constructive and balanced feedback. The role is not only to accept or reject but to ensure that studies are reliable, reproducible, and clinically meaningful. In spine surgery, clarity of methodology and consistency of outcomes are essential. A thoughtful review highlights strengths, identifies redundancies, and recognizes innovative aspects. Ultimately, reviewers help improve the quality of research and protect the scientific community from weak evidence while encouraging authors to refine their work for stronger impact.
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. Lee: Data sharing enhances transparency and allows stronger evidence, especially where large trials are difficult. It should always be done responsibly, with patient privacy protected and results interpreted in the right context. At the same time, the efforts of those who collected and curated the data must be acknowledged, so that their contribution is fairly valued within the scientific community.
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. Lee: Reviewers are often unseen contributors, yet their efforts are vital to scientific progress. Although recognition is limited, the impact of careful reviews is significant. Reviewing allows us to stay engaged with new ideas and to help shape the standards of our field. Each constructive comment strengthens the evidence base and ultimately improves patient care.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Fabio Roberti
Dr. Fabio Roberti is a Clinical Professor of Neurosurgery and a board-certified neurosurgeon, specializing in minimally invasive cranial and spinal neurosurgery and endoscopic skull base surgery—key areas focused on advancing precision and reducing invasiveness in neurosurgical care. His medical training and early academic leadership were centered at The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, where he completed his Internship, Neurosurgery Residency, and a specialized Fellowship. During his tenure there, he held impactful leadership roles: Co-Director of Endoscopic Pituitary and Skull Base Surgery, Director of Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, and Director of the H. Ammerman Microsurgery Laboratory—positions that allowed him to shape training in advanced neurosurgical techniques and drive innovation in minimally invasive care. Beyond academia, he has led clinical program development at leading healthcare institutions. He served as Center of Neurosciences Director at Cleveland Clinic Florida and later took on dual roles as Chief of Neurosurgery and Chairman of Surgery at Indian River Medical Center, where he established a dedicated Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery program—expanding access to patient-centered, technologically advanced spinal care. He is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons (FACS), a published author, and an active peer reviewer for numerous scientific articles and journals. He maintains membership in prestigious medical organizations, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS)—reflecting his commitment to upholding high standards of neurosurgical practice and contributing to the broader scientific community.
JSS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Roberti: The ideal reviewer must first be a scholar in their field, with a strong, up-to-date understanding of relevant literature—ensuring they can contextualize research within the latest advancements. Equally critical is scientific curiosity: a prerequisite that enables reviewers (and researchers/physicians) to remain open to exploring novel approaches, techniques, or treatments that challenge established norms. This openness is essential for identifying work that may eventually lead to new discoveries in neurosurgery and beyond.
JSS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Roberti: The reviewers’ contributions to the publication process have long been underrecognized. Only recently have journals begun formal acknowledgment—such as granting review certificates or temporary free access to medical databases—and some medical boards now allow reviewers to claim CME credits for their time.
To further improve the system, there are two priorities:
- sustaining and expanding this recognition to incentivize high-quality, timely reviews;
- ensuring reviewers remain qualified and uphold excellent practice standards—foundations for maintaining an unbiased, ethical peer-review process that preserves the integrity of scientific publishing.
JSS: 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. Roberti: I believe publication guidelines are certainly helpful when it comes to comparing similar studies or when compiling meta-analyses of available data/clinical guidelines. Adherence to such guidelines may in fact help the reviewer with the analysis/comparison of the raw data and minimize the risk of reporting and sampling errors while organizing the research/study.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Paul G. Mastrokostas
Dr. Paul G. Mastrokostas is affiliated with SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University and Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, NY. His research centers on degenerative spine surgery with an emphasis on national trends, surgical outcomes, and health economics. He has authored more than 40 peer-reviewed publications in leading journals, including the Journal of Spine Surgery, The Spine Journal, European Spine Journal, and Global Spine Journal. His work applies large database analyses and advanced statistical methods to study utilization patterns, cost drivers, and complications in spine surgery, with the goal of improving evidence-based decision-making and patient care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JSS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Mastrokostas: A reviewer should balance subject-matter expertise with fairness, professionalism, and a constructive mindset. Expertise ensures accurate evaluation of study design, methodology, and clinical relevance, while fairness helps minimize bias toward particular authors or institutions. Professionalism requires timely, respectful reviews, as delays can hinder the dissemination of important findings. Beyond identifying limitations, the most valuable reviewers provide clear, actionable feedback that strengthens manuscripts and contributes to the advancement of the field.
JSS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Mastrokostas: Peer review remains the cornerstone of scientific publishing, but it has notable challenges. Review quality is variable, with some evaluations being thorough and others superficial. Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, can influence outcomes, particularly for authors from underrepresented regions or institutions. Reviewer fatigue is also an issue as submission volumes increase, leading to delays. Improvements could include structured training for early-career reviewers to standardize expectations, wider adoption of double-blind review to reduce bias, and greater recognition of reviewer contributions in academic promotion. Journals may also benefit from technological support, such as automated reporting guideline checks or statistical verification tools, which would streamline the process and allow reviewers to focus more on clinical interpretation and relevance.
JSS: 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. Mastrokostas: Yes, adherence to reporting guidelines is critical. These frameworks ensure that essential elements of study design, methodology, and outcomes are presented consistently, enhancing clarity and reproducibility. From a reviewer’s perspective, manuscripts that follow CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA are easier to evaluate because the necessary information is clearly organized. This improves the efficiency of the review process and builds confidence in the validity of the findings. In spine surgery, where clinical decisions carry long-term consequences, transparent reporting is essential to ensure evidence is both reliable and interpretable. Without these standards, critical details may be omitted, leaving reviewers uncertain about the strength of the conclusions. Ultimately, consistent use of reporting guidelines raises the quality of the scientific literature and supports evidence-based improvements in patient care.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Misaki Sakashita
Dr. Misaki Sakashita, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Biological Science, Faculty of Science and Technology at Tokyo University of Science. She earned her PhD in Science from Osaka University in 2021, following the completion of her undergraduate studies at the same institution. Her research focuses on the morphology and computational biology of vertebrae, with a specialized focus on teleost fish. At the core of her work is a fundamental question: how bone shapes form and adapt under mechanical loads. Leveraging topology optimization—a computational method that mimics bone’s adaptive responses to stress—she has developed three-dimensional mathematical models that successfully reproduce the external shapes of teleost vertebrae. This innovation addresses a longstanding gap in bone research, as prior topology optimization applications primarily focused on internal trabecular structures rather than external morphology. By applying varied external loads and adjusting geometric parameters (e.g., hourglass shape width) to her models, she has replicated species-specific variations in teleost vertebral shapes, validating the hypothesis that bone form adapts to external mechanical forces. Her interdisciplinary work bridges biology, mathematics, and engineering, shedding critical light on structural adaptation and shape formation in vertebrates. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Sakashita reckons that peer review ensures the quality of scientific papers. During the review process, reviewers should verify that the new findings and insights presented in the paper are objectively supported by the data.
According to Dr. Sakashita, an objective review is the process of verifying whether reasonable results have been obtained from experiments conducted using reliable methods. The key criteria for an objective review are to accurately and thoroughly understand the experimental methods and to carefully examine whether the figures and graphs presenting the data are sufficiently clear and precise to support the results. To meet these criteria, she also reviews the cited literature and related studies to confirm that the results presented in the manuscript are logically consistent with the methods used.
“Researchers always have heavy workloads, but I try to minimize non-research duties as much as possible to allocate enough time to concentrate on my research. To conduct an objective and thorough review, if the review deadline is too short, I may recommend another reviewer, depending on my workload and availability,” says Dr. Sakashita.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matthew Henry Pelletier
Dr. Matthew Henry Pelletier is a Senior Research Fellow at the Surgical & Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney. He holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in Biomedical Engineering from UNSW, alongside a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of North Dakota (UND). His research focuses on biomaterial-tissue interactions, evaluating in vivo and in vitro implant performance, and refining surgical interventions. His expertise spans biomechanical testing, imaging analysis, histological evaluation, and metallurgy. His specific research projects cover spinal biomechanics (including nucleus pulposus replacements and fusion), bone graft substitutes, rotator cuff repair, fracture fixation, and vascular device evaluation. With over 3,000 citations for his peer-reviewed publications, he serves as a reviewer for numerous orthopaedic and biomedical journals. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Pelletier views a constructive review as a rigorous “stress test” for the science: it checks if the methodology supports the conclusions and, even when rejecting, offers clear guidance for improvement. A destructive review is vague or dismissive (e.g., “not novel” or “statistics wrong” without evidence) and attacks authors instead of the work. He emphasizes respect, recognizing multidisciplinary efforts and limited reviewer context. Reviewing well helps authors clarify points that readers will also question.
Dr. Pelletier thinks that industry-academic collaboration is often vital for innovation, especially in translational fields like biomedical engineering. A disclosed Conflict of Interest (COI) does not invalidate research—but it does have the potential to significantly influence it, which is precisely why disclosure is mandatory. COI can impact research at every stage: from study design (e.g., selecting a weak comparator) to data analysis and final reporting (e.g., overstating positive findings or downplaying negative ones). The purpose of disclosure is to enable reviewers and readers to critically appraise the work with full context, ensuring conclusions align with results. Transparency is the scientific community’s self-correction mechanism; an undisclosed COI deprives reviewers and readers of the context needed for appropriate scrutiny.
One of Dr. Pelletier’s favorite stories in review is diving into the supporting and conflicting literature cited in manuscripts. “I often get a kick out of seeing that someone else has referenced the same obscure or niche studies that I value. Even better if I was part of the team for the referenced study,” he shares.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Spyridon Komaitis
Mr. Spyridon Komaitis MD, MSc, PhD, FRCS (Eng) is a consultant-level Spinal Neurosurgeon affiliated with the Centre for Spinal Studies and Surgery at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham, United Kingdom. He specialises in minimally invasive spinal surgery, adult deformity, and complex reconstructive techniques, and completed the Royal College of Surgeons-accredited Advanced Spinal Fellowship at the unit, where he now practises as an Associate Consultant Spinal Surgeon. He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. He has an active academic profile, with ~60 PubMed-indexed publications (H-index 16). His research interests include biomechanical studies, development and refinement of neurosurgical techniques in spine surgery, microsurgical anatomy of the spine, and the anatomy of the motor system. He contributes as a reviewer and guest editor for several international journals and maintains broad involvement in professional organisations dedicated to the advancement of spinal surgery. Learn more about him here.
JSS: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Mr. Komaitis: A healthy peer-review system is one that protects the integrity of the scientific process while nurturing the growth of authors and ideas. In spinal surgery—where evidence directly shapes decisions that affect mobility, neurological function, and quality of life—rigorous and balanced review is essential. To me, a healthy system is transparent in its expectations, consistent in its standards, and genuinely constructive. It is a dialogue rather than a judgement. When reviewers focus not only on identifying weaknesses, but also on helping authors elevate their work, the system becomes a true engine for progress in our field.
JSS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Mr. Komaitis: As both an author and reviewer, I see the limitations from both sides. Reviewer availability is often strained, leading to delays or variable depth of review. Bias—whether toward certain institutions, methodologies, or even surgical philosophies—can subtly influence outcomes. Additionally, the rapid expansion of spinal research sometimes outpaces the mechanisms in place to ensure consistent review quality. Improvements begin with structure and support. Standardized review frameworks, reviewer training, and AI-assisted initial screening can allow reviewers to focus on scientific merit and clinical relevance rather than administrative details. Encouraging a more open culture—where constructive comments are valued as scholarly contributions—could strengthen accountability and promote higher-quality reviews. Recognition of reviewing as academic labour, rather than invisible service, would also help sustain a strong reviewer community.
JSS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Mr. Komaitis: My motivation is rooted in my clinical practice and academic journey. Every day, I rely on published evidence to guide decisions that impact patients’ lives. Reviewing is my way of ensuring that the evidence we all depend on is as robust and clinically meaningful as possible. I also view it as a form of professional mentorship—an opportunity to support colleagues, especially early-career researchers, by offering clear and constructive feedback. On a personal level, reviewing keeps me intellectually sharp; it exposes me to innovative approaches, helps me refine my own research, and reminds me why scientific inquiry is central to surgical progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
