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
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)
