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

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)