In 2026, 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.
Hiroshi Kageyama, Tokushima University and Anan Medical Center, Japan
Amna Hussein, Houston Methodist Hospital, USA
Prashant V. Rajan, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, USA
Hiroshi Kageyama
Dr. Hiroshi Kageyama graduated from the National Defense Medical College in 2003 and joined the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, where he served as a medical officer. He completed his neurosurgical residency at the National Defense Medical College Hospital and became a board-certified neurosurgeon. He also received his PhD in Medicine from Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine. He subsequently practiced primarily in spine surgery at hospitals affiliated with the National Defense Medical College. Since 2024, he has been serving as a specially appointed lecturer at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tokushima University and Anan Medical Center, where he is further refining his expertise in spine surgery, particularly full-endoscopic spinal surgery.
From Dr. Kageyama’s perspective, a healthy peer-review system should be fair, constructive, and grounded in appropriate expertise. He believes that manuscripts should be evaluated based on their scientific validity and clinical relevance, with reviewers aiming not only to identify limitations but also to provide constructive suggestions. In addition, he emphasizes that transparency, ethical standards, and reasonable review timelines are essential components of an effective process.
Building on this, Dr. Kageyama notes that in spine surgery specifically, reviewers should carefully assess whether the methodology, surgical indications, and outcomes are both scientifically sound and clinically meaningful. He explains that since the ultimate goal is to improve patient care, it is important to consider whether the findings can truly inform clinical decision-making. At the same time, he stresses that reviewers should provide fair and constructive feedback that helps authors strengthen their work.
Dr. Kageyama’s commitment to this process is driven by his understanding of peer review as a system through which researchers objectively evaluate each other’s work. He believes that it is essential for improving the quality of research and advancing the field by encouraging researchers to learn from one another. Therefore, he sees his active participation in peer review as a way to contribute to the development of the scientific community, including his own work.
(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)
Amna Hussein
Amna Hussein, MD, is a Neurosurgery Clinical Research Fellow IV at Houston Methodist Hospital. She previously completed an international neurosurgery research fellowship at the University of Arizona after serving as a neurosurgical resident in Saudi Arabia. Originally from Sudan, where she also graduated from medical school, she has been trained across diverse healthcare systems, shaping her perspective on global neurosurgical care. Her academic interests focus on spine surgery, neuromodulation, neurosurgical education, global neurosurgery, and the intersection of neurosurgery and women’s health. She has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, and operative videos, and serves as a reviewer for journals including Surgical Neurology International, Global Spine Journal,and Journal of Spine Surgery.Dr. Hussein also coordinated the Virtual Global Spine Conference, a global educational platform connecting neurosurgeons across continents. Her research explores improving surgical outcomes, expanding access to education, addressing disparities in neurosurgical care, and advancing interdisciplinary collaboration in women’s health. Connect with Dr. Hussein on ResearchGate and LinkedIn.
JSS: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Hussein: Peer review is the closest thing that science has to a collective conscience. Medicine progresses rapidly, but progress without verification becomes opinion rather than knowledge. Reviewers act as independent surgeons for the manuscript, identifying weak anatomy in the methodology, hidden bleeding in the statistics, and unnecessary dissection in the discussion.
More importantly, peer review indirectly protects patients. Clinical decisions are guided by published evidence; therefore, every accepted paper carries responsibility beyond the authors. A rigorous review ensures that what reaches clinicians is not only novel but trustworthy and reproducible.
Peer review also improves authors. Many of my own manuscripts become clearer only after thoughtful critique. A good review does not reject work—it refines thinking. In that sense, peer review is less about gatekeeping but more about mentorship at a global scale.
JSS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?
Dr. Hussein: The current peer-review system has several important limitations. One of the most evident is variability. Two experienced reviewers can evaluate the same manuscript and reach entirely different conclusions, reflecting differences in training, expectations, and personal bias rather than true scientific disagreement. This inconsistency can make the publication process unpredictable for authors and may shift the focus from methodological quality to subjective interpretation.
Another challenge is the invisible nature of the review process. Peer review requires significant time, concentration, and responsibility, yet it remains largely unrecognized academic labor. As submission volumes continue to grow, reviewer fatigue increasingly threatens the depth and quality of evaluations. In parallel, the system often favors novelty over reliability. Exciting or positive findings are prioritized, while replication studies and negative results, which are essential for scientific integrity, struggle to find space in the literature.
Improvement requires treating peer review as a structured academic skill rather than an informal expectation. Standardized review frameworks that prioritize methodology before conclusions can reduce subjectivity. Reviewer training, particularly for early-career physicians, would improve consistency and confidence in the process. Meaningful recognition systems, such as academic credit, citable reviews, and ORCID-linked contributions, could also sustain reviewer engagement. In appropriate contexts, transparent peer review may further increase accountability and trust, while actively encouraging replication and negative studies would strengthen the reliability of published evidence. Ultimately, peer review should evolve from a tradition we inherit into a discipline we teach.
JSS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Hussein: Reviewers rarely see the impact of their work. Their names are not on the title page, yet their fingerprints remain on the final science.
Every careful comment prevents future confusion. Every statistical correction protects a future patient. Every thoughtful suggestion helps an author somewhere in the world think more clearly. Reviewing is not simply a service to a journal; it is a service to the next generation of surgeons you may never meet. Science advances because someone has chosen to read carefully when the others are tired.
So, to every reviewer: your work may be invisible, but it is not insignificant. You are part of the architecture of knowledge.
(By Lynette Wan, Masaki Lo)
Prashant V. Rajan
Dr. Prashant Rajan is an orthopaedic spine surgeon at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and an Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He earned his medical degree from Harvard Medical School, completed combined orthopaedic and neurosurgical spine residency training at the Cleveland Clinic, and pursued fellowship training in spine surgery at Emory University under internationally recognized spine surgeons. Dr. Rajan provides comprehensive care for patients with degenerative, traumatic, neoplastic, and deformity-related spinal disorders and takes Level 1 trauma call, with particular expertise in cervical spine pathology and spinal cord injury. He is an active member of national spine societies, including the Cervical Spine Research Society and the North American Spine Society. His research focuses on cervical spine outcomes, spinal cord injury, trauma-related spine care, and evidence-based surgical decision-making. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JSS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Rajan: Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the rigor, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. It serves as a quality control mechanism that evaluates the validity of methods, accuracy of results, and appropriateness of conclusions before findings are disseminated. Beyond gatekeeping, peer review improves manuscripts by offering constructive feedback that strengthens clarity, methodology, and scientific impact.
JSS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Rajan: Reviewers should be objective, fair, and constructive, focusing on the scientific merit rather than personal opinion. They should assess methodological rigor, ethical standards, statistical validity, and relevance to the field while acknowledging the study’s limitations. Importantly, reviewers should aim to help authors improve their work through clear, respectful, and actionable feedback.
JSS: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data? And why?
Dr. Rajan: Yes, data sharing is increasingly crucial. It promotes transparency, reproducibility, and trust in scientific findings while enabling independent validation and secondary analyses. When done responsibly and ethically, data sharing accelerates knowledge advancement, reduces redundancy, and maximizes the value of research contributions to the broader scientific community.
(by Lynette Wan, Masaki Lo)
