In 2024, TAU 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
Alessandro Zucchi, University of Pisa, Italy
February, 2024
Daniel Heidenberg, Mayo Clinic, USA
March, 2024
Ayad Palani, University of Garmian, Iraq
April, 2024
Matthias May, St. Elisabeth Hospital Straubing, Germany
Frankiewicz Mikolaj, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland
May, 2024
Hiroshi Fukushima, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Japan
Joseph Clark, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, USA
June, 2024
Petra Popovics, Old Dominion University, USA
July, 2024
Go Kaneko, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Japan
August, 2024
Régia C P Lira, Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro, Brazil
September, 2024
Frédéric Panthier, Sorbonne University-Tenon Hospital, France
October, 2024
Angelo Orsini, Università degli Studi “G. d’Annunzio”, Italy
November, 2024
Nathan M. Shaw, University of California, USA
December, 2024
Aderivaldo Cabral Dias Filho, Hospital de Base do Distrito Federal, Brazil
Hyung Joon Kim, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Korea
January, 2024
Alessandro Zucchi
Dr. Alessandro Zucchi has been the Associate Professor of Urology since 2020 at Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery at University of Pisa, Italy. He is expert in the field of andrological and reconstructive surgery; furthermore, he is interested in basic research about cell culture to use as substitution tissues in reconstructive surgery. He has also good experience in female pelvic floor reconstruction and male/female incontinence. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Zucchi reckons that reviewers must have good experience regarding the topic covered in the papers submitted to them for review. They must also have some rudiments in statistics field.
It is the only realistic possibility to discuss topics in which a reviewer is considered an expert, giving own scientific contribution to the urology community, which motivates Dr. Zucchi to do peer review. Furthermore, he indicates that TAU is an important scientific journal in the urological field so he chooses to review for TAU.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Zucchi stresses that it is important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI) because this is the only way for an author to report scientific data in a realistic way and not affected by some type of profit.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Daniel Heidenberg
Daniel Heidenberg is an endourology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Arizona, USA. He received his undergraduate and medical degree from Tulane University. He completed his urologic residency at George Washington University. His main research focuses on quality-of-life outcomes related to urolithiasis and BPH, particularly in the setting of endoscopic enucleation. Currently, his main projects and research focus involve prospective research investigating the optimal stent duration after ureteroscopy and reducing incontinence after laser enucleation of the prostate.
Dr. Heidenberg believes that a reviewer should be detail-oriented and up-to-date on the contemporary research. This will enhance a reviewer’s ability to critically evaluate a project’s methodology and purpose. When reviewing a project, it is important to make sure that researchers are using the proper methods and variables to answer the question the manuscript is addressing. A reviewer should be well-versed in many different types of approaches in clinical research both prospective and retrospective.
As for a healthy peer-review system, Dr. Heidenberg thinks that it demands integrity and hard work. It is imperative that reviewers give their best effort to improve manuscripts to reach the highest standard. He points out that the studies quoted to the patients are published after approval from peer review, and we are relying on this system to report accurate data.
To minimize the potential biases during review, Dr. Heidenberg focuses on identifying a clear hypothesis and then correlating that hypothesis with the methods to determine if the proper procedures were followed to evaluate the stated hypothesis. He points out that by focusing on the process, rather than the endpoint, reviewers can limit outside biases.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Ayad Palani
Dr. Ayad Palani is an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry and a lecturer in Biochemistry and Metabolism at the College of Medicine, University of Garmian, Kalar, Iraq. In addition to his teaching responsibilities, he serves as the Director of the Research Center at the same university and is an editor of the Passer Journal, published by the University of Garmian. His research primarily focuses on male fertility and improving research writing and methodologies. He is a guest member of the management team of the Global Andrology Forum (GAF) and serves as a team leader within the organization (view teams here). Dr. Ayad has authored numerous scientific articles and contributed a book chapter in his field of expertise. Connect with him on LinkedIn here.
TAU: Why do we need peer review? What is so important about it?
Dr. Palani: Peer review ensures the high quality of published articles. It helps researchers identify weaknesses and mistakes in their work and provides advices on how to address them. Additionally, it prevents the publication of unreliable or untrustworthy articles.
TAU: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Palani: Peer reviewing is a scientific duty, and I feel a strong sense of responsibility to serve science by helping maintain its credibility. On a personal level, reviewing articles stimulates my critical thinking, broadens my knowledge, and keeps me updated with the latest research trends.
TAU: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Palani: Applying for IRB approval is essential as it ensures the protection of participants' rights, safety, and well-being throughout and after the study. It prevents unethical interventions and methods that could potentially harm individuals. If the process is omitted, participants may be exposed to unethical or harmful interventions, or they could suffer social and psychological harm due to the publication of personal information. Additionally, trust in both the researcher and the research institution could be significantly damaged.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
April, 2024
Matthias May
Prof. Matthias May is a professor of urology at St. Elisabeth Hospital Straubing, Bavaria, Germany. Additionally, he holds a teaching position at the Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Bavaria. His primary professional focus is on operative urologic-oncologic surgery, including robotic-assisted procedures. He maintains a broad scientific interest in urology, particularly in developing prognostic prediction models, including biomarker-based, for various urologic cancers across diverse clinical settings. In recent years, his research has increasingly focused on translational projects involving penile, prostate, and bladder cancer. Prof. May has secured multiple grants for his research endeavors and has initiated/founded more than 30 multicenter studies. He has authored over 250 peer-reviewed articles, serving as the first or senior author on most of them. Presently, his h-index stands at 39, with 5,802 citations to his work (i10-index: 137). Learn more about him here.
Prof. May reckons that peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity, serving as a critical checkpoint in the validation and dissemination of research findings. It acts as a quality control mechanism that ensures only robust, methodologically sound, and ethically conducted studies find their way into the scientific literature. He thinks that by subjecting manuscripts to the scrutiny of experts in the field, we can identify potential flaws, provide constructive feedback to improve the quality of the work, and ultimately safeguard the credibility of scientific knowledge. “For a journal like TAU, which prides itself on excellence, peer review ensures that every published paper meets the highest standards, providing clinicians and researchers with reliable information to guide their practice and future investigations,” adds he.
In Prof. May’s opinion, reviewers must approach each manuscript with a sense of fairness, responsibility, and a constructive attitude. First and foremost, it is essential to assess the study's scientific validity by critically evaluating the methodology, statistical analyses, and interpretation of the results. Reviewers should also consider the novelty and relevance of the research within the broader field of urology, particularly in urologic oncology. However, he further points out that it is important to remember that their role is not merely to criticize but to offer feedback that helps authors improve their work. Constructive comments should be clear, specific, and actionable. Additionally, reviewers must maintain confidentiality and declare any conflicts of interest to uphold the integrity of the review process.
“To my fellow reviewers, I extend my deepest gratitude for your unwavering dedication and invaluable contributions to our field. Your meticulous evaluations and thoughtful feedback are the unsung pillars of scientific progress, shaping the quality and integrity of the research that guides our practice and future innovations. While the work is often demanding and time-consuming, the impact of your efforts cannot be overstated. Together, we uphold the standards of excellence that define our community and pave the way for the next generation of breakthroughs in urologic oncology. Let us continue to support each other in this noble endeavor, knowing that our collective expertise and passion are instrumental in advancing patient care and scientific discovery,” says Prof. May.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Frankiewicz Mikolaj
Dr. Frankiewicz Mikolaj is a certified Fellow of European Board of Urology and an Assistant Professor at the Medical University of Gdańsk, where he focuses on advanced research in urology. He is also collaborating with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), under the mentorship of Prof. Benjamin Breyer, on several groundbreaking studies in reconstructive urology. Dr. Mikolaj is an alumni of the prestigious Clinical Scholars Research Training (CSRT) program at Harvard Medical School, which further enriched his expertise in conducting high-quality clinical research. His primary research interests include the surgical management of male urinary incontinence, urethral reconstruction, and complications resulting from radiation therapy in urology. He is a key contributor to the SAFER study, a multicenter initiative under the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists, which aims to develop standardized treatments for artificial urinary sphincter erosion. His recent work also includes a multicenter analysis of the impact of urethroplasty on erectile function and the creation of a database for managing radiation-related urethral strictures. His efforts are supported by the prestigious NAWA Walczak Scholarship, reflecting his dedication to advancing global urological care through rigorous research and collaboration. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Mikolaj emphasizes that peer review facilitates constructive criticism, strengthens study methodologies, and promotes transparency. Additionally, it acts as a gatekeeper to uphold scientific standards and encourages the dissemination of reliable knowledge. So far, peer review remains the most objective method of improving quality of the research.
Despite its importance, Dr. Mikolaj points out that the peer-review system faces challenges, including reviewer bias, inconsistency in evaluation criteria, and the lengthy review process. Reviewer fatigue and the lack of incentives further exacerbate these issues. To address these, implementing standardized training for reviewers, adopting open peer-review models, and integrating artificial intelligence tools for preliminary checks could enhance fairness and efficiency. Providing financial or academic recognition to reviewers may also incentivize participation and improve the quality of reviews.
“Contributing to the peer-review process is a professional responsibility that fosters scientific progress. It is an opportunity to engage with cutting-edge research, improve one's critical thinking skills, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field. Furthermore, peer reviewing builds a sense of academic community and offers indirect benefits such as networking and staying informed about emerging trends,” says Dr. Mikolaj.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
May, 2024
Hiroshi Fukushima
Dr. Hiroshi Fukushima is an Assistant Professor at Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. He obtained an M.D. at Tokyo Medical and Dental University. Also, he obtained a Ph.D. at Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School and completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Dr. Fukushima’s research interests include the role of frailty and sarcopenia in the management of urologic cancers, the development of biomarkers in urologic cancers, the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in urologic cancers, and the development of novel anti-cancer therapy against urologic cancers. Now, he focuses on translational research of near-infrared photoimmunotherapy (NIR-PIT), a new anti-cancer therapy that selectively damages the cell membrane of cancer cells based on near-infrared light-induced photochemical reaction of antibody-IRDye700Dx conjugates.
“Objective peer review is to carefully review whether the methodology is appropriate and whether appropriate conclusions are stated from the results,” says Dr. Fukushima. He indicates that he tries to focus on these points in all papers from as critical a perspective as possible to make sure his review is objective.
As a reviewer, Dr. Fukushima believes that it is crucial for authors to disclose any Conflicts of Interest in their papers. The author's personal, financial, or professional interests may potentially change their interpretation or presentation of research findings.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Joseph Clark
Dr. Joseph Clark is currently a Professor in the Department of Urology at the Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. He graduated from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD and completed his urology residency at Brooke Army Medical Center and Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, TX; he completed a fellowship at the Urologic Oncology Branch of the National Cancer Institute. His clinical practice focuses on general urology, andrology, prosthetic surgery, and endourology. He has over 11 years of experience as urology residency program director and currently serves as vice-chair of Quality and Safety. Dr. Clark is an active member of several organizations, including the American Urological Association (AUA), Mid-Atlantic section of the AUA (MAAUA), and the American College of Surgeons. He currently serves on the board of directors of the Society of Government Service Urologists. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Clark thinks that a reviewer should be familiar with the current literature regarding the topic in the manuscript. The reviewer should be objective and be able to rigorously assess the methodology, the science of the study, and have some basic knowledge on the proper use of statistics. Being able to offer constructive and actionable feedback to the authors on how to improve the manuscript is also very important. Finally, the reviewer should be able to commit to doing a thorough review by the deadline set by the editors.
“TAU has a variety of articles of interest to me. Reviewing manuscripts gives me insight into current research and improves my own knowledge of certain topics. Additionally, by reviewing for TAU, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I am contributing to the high standards of peer-reviewed publications and advancing scientific knowledge,” says Dr. Clark.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
June, 2024
Petra Popovics
Dr. Popovics is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biomedical and Translational Sciences at the Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA. She received BS and MS degrees from the University of Pecs, Hungary and obtained her Ph.D. in medical sciences from the University of St. Andrews, UK, in 2013. She completed her postdoctoral training in the lab of Nobel Laurate Andrew V. Schally at the University of Miami. She then continued her postdoctoral work in the Grabowska lab at Case Western University and in the Ricke Lab at UW-Madison. Dr. Popovics has been awarded a K12 and a K01 NIDDK grant which supported her to establish an independent research laboratory in 2022. Her research has been focusing on the identification of the role of inflammatory factors in the development of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Most recently, she has identified the association of luminal foamy macrophages with BPH and established the pivotal role of osteopontin in prostatic fibrosis. Dr. Popovics is currently serving in the American Urological Association Research Education, Conferences, and Communications Committee and as Secretary for the Society for Basic Urologic Research. Connect with her on X @PopovicsPetra.
Dr. Popovics indicates that peer review plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific research. By providing a rigorous evaluation, peer reviewers ensure that studies meet high standards of methodology, reproducibility, and significance. She always tries to provide objective and constructive review with the aim to improve the manuscript. Peer review is fundamental to advancing science, as it helps to validate new discoveries and maintain the credibility of academic publications.
In Dr. Popovics’ opinion, an objective review is impartial, unbiased, and based solely on the merits of the work. To ensure her reviews are objective, she focuses on the content, methodology, and findings rather than the author's reputation or affiliations. She applies the journal’s standardized criteria and guidelines for assessing the quality and validity of the work, disclose and manage any potential conflicts of interest, and provide specific, evidence-based suggestions for improvement.
“I consider peer review an essential part of my responsibilities as a scientist, as it helps me stay informed about the latest scientific advancements. Therefore, I always try to allocate sufficient time via scheduling specific blocks dedicated to this task. I often integrate peer review into my workflow by setting aside time during less intensive periods or combining it with related research activities,” says Dr. Popovics.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
July, 2024
Go Kaneko
Dr. Go Kaneko graduated from Keio University in 2004 and has been affiliated with the Department of Uro-Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, since 2017. Currently, he holds the position of Associate Professor. His expertise lies in minimally invasive surgery, with a particular focus on laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery utilising the da Vinci and Senhance robotic systems (Asensus Surgical). He has presented his research findings in numerous peer-reviewed papers and at international conferences. In particular, he is a leading expert in the field of urology in robot-assisted surgery using the Senhance robotic system, a laparoscopic-assisted robot. He has developed and established a technique for laparoscopic renal surgery using this robot. He has extensive experience in drug therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma and is an opinion leader in this field.
“The ability to peer review papers requires a substantial amount of experience and knowledge,” says Dr. Kaneko, who thinks that it is essential to dedicate sufficient time to examine the paper in order to respond to the enthusiasm with which the authors prepared it. It is crucial to review papers impartially, without any preconceptions.
In Dr. Kaneko’s opinion, one shortcoming of the extant peer-review system is that it may include among its reviewer cohort individuals whose qualifications are not sufficiently robust to warrant their participation in this capacity. It is therefore essential to exclude from the list of reviewers those who have demonstrated a tendency to produce reviews of markedly poor quality.
“Let us endeavor to work collectively in order to facilitate the advancement of science, both in the present and in the future,” says Dr. Kaneko.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
August, 2024
Régia C P Lira
Dr. Regia Lira received her undergraduate degree in Biomedicine from CESMAC University Center in 2006. She then completed her MS, PhD and postdoctoral training at the Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (USP). At the Department of Pathology, she investigated cell cycle proteins and their connection to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) in head neck, and uterine cervix tumors using immunohistochemistry and PCR. In the Child Care and Pediatrics Department, her research focused on biomarkers, molecular targets, and signaling pathways in pediatric tumors such as adrenocortical carcinoma, glioblastoma, medulloblastoma, osteosarcoma, and leukemia. In 2013, she worked on therapeutic resistance biomarkers for adrenocortical carcinoma with Profs. Felix Beuschlein and Constanze Hantel at Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich. She is currently a Professor of General Pathology at the Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM), where her research, funded by FAPEMIG, examines NADPH-related enzymes in renal cell carcinoma. She is also a researcher at CePRim-UFTM, focusing on glomerulopathies.
According to Dr. Lira, the current peer-review system is still influenced by the reviewer's area of expertise. Many specialists have limitations in understanding the methodological details of studies. For this reason, it is essential that a reviewer keeps up to date and participates in different types of research in their area of knowledge. This will ensure that the reviewer is competent to suggest changes and criticize the articles in an appropriate manner.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Lira thinks that authors who have a conflict of interest can overestimate the findings of a study, even if not intentionally. For this reason, he believes it is important to declare its existence or not. On the other hand, it is possible that the reviewer will be more critical in this situation.
“Despite the heavy work, a complete researcher needs to contribute to all areas of science. That's why I think it's essential to participate as a regular reviewer. I try to act as a reviewer at least once every two months,” says Dr. Lira.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Frédéric Panthier
Dr. Frédéric Panthier is an Associate Professor of Urology at Sorbonne University-Tenon Hospital (Chair: Prof. Traxer) in Paris, France. His clinical activity and research focus on kidney stone disease and laser applications. Learn more about him here.
The way Dr. Panthier sees it, the anonymization of the current review process has to be improved. Reviewers should be known and not hidden from the authors, especially in case of conflicts. On the other part, the authors should not appear on a manuscript sent for review.
“Reviewers should always remember that publishing is a tough task for authors, and that the manuscript sent to the editorial office has always needed a huge amount of work,” says Dr. Panthier.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Angelo Orsini
Dr. Angelo Orsini is a dedicated medical professional and researcher currently at fourth year of his urology residency. He holds a degree in Medicine and Surgery complemented by an international study experience at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain. He has honed his skills in both outpatient and inpatient care, specializing in diagnostic and surgical urological procedures. During his residency, he has actively contributed to multidisciplinary patient management and participated in advanced research projects, including a fellowship at Rush University Medical Centre under Prof. Riccardo Autorino. His research focuses on robotic urological surgery, renal and prostate pathologies, and surgical outcomes analysis, with a growing interest in the field of andrology. He has presented at conferences, showcasing his commitment to urology and patient care. Dr. Orsini is currently affiliated with the Department of Medical, Oral, and Biotechnological Sciences at Università degli Studi “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti, Italy. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Orsini’s opinion, a reviewer needs a good grasp of the subject, but also a critical eye to spot strengths and weaknesses in a study. He adds, “It's important to stay fair and not let personal opinions get in the way. Being clear and constructive in feedback is key—you want to help the authors improve, not discourage them.”
Dr. Orsini reckons that an objective review sticks to the facts—what’s in the paper, the methods, and the results—without being influenced by personal views or external factors. To keep things fair, he focuses on the evidence presented and uses clear criteria to evaluate it. It also helps to take a step back and ask himself, “Am I being fair here?”
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Orsini believes that sharing data is very important because it helps others understand, verify, and build on existing work. He explains, “It’s not just about transparency—it’s about moving the whole field forward. Plus, it shows that we are confident in our research and open to collaboration, which is always a good thing in science.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
November, 2024
Nathan M. Shaw
Dr. Nathan M. Shaw was born and raised in northern California where he completed undergraduate training at the University of California, Berkeley. He then completed medical school at the University of Virginia and residency training at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital. He returned to the Bay Area to complete a Genitourinary and Reconstructive Surgery Fellowship at the University of California, San Francisco. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University in the Departments of Urology and Plastic Surgery specializing in Urologic reconstruction and cancer survivorship. Dr. Shaw is the Director of Urologic Research at Medstar Georgetown and actively researching the outcomes of men with complex cancer survivorship, complications of obesity, and factors in patient decision making. Active clinical trials include those evaluating decisional factors around vasectomy, lymph mapping in adult acquired buried penis, buccal harvest pain control, and the outcomes of upper tract urologic trauma. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Shaw’s opinion, the mantra to bear in mind while reviewing papers is to evaluate the body of work in front of you. It is very easy to review with an eye toward “I would have done X or Y” differently in this study or “I would have designed the study in this other way”. These thoughts can be occasionally helpful to suggest constructive revisions, but often distract from critically evaluating the paper in front of you as the reviewer.
Dr. Shaw indicates that healthy peer-review depends on informed, impartial reviewers at all levels of training and experience. This should include experts within the field as well as adjacent fields. Equally important is prompt review of papers following submission – one of the most frustrating aspects of peer review as an author is having a manuscript tied up with a journal without critical edits.
“TAU has always been a journal with an eye toward impactful, clinically meaningful research. For one of the reasons, TAU is great as both an author and reviewer is the timely nature of excellent and fair peer-reviews. Furthermore, as an author, I was always impressed by the expeditious review process at TAU and I’m proud to continue that tradition of fair, impartial, and timely review,” says Dr. Shaw.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
December, 2024
Aderivaldo Cabral Dias Filho
Aderivaldo Cabral graduated in Medicine from the State University of Campinas, in Southeastern Brazil, where he also completed his residencies in General Surgery and Urology, the latter under Prof. Nelson Rodrigues Netto Junior’s supervision. After a Visiting Fellow in Neurourology at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, under Dr. David R. Staskin, he was accepted, as a Urological Consultant, at the Urological Unit of the Hospital de Base de Brasília. Upon arrival at the hospital, however, it became patent that there was an urgent need for a Reconstructive Urologist, especially in what concerns urethral stricture disease, which Dr. Cabral happily took to task, establishing a Reconstructive and Functional division in the Unit in order to treat not only patients with post-traumatic urethral injuries, but also those with inflammatory and iatrogenic urethral strictures, urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse. He holds an MSc from the University of Brasília and a PhD from his alma mater, and his focus of research has somewhat shifted from testicular ischemia to the use of open-source and open-platform resources in the investigation of lower urinary tract function, and in the interface between mathematical methodology and urologic investigation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Cabral believes that a scientific reviewer must strive for objectivity, so that the appraisal of any given work is impartial and based on its merits, rather than personal biases or external influences. One should also consider analyzing the work’s logic, evidence, and assumptions to provide a thorough assessment. Reviewers should be aware that the material and social resources for scientific research are peculiar to each particular location, so that appraisal should be construed in a constructive manner, providing clear, actionable suggestions for improvement rather than merely highlighting flaws. In addition, reviewers should uphold integrity, maintaining confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest (COIs) to ensure their evaluations are honest and ethical.
“Peer review is the cornerstone of quality control and credibility in the dissemination of research. Its primary role is to ensure that any particular study meets established standards of rigor, validity, and reliability before it is published. By subjecting studies to scrutiny by independent experts in the field, peer review helps identify methodological flaws, biases, or unsupported conclusions, thereby improving the overall quality of published work,” says Dr. Cabral, who thinks that in the context of the medical industry, where pharmaceutical and equipment companies often fund research, peer review can act as a safeguard against biased or misleading findings. Ideally, it ascertains that studies are evaluated based on scientific merit rather than commercial interests. The system, however, is not immune to external influences, as industry-funded research may still find its way into prestigious journals, sometimes due to subtle pressures or the selective presentation of favorable results. This highlights the need for greater transparency in disclosing funding sources and potential COIs, as well as stricter adherence to ethical guidelines during the review process.
In addition, Dr. Cabral indicates that an objective review in scientific peer review should be focused on the quality, validity, and relevance of the research. First and foremost, it should examine the study’s research question, and how methodology, data analysis, and conclusions connect to said question. Reviewers should declare COIs, focus on the science, use structured criteria, base feedback on evidence. The reviewer should be aware that personal bias – both favourable or unfavorable – can be very hard to detect, as it may require an honest and thorough self-examination of one’s reactions to the study in question.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hyung Joon Kim
Dr. Hyung Joon Kim is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital in Seongnam-si, Korea. He earned his medical degree from Yonsei University and completed his urology residency at Severance Hospital. He then pursued a clinical fellowship specializing in Urologic Oncology and Robotic Surgery at Samsung Medical Center. Dr. Kim's primary areas of interest include Urological Oncology and Endourology, with a particular focus on kidney cancer, the endoscopic management of urinary stones, and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS), including robotic procedures. He is deeply committed to the exchange of knowledge and training in endourology, particularly among international groups in Asia, through AUSET and AUSTEG. His current research focuses on translational advancements in endourology, specifically optimizing intrarenal pressure and temperature control during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) while enhancing stone-free outcomes.
Dr. Kim reckons that peer review ensures the quality and credibility of a study before publication. It serves as a critical checkpoint, safeguarding scientific integrity and ensuring that advancements in the field are based on rigorous, evidence-based research.
In Dr. Kim’s opinion, reviewers must be qualified experts with sufficient knowledge and experience in the relevant field to properly evaluate the research. Therefore, they should carefully consider whether to accept a review invitation.Upon reviewing a manuscript, they should assess whether it meets rigorous standards of methodology and analysis and ensure that biased interpretations are filtered out. Additionally, he indicates that reviewers should be mindful that accepting a paper for publication implies an endorsement of the authors' conclusions and the integrity of their findings.
“When research is published, it influences the direction of progress in its field, albeit to varying degrees. The peer-review process ensures that this progress is guided by rigorous, high-quality research, thereby contributing to the field’s development. Peer review also provides reviewers with valuable insights into the work of other investigators in similar areas, fostering new research ideas and methodological learning. Beyond its evaluative role, peer review serves as a silent yet profound form of communication among researchers, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and the advancement of science,” says Dr. Kim.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
