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
April, 2024
Matthias May, St. Elisabeth Hospital Straubing, Germany
May, 2024
Hiroshi Fukushima, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Japan
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
