In 2025, 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.

Jacqueline Zillioux, University of Virginia, USA

Mélanie Aubé-Peterkin, McGill University, Canada

Shirin Razdan, Icahn School of Medicine, USA

Yu Kijima, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Japan

Paul H. Chung, Thomas Jefferson University, USA

Zhuo Tony Su, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Jacqueline Zillioux

Dr. Jacqueline Zillioux is an assistant professor of urology at the University of Virginia. She completed a urology residency at UVA and then fellowship in Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery at the Cleveland Clinic prior to returning to UVA in 2022. She currently serves as Associate Research Director for the Department of Urology focused on trainee research and is the William B. Steers Research Fellowship Director. She is passionate about optimizing treatment for overactive bladder with a focus on the interplay between cognition, overactive bladder and its treatment in older patients. Other research interests include role of ischemia in lower urinary tract function, disparities in OAB medication prescribing, and female pelvic floor outcomes following cystectomy. Learn more about her here.

TAU: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Zillioux: In addition to subject matter expertise, a firm understanding of research design/methodology principles, and a commitment to objectivity/fairness and constructiveness, reviewers should be good communicators. Clearly communicated reviews help editors make decisions and importantly help authors improve the manuscript or project.

TAU: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?

Dr. Zillioux: A healthy peer-review system requires a large pool of engaged and passionate reviewers who are committed to upholding rigorous standards while being open to innovation or findings that challenge the status quo. Journals and societies that provide resources to help develop reviewer skills are also helpful. Finally, completely blinded review systems best protect the objectivity and integrity of the process.

TAU: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Zillioux: For one, I try not to look at the institution or authors list when available until I’m done with the review. Many biases come out with first impressions, so I typically do a quick read-through of the manuscript and give it a day (or longer) to simmer. I take brief notes of these initial impressions and mentally look out for very strong reactions (good or bad!). When I come back to the manuscript for close reading and review, I’m able to more objectively focus on the fundamentals: are the objective/hypotheses clear, does the design and methodology appropriate to achieve/answer them, is the statistical analysis correct, and do the results support the conclusions? Then I can circle back to assess whether the study is ultimately meaningful and potentially impactful. 

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mélanie Aubé-Peterkin

Dr. Mélanie Aubé-Peterkin is an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at McGill University and an attending urologist at the McGill University Health Centre and Lachine Hospital. She earned her medical degree from Université Laval in 2012 and completed her urology residency at McGill University in 2017. Following this, she pursued fellowship training in genitourinary reconstructive surgery at Eastern Virginia Medical School under Dr. Kurt McCammon in 2018. Dr. Aubé-Peterkin’s practice focuses on lower urinary tract dysfunction, notably urethral stricture disease and benign prostatic hyperplasia, and she is specialised in prostate laser énucléation. In addition to her clinical work, she serves as the Program Director of the McGill urology residency program and has obtained a master's degree in medical education from Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

In Dr. Aubé-Peterkin’s opinion, a competent reviewer should embody three key qualities. First and foremost, expertise in the subject matter is essential for an effective peer-review process. A strong foundation in the current literature ensures that the manuscript is relevant, scientifically sound, and valuable to prospective readers. Second, a reviewer must approach each manuscript with methodological rigor. Feedback should be precise, constructive, and include clear suggestions for improvement. Every detail, from major methodological concerns to minor syntax errors, should be addressed to enhance the manuscript’s quality. Lastly, a reviewer should maintain an open mind and provide feedback with professionalism and respect. A submitted manuscript may be a novice author’s first attempt, or the author may be writing in a non-native language. Even if a paper is ultimately rejected, thoughtful feedback can help the authors refine their work for future submissions, fostering a spirit of collaboration and growth within the medical research community.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Aubé-Peterkin highlights that data sharing in scientific writing is crucial for advancing research by allowing scientists to build upon established knowledge rather than duplicating efforts. Without it, valuable time and resources may be wasted on redundant work. Additionally, clearly identifying gaps in knowledge and areas for future research within publications encourages further investigation and innovation. Highlighting these gaps not only engages readers but also fosters collaboration, ultimately driving scientific progress forward.

“TAU is a high-quality journal featuring numerous publications relevant to my daily practice. I appreciate the opportunity to review articles for journals that I regularly reference, as it allows me to contribute to the advancement of my field while staying informed on the latest research,” says Dr. Aubé-Peterkin.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shirin Razdan

Dr. Shirin Razdan is the Director of Miami Robotic Surgery at the Comprehensive Urologic Surgery Institute. She is a fellowship-trained robotic surgeon and urologist who specializes in both oncologic and benign urology. Her clinical interests are kidney cancer, prostate cancer, kidney stones, benign prostatic hyperplasia, erectile dysfunction, and urinary incontinence. In addition to her surgical expertise, Dr. Razdan also has a robust research background, with over 50 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, book chapters, and presentations in national academic conferences. Her research covers the gamut of optimizing techniques for better outcomes in robotic prostatectomy and penile implant surgery, as well as outcomes for single port robotic surgery. Learn more about her here.

Dr. Razdan points out three key elements she pays special attention to when reviewing a paper - novelty, study design, and impact on patient care or practice. The purpose of research is to push the field forward, innovate, and improve care, counseling, and outcomes in the patients. To this end, reviewers should always keep in mind that even if an idea is not necessarily novel, or if description of a technique is not precise enough, authors should be given a chance to make revisions if the weight of the findings potentially impact practice (or support standard of care).

As a reviewer, Dr. Razdan reckons that good science does not occur in isolation. Collaboration not only fosters camaraderie but also allows for reproducibility of study design. Authors should be encouraged to engage in open dialogue about their research techniques, data collection, and statistical analysis to help encourage future research. There is also the potential for authors to improve their own study design by data sharing.

“Reviewing is great! I learn so much from the papers I’ve reviewed over the years and am grateful for the opportunity to share my input with other researchers. Scientific progress is not solely through publications, it’s through being an educated physician or scientist, through accurate patient counseling, and through rigorous academic discourse. By being a reviewer, we are participating in the scientific process and equipping ourselves to better engage other scientists as well as our patients, even if we are not the ones publishing,” says Dr. Razdan.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yu Kijima

Dr. Yu Kijima is a urologist affiliated with the Department of Urology at Tokyo Women's Medical University. He holds board certifications as a urologist and transplant specialist. With over eight years of clinical experience, including six years in urology, he focuses on kidney transplantation and related research. His recent projects include studies on post-transplant renal function prediction using CT volumetry and machine learning. Additionally, he is engaged in transcriptome analysis related to IVIG in kidney transplantation. He has presented at international conferences, including the American Transplant Congress (ATC) 2024 and the Asian Transplant Week (ATW) 2024, and has published multiple peer-reviewed papers. Furthermore, he is actively pursuing advanced certifications in data analysis, deep learning, and medical statistics, aiming to integrate medical and engineering expertise to advance kidney transplantation research.

According to Dr. Kijima, a healthy peer-review system ensures fairness, transparency, and constructive feedback. Reviewers should provide objective and unbiased evaluations to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Double-blind or open peer review can improve fairness and minimize potential bias. Additionally, a timely review process and clear editorial policies contribute to the efficient dissemination of high-quality research without unnecessary delays.

Dr. Kijima believes that good reviewers should have expertise in the subject area, critical thinking skills, and a commitment to scientific integrity. They should maintain objectivity and fairness while providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their research. Additionally, ethical awareness, confidentiality, and avoidance of conflicts of interest are essential. Clear communication and adherence to deadlines are also crucial for ensuring a smooth and effective peer-review process.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Kijima believes that applying for institutional review board (IRB) approval is essential for research involving human subjects to ensure ethical standards, participant safety, and regulatory compliance. The IRB reviews study protocols to minimize risks, ensure informed consent, and protect participants' rights and confidentiality. Conducting research without IRB approval can lead to ethical violations, legal consequences, and invalidation of study results. Many academic journals and funding agencies require IRB approval, and failure to obtain it may result in research rejection or reputational damage. Adhering to IRB guidelines fosters trust in the research community and ensures responsible scientific conduct.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Paul H. Chung

Paul H. Chung, MD, FACS, is an Associate Professor of Urology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. He obtained his medical degree at Thomas Jefferson University and subsequently completed general surgery and urology residency training at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He completed a research fellowship at the Urologic Oncology Branch of the National Institutes of Health and a clinical fellowship in urologic trauma, reconstruction, and prosthetics at the University of Washington Medical Center. His clinical practice and research interests focuses on erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, prosthetic surgery, Peyronie’s disease, buried penis repair, urethral stricture disease, and genitourinary trauma. He serves on committees in the American Urological Association, Mid-Atlantic American Urological Association, Sexual Medicine Society of North America, and the Society of Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons. Connect with him on X @paulchunguro.

Prof. Chung points out that the goal of a journal is to provide relevant and high-quality articles to the readership. Peer review is the process which ensures that this goal is achieved. Productive and thoughtful reviews will strengthen manuscripts, ensuring that the data are presented clearly and that the conclusions are sound.

However, the current peer-review system does have its limitations. In Prof. Chung’s opinion, peer review should be objective and not biased. Furthermore, peer review can be limited by the availability of experts in the field. For example, although a reviewer may be a specialist in a particular field, they may not have the experience to evaluate the design of a study (i.e., whether a questionnaire was developed properly or whether the appropriate statistical analyses were conducted). Therefore, editors and editorial boards should be cognizant of these challenges when both selecting reviewers and reviewing comments from reviewers to ensure that manuscripts are given a fair and objective evaluation.

“Readers should consider participating in the peer-review process. Serving as a reviewer has many benefits, some of which include being the first to review new ideas, being involved in the review process, learning how to strengthen one’s own submissions, having an opportunity to write editorials, and being more aligned with journals with opportunities to participate on editorial boards,” says Prof. Chung.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Zhuo Tony Su

Zhuo Tony Su is a urology resident physician at the Brady Urological Institute at Johns Hopkins University. His research focuses on urological oncology, including prostate, bladder, renal, and testicular cancers. He is particularly interested in diet and modifiable lifestyle factors for cancer progression, active surveillance for prostate cancer and small renal masses, cost-effectiveness of new treatments, and financial toxicity of cancer care. He has published research manuscripts in leading journals including JAMA Oncology, European Urology, JAMA Network Open, Journal of Urology, BJU International, European Urology Focus, Cancer, Urologic Oncology, and World Journal of Urology. Connect with him on X @ztonysu.

Dr. Su points out that the existing peer-review system overall has many well-known limitations, including subjectivity, bias, and insufficient qualifications of reviewers. Therefore, it is helpful to set up minimal standards as to what constitutes a quality review and for journals, editors, and reviewers to follow and exceed these standards.

According to Dr. Su, reviewers often evaluate a paper based on how the reviewers themselves would have conducted the study. However, that could be a flawed approach and introduce reviewers’ own bias to the review process. It is most important to judge someone else’s work based on the objective merits.

“I learn new things from peer reviews all the time, such as novel statistical approaches, clinical databases, and applications of treatments towards new indications. While the job of a reviewer is to judge the scientific merits of a paper, we often get to learn new things from our colleagues during this process and that is always rewarding,” says Dr. Su.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)