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
Garson Chan, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Samuel Morriss, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia
Laurence Levine, Rush University Medical Center, USA
Muhammed Alaa Moukhtar Hammad, University of California, USA
Nicholas Sellke, University Hospitals in Cleveland, 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)
Garson Chan
Dr. Garson Chan is an associate professor in the Department of Surgery, Division of Urology and in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. He specializes in neurourology, reconstructive and functional urology. He completed his urology residency at Western University, and advanced fellowship training in reconstruction and functional urology in Melbourne, Australia. His research interests include general urology, artificial intelligence, and functional urology. Besides his clinical practice, he is active in undergraduate, and residency teaching.
TAU: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Chan: A reviewer’s role is to assess the scientific validity, clinical relevance, and overall clarity of a manuscript. I think that every review should be constructive, with the clear goal of refining the research rather than simply critiquing it. It is also essential to consider whether the study contributes meaningful insights to the field. A strong review should provide balanced, actionable feedback that helps authors improve their work while maintaining high publication standards. As clinicians and researchers, we should strive to elevate one another, fostering an environment where the best available evidence is refined and applied to our practice for the benefit of patients.
TAU: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Chan: Data transparency is increasingly important in scientific research. Sharing data enhances reproducibility, fosters collaboration, and accelerates the advancement of knowledge. I often think of the saying, “A rising tide lifts all boats”—when we work together to advance sound knowledge, we all benefit. However, this must be done responsibly, ensuring patient confidentiality and adherence to ethical guidelines. Striking the right balance between open access to information and safeguarding sensitive data is key to maintaining trust in research while maximizing its impact.
TAU: 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. Chan: Peer review is a vital part of academic publishing, yet it often goes unrecognized—so first and foremost, I appreciate this acknowledgment of the work done behind the scenes. Reviewing plays a key role in maintaining research integrity and ensuring that published work is both credible and impactful. It is also an opportunity to engage with new developments, challenge our own understanding, and promote meaningful academic dialogue. The time and effort dedicated to thoughtful reviews strengthen the field as a whole, leaving a lasting impact on scientific progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Samuel Morriss
Dr. Samuel Morriss is a medical doctor with interests in both medicine and surgery. He has experience in various clinical settings. He is particularly passionate about evidence-based practice and medical education, always looking for ways to improve patient care through research and innovation. His recent projects include studies on clinical decision-making tools, AI integration in medical training, and health disparities in diverse patient populations. His commitment to both clinical excellence and academic rigor positions him as an aspiring clinician-scientist invested in improving patient outcomes and advancing medical knowledge.
TAU: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Morriss: A strong peer-review system is one that upholds the integrity of scientific research while also being constructive and fair. Good peer review isn’t just about finding flaws, it is about helping authors improve their work in a meaningful way. It should be both a rigorous process and one that is also transparent and free from bias. A well-functioning peer-review system includes reviewers with diverse expertise who can assess a manuscript from different angles while keeping an open mind. Clear communication and respectful, constructive and detailed feedback are essential to fostering a culture where researchers can grow and refine their ideas. When done right, peer review not only improves the quality of individual studies but also strengthens the entire field.
TAU: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Morriss: When reviewing a manuscript, it is essential to ensure the research is scientifically sound, ethical, and contributes meaningfully to the field. Reviewers should focus on whether the study’s methods are appropriate, the data are presented clearly, and the conclusions are supported by evidence. It’s also important to provide constructive feedback, pointing out areas for improvement without being overly critical or dismissive. Confidentiality is a key, and reviewers should not discuss the unpublished findings with others or used in their own work as it is unethical and unprofessional to act on them before they are publicly available. This is incredibly important as loss of this trust can undermine the integrity of the peer-review system and discourage researchers from submitting their best work for review. Finally, fairness is key. A good review is free from personal biases and instead focuses on making the research as strong as possible for the benefit of the scientific community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Laurence Levine
Laurence A Levine, MD, is a highly esteemed figure in the field of urology. As a Professor of Urology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and also practicing privately with Uropartners, his focus lies in Men's Health. His areas of interest encompass male sexual dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, male genital reconstruction, hypogonadism, male infertility, and chronic scrotal content pain. In 2016, he established a fellowship in this field, demonstrating his commitment to advancing knowledge and training in Men's Health. He has been an innovator, introducing and promoting novel treatment approaches for men with related disorders. With over 250 articles published in peer-reviewed literature, including more than 100 papers, 19 book chapters, and two books on Peyronie’s disease, his contributions are substantial. His honors include serving as President of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) and the Chicago Urological Society, as well as receiving the prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award from the SMSNA and the F. Brantley Scott Award for Excellence in Prosthetic Urology.
According to Dr. Levine, peer review holds great significance. It offers a chance for constructive criticism of a manuscript, which in turn enhances its value to the readership. By improving the readability of the manuscript and ensuring the validity of its contents, peer review plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality of published work. In some cases, it challenges the authors to make sure that their data and conclusions are in alignment and that the message they are trying to convey is appropriate. This process helps to filter out research that may have flaws or inaccuracies, ultimately contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge in the relevant field.
Dr. Levine believes that all reviews should aim to be constructive. A key aspect of a constructive review is paying attention to grammar and syntax, as a manuscript needs to be readable. The reviewer should have a good understanding of the topic to ensure that appropriate references and previous work are acknowledged, and that the research being reviewed will contribute to the progress of the field. Additionally, the reviewer should verify that the methodology and study design support the conclusions drawn by the authors and that those conclusions do not go beyond what the data actually shows. On the other hand, a destructive review is one that fails to advance the field and may even discourage authors from engaging in research, considering that the research process can be arduous, frustrating, and time-consuming. A constructive review, therefore, is essential for the growth and development of the scientific community, while a destructive review can have a negative impact on both individual researchers and the field as a whole.
“I feel a responsibility to offer my time, when I can, and where I feel my own expertise can be of value in providing useful criticism to get the best possible information out to the interested reader and to other researchers working in our field. I personally don’t like to read poorly written or designed studies which may make conclusions that are not valid or useful to my practice,” says Dr. Levine.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Muhammed Alaa Moukhtar Hammad
Dr. Muhammed Alaa Moukhtar Hammad is currently conducting clinical research in the Department of Urology at the University of California, Irvine. He holds a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBCh) from Mansoura University, Egypt, and a Master of Biomedical and Translational Science (MS-BATS) from School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine (UCI), California, USA. He has also completed the Physician Scientist Pathways Certificate and is currently enrolled in the Cancer Clinical Trial Bootcamp at UCI School of Medicine and Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, respectively. His research focuses on sexual/reproductive health, oncology, and non-invasive therapeutic modalities in urology. He has authored over 50 peer-reviewed articles, including several first-author publications. He is actively engaged in multi-institutional research collaborations and has been recognized as a recipient of competitive research awards, grants, and travel fellowships. He serves on the editorial board and as a peer reviewer for several leading urology journals. His current academic interests include the integration of emerging technologies to advance urologic research and patient-centered care. Connect with him on X @mo_moukhtar.
TAU: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Hammad: Peer review is foundational to evidence-based scientific progress. It ensures methodological rigor, protects against bias, and enhances the credibility of published research. In fields like urology, it directly influences patient care by validating the quality of evidence before it enters guidelines or practice. Peer review is also a form of indirect mentee/mentor relationship, helping authors refine their ideas through thoughtful scientific critique and learning from the process in return.
TAU: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Hammad: I approach peer review with a structured and objective mindset, beginning with a thorough evaluation of the study’s design, methodology, and clarity of presentation. Only after assessing the foundational quality of the work do, I consider its novelty or potential impact. I make a conscious effort to remain unbiased by author names, affiliations, or geographic origin, and I strongly value the integrity of a double-blinded review process to help minimize unconscious bias. If I encounter a potential conflict of interest or feel that the topic falls outside my area of expertise, I respectfully decline the invitation to review. Above all, I view the purpose of peer review not as gatekeeping, but as a collaborative effort to elevate the quality of scientific work. My goal is to help authors refine their manuscripts in a way that makes their findings accessible, credible, and meaningful to the reader, while preserving the integrity of their original message.
TAU: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Hammad: Time is always limited, but I view peer review as a learning opportunity and professional responsibility. I usually reserve specific blocks on weekends or early mornings to complete reviews. Reviewing strengthens my own scientific writing and keeps me current with emerging trends in the field, so I consider it time well spent.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nicholas Sellke
Dr. Nicholas Sellke is a urology resident at University Hospitals in Cleveland, set to graduate in June 2025. He will be pursuing a fellowship in male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University starting in the summer. He is passionate about investigating how the rapidly changing healthcare environment alters male reproductive health. His recent projects evaluate the socio-economic and medical-legal landscape of men’s health. Outside of his professional and research endeavors, Dr. Sellke enjoys hiking, fishing, and discovering new restaurants. Connect with him on X @NickSellke.
According to Dr. Sellke, peer review is a fundamental element of academic publishing. It plays a crucial role in ensuring the validity, quality, and rigor of research. By having experts in the relevant field critically evaluate the methodologies, data analysis, and conclusions of a study, it helps maintain scientific integrity. Peer review is effective in identifying potential errors, biases, and oversights that might otherwise go unnoticed. This process ensures that only research with significant and meaningful contributions makes it to publication. Additionally, it promotes transparency and accountability within the research community, which in turn fosters trust both among scientists and with the general public.
Dr. Sellke believes that beyond possessing expertise in the relevant field and methodology, peer reviewers must have objectivity, maintaining an impartial stance to avoid bias. Reviewers must be able to provide constructive feedback, even for articles they believe are flawed and recommend be rejected. Finally, an ideal peer reviewer would also be able to provide high-quality reviews within the deadlines set as researchers depend on this punctuality.
Dr. Sellke emphasizes that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is essential for safeguarding the privacy, safety, and well-being of research participants. It ensures that ethical standards are met, particularly concerning informed consent and risk minimization. Failing to obtain IRB approval can result in legal and ethical repercussions, invalidation of the research, and potential harm to participants. Utilization of an IRB protects participants while also promoting trust in the academic community which is vital in this age of growing misinformation.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
