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

Florian A. Stroie, Cook County Health, USA

Khalid Saeed, University of Helsinki, Finland

Steven Wilson, University of Arkansas, USA

Emilien Seizilles de Mazancourt, Saint Louis Hospital, France

Christopher Deibert, University of Nebraska, USA

Urszula Waszut, University of Sonora, Mexico

Jun Hagiuda, Ichikawa General Hospital, Japan

Jae Yoon Kim, Inje University College of Medicine, Korea

Masaaki Imamura, Ijinkai Takeda General Hospital, Japan

Yooni Blair, University of Michigan, USA

Neeraja Tillu, Mount Sinai Hospital, USA

Akinori Minato, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan

Rei Unno, Nagoya City University (NCU), Japan

Maia VanDyke, UT Southwestern Medical Center, USA

Kymora Scotland, University of California Los Angeles, USA

Fernanda Priviero, University of South Carolina, USA

Venkat Ramakrishnan, Boston Children's Hospital, USA

Yadong Lu, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore

Kosuke Kojo, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Japan

Adanma Ayanambakkam, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, USA

Branimir Lodeta, Privatklinik Maria Hilf, Germany

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)

Florian A. Stroie

Dr. Florian A. Stroie is a fellowship-trained urologist specializing in sexual medicine, andrology, and prosthetic urology. He serves as the Director of Sexual & Reproductive Medicine at Cook County Health in the heart of Chicago, where he leads a multidisciplinary program focused on access, equity, and innovation in men’s health. Dr. Stroie teaches all aspects of men’s health and provides urologic and penile prosthetic surgical training to physician-trainees. He provides comprehensive care for patients with erectile dysfunction, male infertility, and complications related to cancer treatment or trauma. His academic interests include health equity, surgical outcomes, and device-based therapies. He has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications and presented his work at multiple national academic conferences. Dr. Stroie also serves as an Adjunct Professor affiliated with several Chicagoland institutions, a National Faculty member for the NBOME, and a board member of the Chicago Urological Society.

Dr. Stroie views the peer review process as a foundational element of scientific publishing. It serves as a critical quality control mechanism that upholds the integrity, validity, and relevance of published research. As a reviewer, maintaining objectivity is essential. This involves a deliberate effort to separate personal opinion and bias from sound scientific judgement, to evaluate evidence based solely on its merit, and to disclose any conflicts of interest that might compromise impartiality. Constructive feedback—delivered with professionalism and a collaborative spirit—strengthens both the manuscript and the broader scientific discourse.

According to Dr. Stroie, adhering to established reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and CARE is essential to the preparation of scientific manuscripts. These frameworks serve as standardized checklists that enhance the clarity, completeness, and transparency of research reporting. From his perspective, adherence to reporting guidelines is far more than a formality—it is a cornerstone of high-quality scientific communication. He relies on these frameworks to ensure research is presented in a way that is comprehensive, ethical, and accessible to the broader scientific and clinical community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Khalid Saeed

Dr. Khalid Saaed is a Senior Researcher in the Drug Discovery group at the University of Helsinki, Finland, where he focuses on integrating computational and experimental approaches to identify novel therapeutic opportunities and explore drug repurposing strategies in various malignancies. He is currently affiliated with the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC) in Saudi Arabia, where he is developing functional genomics platforms for systematic gene function analysis and unraveling molecular pathways involved in disease progression. Previously, he served as a Senior Scientist at the AstraZeneca–Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, where his work centered on uncovering novel therapeutic targets and understanding mechanisms of drug sensitivity and resistance. He earned both his PhD and completed his postdoctoral training at the University of Helsinki. His doctoral research in precision systems medicine aimed to improve treatment strategies for urological cancers, while his postdoctoral work focused on identifying genetic vulnerabilities in cancer cells to immune-based therapies, including natural killer (NK) cells and CAR-T cells. Learn more about him here.

TAU: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Saaed: A good peer reviewer should possess strong subject matter expertise and ensure that their evaluation is fair and unbiased. Constructive feedback is essential—focusing on ways to improve the work rather than merely pointing out flaws. Attention to detail is crucial for identifying errors or inconsistencies in the research. Reviewers must uphold ethical standards and maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process. Clear, respectful communication and a commitment to completing the review within the agreed timeframe are important for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the peer-review system.

TAU: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Saaed: The peer-review process often varies significantly in quality and depth, even within the same journal, largely depending on the reviewers' expertise and level of engagement. Unconscious biases can exist at various stages, and the anonymity of reviewers, while intended to promote fairness, can also limit accountability. Additionally, the process is frequently slow, which can delay the dissemination of important research findings. Some ideas to improve the peer-review process include implementing open peer review to reduce bias and enhance accountability, and providing reviewer training to promote consistency and quality. Integrating AI-assisted tools can help reviewers detect errors or plagiarism more efficiently. Furthermore, offering formal recognition or incentives for reviewers may improve both motivation and overall review quality.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Steven Wilson

Steven Karl Wilson is a highly accomplished figure in prosthetic urology, boasting five decades of experience across multiple roles, from physician and surgeon to inventor and author. Formerly a professor at the University of Arkansas, where a distinguished chair in prosthetic urology was named after him in 2007, he has performed over 11,000 implant surgeries in 60 countries. With 279 peer-reviewed publications and numerous other academic contributions, he has made a profound impact on the field.

Speaking of a healthy peer review, Dr. Wilson thinks two expert reviewers are enough for open-access journals. He believes reviewers should have significant peer-reviewed publications and in-depth knowledge of the article's subject.

“I choose to review for TAU as I consider it the most professional and least predatory among open-access journals,” says Dr. Wilson.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Emilien Seizilles de Mazancourt

Dr. Emilien Seizilles de Mazancourt is a urologist fellow at the Department of Urology, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris (AP-HP), France. He earned his medical degree and completed his residency in Lyon, followed by a clinical fellowship at Edouard Herriot Hospital. Currently pursuing a PhD with the Paris Transplant Group / Paris Institute of Organ Regeneration, his research focuses on xenotransplantation, data analysis, and artificial intelligence in transplantation science. As a Fellow of the European Board of Urology, he specializes in organ transplantation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, kidney cancer, reconstructive urology, and robotic surgery, bridging clinical innovation with translational research to advance urological and transplant care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

According to Dr. de Mazancourt, a key limitation of the existing peer-review system is the delay in receiving feedback, often caused by journals struggling to find voluntary reviewers without formal incentives. To address this, open peer review and platforms like Publons— which publicly acknowledges review contributions—could enhance review quality and motivation. Introducing academic, professional, or symbolic incentives would also expand the reviewer pool and streamline the process, balancing scientific rigor with efficiency.

Moreover, Dr. de Mazancourt reckons that biases from affiliations, reputations, or research topics are inevitable, but he focuses strictly on scientific content, methodology, and data clarity—independent of authors’ identities or institutions. He actively reflects on his own preconceptions, ensuring objectivity by treating all manuscripts equally. Peer review should improve the work, not judge the researchers, upholding responsibility to both authors and the scientific community.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. de Mazancourt thinks that reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE, CONSORT) are essential from study design to publication, aligning with reviewer expectations and ensuring transparent methodology. These frameworks enhance scientific rigour, reproducibility, and clarity, standardising reporting to help assess validity. Adherence boosts acceptance rates and reduces avoidable critiques, embodying fairness and quality in scientific communication.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Christopher Deibert

Dr. Christopher Deibert serves as the urology program director at the University of Nebraska, specializing in male fertility and sexual dysfunction.  

Dr. Deibert believes that peer review, when conducted effectively, enhances the quality of writing and presentation. It challenges authors to improve their work, making it more engaging, readable, and beneficial for others in the field.

According to Dr. Deibert, reviewers should remember that they generally cannot alter the research question or the quality of collected data. Instead, they can request authors to clarify their ideas for better understanding and ask for additional analyses of existing data. A key focus in reviews should be ensuring authors address how their project and results directly impact patient care. Additionally, providing high-quality reviews with rapid turnaround benefits associate editors, strengthens the journal’s reputation, and supports submitting authors.

“Each review takes me about 1 hour to complete. So, I decline quickly if I have more than 1-2 reviews already lined up for the week. More than that and I lose time to focus on my own writing and other clinical work,” says Dr. Deibert.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Urszula Waszut

Urszula Waszut is a dedicated academic and researcher, currently a Lecturer at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sonora. She earned her Doctorate in Medical Sciences from the Medical University of Gdansk, based on collaborative research at King’s College Hospital, London. Her expertise spans molecular biology, immunology, and cancer research, focusing on host-pathogen interactions, immune gene profiling, and molecular pathways in adrenocortical carcinoma.

With international experience from academic roles at University College Dublin and King’s College London, she is currently engaged in a preclinical study in experimental medicine and nanobiotechnology targeting breast cancer.

She has authored several peer-reviewed publications, including studies on mitotane’s mode of action and transcriptional profiling in adrenocortical carcinoma, advancing translational research. A skilled communicator, she contributes to the scientific community as a reviewer for Translational Andrology and Urology, driving progress in translational medicine and oncology. Learn more about her here.

Dr. Waszut views peer review as the cornerstone of scientific publishing, ensuring quality control by evaluating research validity, originality, and significance. It enables journal editors to assess manuscripts for accuracy and relevance, filtering out poor experimental design or misleading conclusions to safeguard scientific credibility. Independent experts validate findings by scrutinizing methodology, data analysis, and interpretation, while providing constructive feedback to strengthen manuscripts. Additionally, peer review detects plagiarism and ethical issues, protecting the trustworthiness of scientific literature. By upholding high standards, it drives progress and guides future research.

Dr. Wadzut emphasizes that an objective review is a fair, unbiased, and systematic evaluation based solely on scientific merit—assessing experimental design, data accuracy, statistical methods, and logical conclusions without influence from personal opinions or external factors. To ensure impartiality, she leverages double-blind review processes, where authors’ identities are concealed, and applies consistent standards to all submissions. Her feedback is constructive, focusing on improving manuscripts rather than criticism, with specific, evidence-based comments. Adhering to ethical guidelines (e.g., COPE) and disclosing conflicts of interest, she maintains rigor, viewing objective reviewing as a responsibility to uphold scientific integrity.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jun Hagiuda

Dr. Jun Hagiuda is an Associate Professor in the Department of Urology at Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa General Hospital. A board-certified urologist (Japanese Urological Association) and reproductive medicine specialist (Japanese Society for Reproductive Medicine), he is also a technically certified physician in urological laparoscopic skills and a proctor of robotic urological surgery (bladder and prostate) for the Japanese Society of Endourology and Robotics. His research focuses on andrology (male infertility) and minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic, robotic, and endourology). He serves on the Editorial Boards of Reproductive Medicine and Biology and Journal of Fertilization and Implantation.

Dr. Hagiuda stresses that peer review is vital for upholding research quality and supporting scientific publication, making it a responsibility for scientists submitting work to journals.

An objective review, in Dr. Hagiuda’s opinion, requires anonymity and fairness. Reviewers must update their knowledge to grasp a manuscript’s novelty and balance critiques with recognition of strengths. To ensure objectivity, he emphasizes a fair judgment grounded in current understanding.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Hagiuda emphasizes that it is critical for authors to disclose conflicts of interest (COI), since COIs linked to individual or organizational interests may bias results. Transparency allows reviewers and readers to account for such biases, preserving impartiality in evaluation.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jae Yoon Kim

Dr. Jae Yoon Kim is a urologist and clinical researcher at the Department of Urology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea. His clinical and research focus spans nephrolithiasis (urinary stone disease), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), bladder pain syndrome, urologic oncology, and epidemiological studies of urologic conditions using large-scale national health insurance data. A prolific contributor to academia, he has authored numerous peer-reviewed articles and actively engages in international academic activities. As a regular reviewer for journals like TAU, BMJ Open, BMC Urology, and Scientific Reports, he plays a key role in upholding publication standards. His recent work explores links between asymptomatic hyperuricemia and kidney stone formation, as well as lifestyle impacts on urologic disease outcomes. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Kim defines a healthy peer-review system by its commitment to fairness, transparency, and timeliness. Central to its success is a focus on constructive feedback over judgmental critique, fostering academic growth while safeguarding research integrity. He thinks that such a system relies on editorial consistency, structured review criteria, and unwavering ethical responsibility—ensuring all submissions are evaluated equitably.

As a reviewer, Dr. Kim lays emphasis on the importance of objectivity, fairness, and respect. Evaluations should center on scientific validity, novelty, and clarity, with due acknowledgment of a study’s strengths. Constructive feedback is particularly vital for early-career researchers, helping them refine their work. Maintaining confidentiality and avoiding bias are non-negotiable, as they preserve trust in the peer-review process.

“I consider peer review a professional duty and a meaningful contribution to the scientific community. It provides an opportunity to stay updated with new research and refine one’s analytical thinking. The chance to support the quality of publications and promote scientific progress is rewarding in itself,” says Dr. Kim.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Masaaki Imamura

Masaaki Imamura is the Director of the Department of Urology at Ijinkai Takeda General Hospital in Kyoto, Japan. He obtained his M.D. and Ph.D. from Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine. He also completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the Aab Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center.​ His research primarily focuses on three areas: pediatric urology, urolithiasis, and voiding dysfunction. Currently, he is dedicated to advancing robotic pediatric surgery and endourology for urolithiasis, with a focus on functional outcomes.

Dr. Imamura believes a healthy peer-review system has two key advantages. One is ensuring scientific integrity by judging whether the pathway to the results is accurate or misleading. The other is maintaining objectivity in evaluating whether the authors interpret the results correctly. Reviewers should check manuscripts with these points in mind. However, he thinks authors should be able to provide feedback to determine if reviewers have correctly examined the manuscript. A healthy peer-review system can be achieved through this interactivity between authors and reviewers.

Dr. Imamura emphasizes that every manuscript has the potential to have positive effects on science, while all manuscripts have major or minor drawbacks. Therefore, pointing out these drawbacks and suggesting modifications give authors the opportunity to showcase their outstanding results. The important thing is to help authors modify the article to correct flaws rather than rejecting it outrightly.

“I review for TAU because the editors gave me interesting manuscripts. These are not large-scale studies but they show outstanding results with a small sample size. The reviews were a great opportunity for me because I felt like I was taking part in these interesting studies. TAU has a good policy of accepting attractive research studies regardless of scale,” says Dr. Imamura.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yooni Blair

Yooni Blair, MD, is currently an Associate Professor and Associate Residency Program Director at the University of Michigan. She completed her urologic residency at the University of Michigan and pursued a fellowship in Genitourinary Reconstruction, Prosthetics, and Trauma at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Through this training, she gained extensive experience in the surgical management of conditions such as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, Peyronie’s disease, and urethral stricture disease. Her recent research interests focus on robotic surgical education and the non-surgical management of Peyronie’s disease.

In Dr. Blair’s opinion, a healthy peer-review system is one that fosters a supportive environment with a shared mission of advancing science. Key elements include inclusivity—drawing from a wide range of perspectives—impartial assessments, and feedback that helps refine and improve the authors’ work.

“The peer-review system has endured over the years because of its critical role in enhancing academic rigor and integrity. I see it as an opportunity to learn and be at the forefront of contemporary literature. It also provides the opportunity to engage in the process that advances change in our fields that ultimately benefits our patients, which was my ‘why’ of going into medicine in the first place,” says Dr. Blair.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Neeraja Tillu

Dr. Neeraja Tillu is a Clinical Fellow in Minimally Invasive Urologic Oncology at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, where she previously completed a dedicated bladder cancer fellowship. She trained in urology at Mumbai’s Seth GS Medical College & KEM Hospital, later serving there as an Assistant Professor.​ Specializing in robotic and minimally invasive surgery for urologic cancers (focusing on bladder and prostate), she has performed or assisted in over 600 complex robotic procedures and participates in multiple clinical trials.​ As a prolific academic, she has authored 40+ peer-reviewed publications and book chapters (covering topics like intracorporeal urinary diversions). She sits on the editorial boards of Therapeutic Advances in Urology and BMC Urology and regularly reviews for journals and AUA abstracts.​ She is committed to academic mentorship, surgical innovation, and equitable cancer care. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Tillu: A healthy peer-review system prioritizes scientific rigor and relevance, while maintaining respect without any gatekeeping. Reviewers must provide clear, evidence-based feedback that focuses on methodology and contribution, not personal preference. Diversity in reviewer backgrounds can help minimize bias. Timely reviews within 4 weeks ensure that important findings are not delayed. Constructive suggestions—even when recommending rejection—should help authors improve their work and not discourage them, especially junior researchers. Editors play a crucial role in selecting suitable reviewers while adhering to timelines. Recognizing reviewers through acknowledgments, such as "Reviewer of the Month," encourages their continued work. Ultimately, the peer-review system should enhance the quality of the publication and make a meaningful contribution.

TAU: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Tillu: Peer review is a vital component of the scientific process, and I take it seriously as a responsibility. It is both a privilege and an opportunity to contribute to the advancement of uro-oncology, allowing me to stay current with emerging trends. It is a way to give back to the academic community that has shaped my academic growth. I enjoy mentoring junior researchers through constructive feedback, and peer review is an extension of that academic mentorship. This process not only strengthens the work of others but also sharpens my critical thinking and analytical skills. The recognition offered by journals motivates me to be actively engaged in the process.

TAU: Is there any interesting story during the review that you would like to share with us?

Dr. Tillu: Two reviews stand out. One was for the manuscript “The Role of the Surgical Robot for Gender Affirming Surgery.” As my center is among the few performing robotic sigmoid vaginoplasty, I provided detailed, experience-based feedback. My review helped the authors improve the structure and clinical relevance of the paper, contributing to an underrepresented area of surgical literature. Another memorable review was for “Improving Safety in the Performance of Robotic Urinary Diversions.” During my fellowship in bladder cancer, I have published on robotic cystectomy and urinary diversions. It was fulfilling to share recent publications and practical insights, which strengthened the manuscript. In addition, serving as an editor has been an enriching experience. I have learned not only from the manuscripts themselves but also by observing the diverse perspectives of peer reviewers. Their comments highlight nuances I might have missed, and enhances my academic and clinical understanding.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Akinori Minato

Akinori Minato, MD, PhD, is Associate Professor of Urology at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health. He specializes in urothelial carcinoma, genitourinary soft tissue sarcomas, and minimally invasive surgeries (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) for genitourinary malignancies.​ With extensive experience in perioperative chemo/immunotherapy and urothelial carcinoma translational research, he has over 20 first-author papers in peer-reviewed journals and reviews for Translational Andrology and Urology. As a council member of two urological/sarcoma societies, he advances clinical research/education. His current focus includes advanced urothelial carcinoma real-world data and enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab combinations.​ Learn more about him here.

TAU: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Minato: Peer review is an essential part of science that helps keep research honest, accurate, and meaningful. It is a process for researchers to support each other by offering feedback, improving the quality of studies, and ensuring that the work we publish makes a real contribution. The goal is not only to point out flaws but also to help good science become even better.

TAU: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Minato: I think reviewers should always aim to be fair, respectful, and constructive. It is important to provide helpful feedback that the authors can actually use, even if the paper is not perfect. Since we are all researchers striving to improve our work, treating each manuscript with care and appreciating the effort behind it are essential. Maintaining objectivity and confidentiality is also a basic but important responsibility.

TAU: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Minato: As a physician-scientist, I understand the challenge of balancing clinical duties, research, and academic responsibilities. I regard peer review as an opportunity to contribute to the scientific community. Despite a busy schedule, I try to participate in peer review whenever possible. I usually set aside time for it during quiet hours in the evening or on weekends, and I approach the task with sincerity and discipline, just as reviewers have done for my own manuscripts.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rei Unno

Dr. Rei Unno is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Nephro-urology, Nagoya City University (NCU) Graduate School of Medical Sciences in Japan. His research centers on single-cell RNA sequencing and organoid creation, applied to studying prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and kidney stones. With a global outlook, he has won over 20 awards for his basic and clinical research presentations and publications at prestigious conferences like JUA, AUA, and EAU. Beyond research, Dr. Unno is committed to advancing translational research and performs robotic surgeries as well as kidney stone surgeries. Currently, he serves as Department Research Chair at NCU and leads multiple national and international collaborative studies.

Dr. Unno highlights that peer review is vital in upholding the integrity of scientific literature by filtering out flawed studies and alleviating problems such as bias or groupthink.

According to Dr. Unno, peer review must adhere to established criteria, including the significance of the research question, the appropriateness and rigor of the methodology, the clarity of data presentation, and the validity of the conclusions. To ensure his own reviews are objective, he strictly aligns his assessments with these benchmarks.

“Engaging in both manuscript writing and review hones our research abilities,” says Dr. Unno.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Maia VanDyke

Dr. Maia VanDyke is an Assistant Professor of Urology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, TX. She earned her medical degree at UTSW and completed her urology residency in Dallas, followed by fellowship training in genitourinary reconstructive and prosthetic surgery under Drs. Allen Morey and Steve Hudak. Her clinical practice spans reconstructive urology, including male urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, urethral strictures, buried penis repair, and complex upper tract reconstruction in both genders. She is dedicated to addressing long-term urologic complications from cancer treatment and trauma, aiming to enhance patients’ quality of life. Beyond clinical work, she is active in academia, with research interests in prosthetic urology, urethral strictures, and upper tract stricture management. Learn more about her here.

Dr. VanDyke believes that a healthy peer-review system is rooted in a shared objective: advancing high-quality, impactful research that elevates medical practice and, ultimately, patient care. It should prioritize constructive criticism over punishment, aiming to refine research to its strongest form. Such a system thrives on diverse, objective, and unbiased reviews from individuals with varied backgrounds—from thought leaders to residents—each contributing unique perspective. As a reviewer, she finds the process mutually instructive: it hones skills in study design and manuscript crafting while sparking new clinical questions.

According to Dr. VanDyke, reviewers must uphold objectivity, setting aside personal biases—such as preferences in workup, management, or surgical approaches—that could skew evaluations. Their core role is to assess the study’s merit impartially. Above all, collaboration is paramount: even when recommending rejection, reviewers should strive to strengthen the work, supporting its potential for future publication. This collaborative spirit ensures the system serves its purpose of advancing reliable, impactful research.

“I would tell other reviewers to remember that their role is critically important – even though it is often thankless and unrecognized. By contributing to the review process, you are helping to ensure that accepted articles are of high quality, appropriately designed, reproducible, and that the conclusions are not only valid, but also that they contribute meaningfully to the field. It can also strengthen your own research moving forward, having a synergistic effect,” says Dr. VanDyke.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Kymora Scotland

Dr. Kymora Scotland is Assistant Professor and Chief of Endourology Research at UCLA. Her clinical interests include the treatment of kidney stones, benign prostatic hyperplasia and upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Her basic research investigates stone pathogenesis, stone- associated infection and the physiology of peristalsis. She has a particular clinical research interest in developing techniques aimed at improving quality of life for nephrolithiasis patients and has focused recent work on patient engagement with management regimens. She is the President of the Collaborative for Research in Endourology (CoRE), an international group of endourologists focused on developing innovative solutions to the care of kidney stone patients. Dr. Scotland has a particular interest in genitourinary infection with several publications in this area. She has recently edited the book “The Role of Bacteria in Urology” (2^nd Ed., 2019) and is the Vice-President of the Society for Infection and Inflammation in Urology. Connect with her on X @DrKScotland.

TAU: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Scotland: Peer review is to date the fairest means of evaluating the work of researchers. It is important that colleagues with some understanding of the field participates in deciding whether there is merit to the work being presented for publication.

TAU: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Scotland: The proliferation of journals has resulted in an unsustainable number of review requests for the limited population of academic urologists. Combined with the fact that peer review is unpaid labor, this poses a significant limitation and a threat to the current system of scientific publication. The current system is not sustainable, but until a new system is developed and widely accepted, it is important that experts in the field play a role in determining the merits of submitted manuscripts.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Fernanda Priviero

Dr. Fernanda Priviero is a Research Associate Professor in the Cardiovascular Translational Research Center at the University of South Carolina, School of Medicine. She earned her Ph.D. in Pharmacology from UNICAMP in Brazil and specializes in vascular and sexual dysfunction associated with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Her research focuses on these key areas: 1) the development of a targeted drug-delivery system to inhibit TLR9 signaling in macrophages as a strategy to restore erectile function in obesity; 2) the long-term vascular consequences of childhood obesity, with an emphasis on inflammation and cellular senescence as drivers of premature vascular aging and early-onset erectile dysfunction; and 3) the role of the mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo1 in the pathogenesis of hypertension-induced erectile dysfunction. By integrating basic and translational science, her lab aims to identify early biomarkers and develop intervention strategies to prevent the long-term vascular complications associated with metabolic disorders. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Priviero’s opinion, peer review is a cornerstone of science, holding equal importance to other research aspects. It ensures studies adhere to rigorous scientific methods and proper experimental designs, guarantees results are interpreted accurately, and ensures findings are clearly, responsibly shared with the scientific community—upholding the credibility and integrity of research.

Dr. Priviero believes a healthy peer-review system treats every study as a meaningful piece of the broader scientific puzzle, recognizing that even limited or negative findings offer valuable insights to support other researchers. Its core lies in four pillars: the study addresses a clear, novel research question; uses appropriate, rigorous experimental design; presents conclusions that reflect data accurately (without overinterpretation); and aligns with the journal’s scope. Novelty, methodological soundness, accuracy, and clarity thus define a constructive, healthy peer-review process.

“Balancing the demands of a scientific career with peer-review responsibilities is certainly challenging. Like many scientists, I often continue thinking about experiments, data interpretation, and manuscript writing even outside of the lab. When a peer-review request arrives, I view it as an important contribution to the scientific community, and I make a conscious effort to allocate time for it. The review window provided by journals is critical, not because the review takes two full weeks to complete, but because it often takes several days to fit the task into an already packed schedule. My strategy involves an initial thorough read of the manuscript, followed by reflection during everyday moments, while commuting, cooking, or at the gym. This allows me to mentally process the findings and formulate key questions or concerns. As the deadline approaches, I do the thorough revision of the manuscript to finally write down my comments after comparing and searching the relevant literature. Peer review, for me, is not just a duty, it’s also an opportunity to learn more and engage deeply with new research,” says Dr. Priviero.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Venkat Ramakrishnan

Venkat Ramakrishnan is a clinical fellow in urology at Boston Children's Hospital and a visiting scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He completed his residency in urology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and his undergraduate, graduate, and medical training at the University of Louisville. As a Fulbright Scholar, he developed an early interest in bladder therapeutics via a urological tissue engineering approach and as an AUA / Urology Care Foundation Research Scholars Awardee, he furthered this interest by developing an intravesical therapeutic drug delivery strategy to improve neurogenic bladder function. He maintains clinical interests in complex pediatric urologic reconstruction and oncology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

TAU: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Ramakrishnan: I believe approaching scientific papers with an open mind is fundamental to meaningful peer review. My review process typically involves reading a manuscript two to three times, each pass serving a distinct purpose: the first read is done in one sitting to grasp the core narrative, research question, and overall structure; the second is paired with revisiting related work from other researchers in the field, which helps contextualize the study’s novelty and alignment with existing knowledge; the third read focuses entirely on crafting targeted, actionable feedback—ensuring my input addresses both strengths and areas for refinement. Throughout this process, I strive to keep in mind that most researchers do their best with the resources available to them. A study’s experiments may not always leverage the most cutting-edge technology, but if the study design is fundamentally sound (and its limitations are openly acknowledged), the methods are rigorous, and the authors lead a thorough, thoughtful discussion that engages readers, the work often meets the standards needed to advance the field.

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. Ramakrishnan: I believe authors have a responsibility to share their data. One of the core tenets of the scientific method is reproducibility, and sharing data is critical to this process. We should divorce ourselves from the concept of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ data and instead nurture an intense focus on the quality and validity of our questions and study design. Having a convincing body of data to openly report what works and what does not work is where true progress lies.

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. Ramakrishnan: Reviewing papers is a skill that has to be nurtured and nurtured often. It is one that I myself am working on. Reading for information and reading to critique are two very different things. While it can seem like a lot of additional work, reviewing papers forces me to think critically about the science and often enhances my own ideas and growth as a researcher.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yadong Lu

Dr. Yadong Lu, MD, is a Consultant Urologist at Singapore General Hospital and Clinical Assistant Professor at Duke-NUS Medical School. His clinical expertise lies in endourology, minimally invasive surgery, and andrology, while his research focuses on critical areas of urological care: kidney stone management, surgical innovation, and the adoption of new technologies in urology. He has led and contributed to numerous clinical and translational projects—from advancing kidney stone prevention strategies to developing novel medical devices—with his work presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Beyond clinical and research roles, he serves as faculty for both undergraduate and postgraduate medical training, shaping the next generation of urologists, and is an active peer reviewer for academic journals. Outside medicine, he balances his professional life with passions for tennis, diving, and travel. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Lu identifies key limitations in the current peer-review system: frequent delays, inconsistent quality of feedback, and “expertise mismatch”—where reviewers lack deep familiarity with the manuscript’s topic. Additionally, the busyness of clinicians and researchers often leads to review fatigue or insufficient time, compromising the depth of evaluations. To address these issues, he proposes three targeted solutions:

• Precision matching: align manuscripts more carefully with reviewers’ specific areas of expertise to ensure informed assessments.
• Clear guidelines: provide reviewers with structured, transparent guidelines to standardize feedback quality and focus.

• Recognition: publicly acknowledge reviewers’ efforts to motivate thorough, timely contributions.

In Dr. Lu’s opinion, Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is non-negotiable for maintaining transparency and trust in scientific research. A declared COI does not inherently invalidate a study—instead, it provides critical context for readers and reviewers to interpret findings objectively. Failing to disclose COIs, however, risks eroding credibility by creating doubt about potential biases. By being upfront about conflicts, authors uphold the integrity of the scientific process and ensure their work is evaluated on its merits.

“I view peer review as both a professional duty and a form of continuing education. I always learn a lot during the review process, which adds value to my practice. I schedule review work during quieter evening hours or protected administrative time, treating it like an academic appointment,” says Dr. Lu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Kosuke Kojo

Kosuke Kojo, MD, PhD, is a Clinical Lecturer at the Tsukuba Clinical Research & Development Organization (T-CReDO) of the University of Tsukuba Hospital, and also serves in the hospital’s Department of Urology. A board-certified specialist of both the Japanese Urological Association and the Japanese Endocrine Society, his research focuses on trace elements in human samples, andrology, database analysis, and translational research support. Recently, his work has centered on integrating clinical data with laboratory measurements to deepen understanding of male reproductive health—with a particular interest in the clinical application of trace element analysis and data-driven approaches to advance precision medicine. Learn more about him here. 

Dr. Kojo believes that no research is without limitations—and peer review plays a critical role in highlighting this. Reviewers help identify potential limitations and prompt authors to address them, which clarifies the study for readers and helps them gauge how widely the results can be generalized. In short, peer review strengthens research rigor and ensures its findings are interpretable and reliable.

In Dr. Kojo’s opinion, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) bring together diverse expertise: medical researchers, scientists, ethicists, legal experts, and citizens—making their input highly valuable. Even when a study seems free of ethical concerns, IRB review still enhances its validity by providing rigorous oversight. He stresses that seeking IRB approval should be standard practice; skipping this step means researchers miss a key opportunity to refine and strengthen their work.

“(For peer review) my motivation is curiosity. Even when the topic is a little outside my specialty, I learn new methods and ideas. This sometimes inspires connections with my own research,” says Dr. Kojo.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Adanma Ayanambakkam

Adanma Ayanambakkam, MD, is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Section of Hematology-Oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and serves as Director of Genitourinary (GU) Medical Oncology Research at the Stephenson Cancer Center. Additionally, he serves as Medical Director of the Infusion Center and Associate Program Director of the Hematology-Oncology Fellowship. His research focuses on prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers, with an emphasis on early-phase clinical trials, biomarker-driven therapies, and precision oncology. As Principal Investigator on multiple NCI- and industry-sponsored studies, he leads investigator-initiated trials exploring ctDNA-guided treatment strategies, de-escalation approaches, and genomic disparities in Native American prostate cancer. Nationally recognized, he was awarded the 2025 Robert A. Winn Excellence in Clinical Trials Award and currently serves as President of the Oklahoma Society of Clinical Oncology. His work integrates patient care, research innovation, and mentorship to advance outcomes in GU malignancies. Connect with him on X @AdanmaAnjiMD.

Dr. Ayanambakkam thinks peer review is the backbone of science—especially critical in oncology, where patient stakes are high. It ensures the research relied on is carefully evaluated by field experts: beyond catching mistakes, it verifies the work is rigorous, meaningful, and adds real value. This process gives confidence that what is read and later applied in clinical practice has been assessed from multiple perspectives, not just the authors’ own.

According to Dr. Ayanambakkam, the current system has flaws: it can be slow, inconsistent, or swayed by bias, and reviewers often invest significant time with little recognition. To improve it, he suggests increasing transparency, providing training or structured guidance for reviewers, and exploring models like double-blind review. Technology can help streamline the process, and crucially, more effectively acknowledging reviewers’ contributions would help sustain the system long-term.

“I have a lot of admiration for colleagues who commit their time to peer review. It’s work that often doesn’t get noticed, but it’s critical to advancing science. Every careful review helps improve the quality of research and, ultimately, the care we provide to patients. I’d encourage reviewers to see their role as more than just ‘checking a box’—you’re actively shaping the direction of our field. It’s meaningful work, and it makes a real difference,” says Dr. Ayanambakkam.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Branimir Lodeta

Branimir Lodeta is a urologist at Privatklinik Maria Hilf in Klagenfurt, with clinical, academic, and research experience across Croatia and Austria. A graduate in medicine from the University of Zagreb, he earned the European FEBU Diploma in 2012 and completed his PhD (Dr. Scient. Med.) in 2016. His career started at Croatia’s General Hospital Varazdin, where he rose from intern to Deputy Head of Urology. In 2017, he joined Klinikum Klagenfurt as a urologist, later serving as Head of Urological Oncology at the Cancer Center before taking his current role. He has authored many peer-reviewed publications and book chapters, focusing on prostate cancer diagnostics, surgical outcomes, and urological oncology, and also acts as a reviewer for international journals.

Dr. Lodeta thinks that peer review serves as quality control, ensuring manuscripts meet scientific and methodological standards before publication. Reviewers must assess if a study’s design, methods, and conclusions are reliable and relevant to its topic.

In Dr. Lodeta’s opinion, a constructive review aims to improve the manuscript and promote higher-quality research. In contrast, a destructive review focuses only on flaws without suggesting fixes, unfortunately undermining progress.

Though the burden of being a doctor is heavy, Dr. Lodeta always tries to break the peer review into stages and use focused time slots to finish it.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)