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

Andres Matoso, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Aydin Pooli, University of California Los Angeles, USA

Azucena Lirio Armas-Alvarez, Hospital Don Benito-Villanueva, Spain

Danny Darlington Carbin Joseph, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Ezra G Baraban, Johns Hopkins Hospital, USA

Keiko Taniguchi, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Japan

Savio Domenico Pandolfo, University of L’Aquila, Italy

Yulian Mytsyk, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Ukraine

Eric Chung, University of Queensland, Australia

Anwar E. Ahmed, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU), USA

Armin Soave, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany

Chitaranjan Mahapatra, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea

Emily K. Clennon, Children’s Hospital of Colorado, USA

Juan A. Encarnación Navarro, Virgen de la Arrixaca University Clinical Hospital, Spain

Junya Hata, Fukushima Medical University, Japan

Ozgu Aydogdu, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Shek Long Tsang, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Agate Escoffier, Dijon University Hospital, France

Manish Choudhary, Indiana Regional Medical Center, 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)

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)

Andres Matoso

Dr. Andres Matoso, MD, is a Professor of Pathology, Urology, and Oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where he directs the Urologic Pathology Division and the Genitourinary Pathology Fellowship. A graduate of the University of Buenos Aires (2002), he trained in urology before completing a postdoctoral fellowship in cancer biology at Cornell and pathology training at Brown University, followed by subspecialty fellowships at Brown and Johns Hopkins. Since joining Johns Hopkins in 2017, he has been integral to a consult service reviewing over 5,000 urologic pathology cases annually. His research focuses on molecular changes in bladder cancer, prostate cancer grading, and rare urologic tumors. Author of 175+ publications and multiple book chapters, including for the WHO tumor classification, he is also co-author of Survival Guide to Prostate Pathology. He lectures internationally and is widely recognized for his contributions to urologic pathology. Learn more about him here.

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

Dr. Matoso: A healthy peer-review system is one that upholds scientific rigor while fostering constructive dialogue. It should be transparent, fair, and timely, emphasizing the improvement of the work rather than criticism of the authors.

TAU: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Matoso: An objective review focuses solely on the quality of the science rather than personal opinions or biases. To ensure objectivity, I read each manuscript multiple times, first to understand the main message and then to evaluate details critically. I consciously set aside prior assumptions about the topic or potential outcomes and rely strictly on the data and evidence presented. I also compare my assessment against established guidelines or other published studies to keep my evaluation balanced and evidence-based.

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. Matoso: Yes, data sharing is increasingly essential for transparency, reproducibility, and progress in science. Open data allow others to validate findings, build upon existing work, and avoid duplication of effort. Of course, data sharing must always respect patient confidentiality and ethical standards, but when done responsibly, it strengthens trust in research and enhances its value to the scientific community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Aydin Pooli

Dr. Aydin Pooli is an Assistant Professor of Urology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a member of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Specializing in minimally invasive and robotic urologic surgery—including prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and pelvic reconstruction—his work centers on translational urologic oncology, bridging lab discoveries with clinical practice. He integrates advanced imaging and molecular diagnostics to enhance urologic cancer care, develops physician assistant-led care protocols, and drives tech-enabled, evidence-based surgical advancements.

From Dr. Pooli’s clinical-translational perspective, peer review is the bedrock of scientific credibility, safeguarding research rigor, accuracy, and ethics. It transcends quality control—it fosters collaborative improvement of the science guiding urologic care. In a field where innovations like robotic surgery and precision oncology directly impact patient outcomes, rigorous peer review ensures findings are not only reproducible but clinically actionable, aligning with advances in urologic cancer diagnosis and treatment.

According to Dr. Pooli, a reviewer should approach every manuscript with fairness, humility, and the intent to improve the work. It is essential to evaluate the study’s methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions with a balanced perspective — identifying strengths while providing constructive feedback on areas that can be refined. Maintaining confidentiality and objectivity is critical. Above all, reviewers should remember that their role is to help authors elevate their research so it best serves the scientific and clinical community.

“Balancing a full clinical practice, academic responsibilities, and family life is certainly demanding. I usually set aside early mornings or quiet evening hours for peer review — times when I can read and think critically without interruption. I view the process as a form of academic stewardship and continuous learning. Reviewing for journals like TAU keeps me intellectually engaged with the latest developments in minimally invasive and robotic urologic surgery, and it ultimately enriches both my research and patient care,” says Dr. Pooli.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Azucena Lirio Armas-Alvarez

Azucena Lirio Armas-Alvarez is an attending urologist at Hospital Don Benito-Villanueva in Spain. She earned her medical degree from Universidad Nacional de Trujillo in Perú and completed her urology residency at Hospital de Albacete in Spain in 2018. Her clinical practice focuses on benign and malignant urological diseases, with a strong research interest in urologic oncology—including bladder, prostate, testicular, and kidney cancer. Beyond clinical work, she serves as a Teaching Assistant I for the 2025 Principles and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR) Program offered by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. With a solid research background, she has 21 publications in scientific journals and also acts as a peer reviewer for several journals. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

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

Dr. Alvarez: Every reviewer should evaluate whether a manuscript offers new insights beyond existing literature and has the potential to influence daily clinical practice to improve patient care. They should assess writing clarity and quality, ensure adherence to the journal’s guidelines, and leverage their subject-matter expertise to provide constructive, well-founded feedback. Reviewers must also strive to minimize subjectivity and conduct unbiased evaluations to enhance the paper’s quality.

TAU: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Alvarez: Authors must disclose any COI to ensure research transparency and maintain public trust. A COI can compromise objectivity, bias findings, endanger participants, erode trust, and lead to legal or financial consequences. Understanding and managing these conflicts is crucial for upholding research credibility, integrity, and public confidence.

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

Dr. Alvarez: While being both a physician and researcher demands extra time and commitment, I firmly believe that every physician should engage in research. It stimulates critical thinking and lets us select care supported by the strongest scientific evidence—ensuring high-quality data guides our clinical decisions, prioritizing patients’ best interests. I dedicate one to two hours daily to research activities. Serving as a peer reviewer has strengthened my scientific writing and methodological analysis skills, while keeping me updated on the latest advances in urology relevant to my practice.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Danny Darlington Carbin Joseph

Dr. Danny Darlington Carbin Joseph, FRCS Urol, is a consultant urological surgeon with a focus on robotic pelvic uro-oncological procedures and prostate cancer diagnostics. He received his general surgery training at JIPMER, one of India’s premier institutions, before pursuing urology training at Government Stanley Medical College Hospital in Chennai, India. He completed a one-year Vattikuti Fellowship in robotic urology prior to relocating to the UK, where he finished a fellowship in Robotic Pelvic Uro-oncology at the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford. He currently serves as a Consultant Urological Surgeon at the same institution. His research interests include prostate and bladder cancers, robotic surgical techniques, AI, and tele-surgery. He has authored numerous urology papers, completed over 990 ORCID-verified invited peer reviews for top PubMed journals, and sits on the editorial board of several high-impact urology journals. A dedicated mentor, he guides other reviewers and is committed to nurturing future reviewers.

Dr. Carbin reckons that peer review is vital to any journal, as a journal’s quality hinges on the caliber of its peer reviewers. As an editor, he notes that finding high-quality peer reviewers is always important yet sometimes challenging. Effective, timely, and neutral peer review is essential for objectively analyzing submitted manuscripts.

Lastly, Dr. Carbin outlines the key qualities of a good peer reviewer:
• Be constructive in suggestions, focusing on improving the manuscript (with editors and authors) rather than rejecting it unless its quality is poor.
• Allocate sufficient time to review the manuscript multiple times before making decisions.
• Flag plagiarism and ethical concerns.
• Maintain manuscript confidentiality.
• Remain unbiased.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ezra G Baraban

Dr. Ezra Baraban is an assistant professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, specializing in genitourinary and sarcoma pathology. He completed pathology residency at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania followed by fellowships in surgical and urologic pathology at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is actively involved in collaborative research and teaching pathology residents and fellows, and has received awards for excellence in both research and education. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Baraban believes that the existing peer-review process relies upon the goodwill and generosity of willing reviewers. There can be significant variability in quality and expectations depending on assigned reviewers, which can be frustrating. To him, reduced turnaround times for manuscript reviews would be a major improvement. This provides authors with precious time for additional improvements to facilitate timely revisions or a definitive decision needed to proceed with resubmission.

According to Dr. Baraban, reviewers should have subject matter expertise in the domain of the proposed publication. Attention to detail, familiarity with research techniques, and a genuine desire to facilitate the collective progress of the scientific community are also essential qualities.

“My scientific curiosity and experience as an author motivate me to try to provide objective, encouraging, and timely peer review to facilitate dissemination of new and interesting research findings to the broader biomedical community,” says Dr. Baraban.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Keiko Taniguchi

Dr. Keiko Taniguchi, a pharmacist and PhD graduate from Kyoto Pharmaceutical University, now serves as an Assistant Professor at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine’s Department of Drug Discovery Medicine. Her work centers on cancer molecular biology and drug discovery, with a focus on cancer-specific molecular functions, cell-based drug screening, and the novel anticancer target γ-glutamylcyclotransferase (GGCT). She has published extensively on GGCT and is actively developing its inhibitors as potential cancer therapies and preventive agents. Learn more about her here.

According to Dr. Taniguchi, having inconsistent revision guidelines is a core limitation of peer review. Feedback varies drastically by reviewers’ judgment, experience, and availability—some demand extensive additional experiments, while others miss basic scientific integrity corrections, causing confusion and uneven standards. To improve this, she proposes three measures: standardizing core criteria (scientific integrity, reproducibility, statistical validity), increasing transparency via visible reviewer comments and recognized academic contributions for disclosed reviewers, and using AI to handle formal/methodological checks, easing reviewers’ burden to focus on core science.

Dr. Taniguchi points out two essential qualities for reviewers: unwavering scientific integrity and the flexibility to consider authors’ backgrounds and research contexts. This balance ensures evaluations are both rigorous—critical for cancer drug discovery where precision matters—and empathetic, accounting for differences in resources or disciplinary perspectives that shape research outcomes.

As a basic researcher, Dr. Taniguchi thinks that institutional review board (IRB) approval is significant to safeguard human participants’ rights as an independent ethical oversight mechanism. Omitting IRB review risks ethical violations, undermines research quality and credibility, and can invalidate findings—consequences particularly impactful in oncology, where public trust in potential therapies is foundational. She believes that respecting such ethical systems is a key responsibility for researchers and reviewers alike.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Savio Domenico Pandolfo

Dr. Savio Domenico Pandolfo is an Assistant Professor of Urology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy. After completing his Urology residency at the University of Naples “Federico II,” he pursued advanced training and research in Uro-Oncology and Robotic Surgery at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), USA, as part of the SIU–AUA Research Fellowship. His clinical and scientific work focuses on uro-oncology and minimally invasive surgery, with specialized interests in renal cancer, upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), and prostate cancer. He is a member of the EAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Renal Cancer Group and served as Scientific Chair of the international multidisciplinary meeting “SYNERGY.” With over 120 scientific publications in high-impact journals (H-index 29), he also acts as a reviewer for leading urological journals. His research aims to advance innovation, collaboration, and quality in patient-centered urologic care. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Pandolfo reckons that peer review is the bedrock of scientific credibility—a safeguard against error, bias, and superficiality. It ensures published work is grounded in sound methodology, meaningful innovation, and reproducible evidence. Without it, medical knowledge risks devolving into unchecked opinions rather than a rigorously validated body of work. Beyond quality control, peer review fosters scientific dialogue: it connects authors, reviewers, and editors in a shared mission to refine ideas and improve patient outcomes. Each review is an act of mentorship and collective responsibility, sustaining the integrity and progress of the discipline. Looking ahead, peer review deserves clearer recognition as an essential academic function. Moving beyond reliance on individual goodwill or sense of duty, integrating it as a formal, valued component of scholarly work will attract competent, motivated reviewers and uphold the rigor science demands.

In Dr. Pandolfo’s opinion, a reviewer’s task is not to judge but to elevate. The most effective reviews are constructive, fair, and evidence-based. Reviewers should critically examine the hypothesis, the methodology, and the logic connecting data to conclusions, while recognizing the effort behind each manuscript. Maintaining objectivity, avoiding personal bias, and providing actionable feedback are essential. The best reviews, in my opinion, are those that help an author see their work from a new and sharper perspective.

“I have had the opportunity to experience different clinical and research environments, and in none of them is the time devoted to peer review truly recognized as work. For this reason, I usually carry out reviews early in the morning or late at night, within what should technically be my free time. Yet this voluntary commitment remains essential, because reviewing keeps us intellectually sharp and ethically connected to the scientific community. Still, this aspect of academic life should evolve: acknowledging peer review as a legitimate and measurable contribution, through formal recognition, institutional support, or other incentives, would not only value reviewers’ effort but also help ensure higher quality and accountability across the system,” says Dr. Pandolfo.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yulian Mytsyk

Prof. Yulian Mytsyk, MD, PhD, holds a medical degree and has completed residencies in urology and radiology. He later earned habilitation in medical sciences with a thesis focusing on imaging and molecular biomarkers in renal cancer. Currently, he serves as Professor in the Departments of Urology and Radiology at Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University (Ukraine) and maintains clinical affiliations with Voxel Diagnostic Centers (Poland). His expertise spans oncourologic disease diagnosis and treatment, andrology, prostate mp-MRI, urogenital and oncologic imaging, MRI-fusion-guided prostate biopsy, radiomics, radiogenomics, and AI-assisted diagnostics. He has extensive experience, having interpreted over 8,000 prostate mpMRIs across high-volume diagnostic networks. A prolific scholar, he has authored over 250 publications (including first-author Q2 papers), delivered 70+ international presentations, and holds 37 patents. He also holds Master’s degrees in Information Management Systems and Technologies, and Public Management and Administration. His honors include the Polish Radiology Society Award, EAU Scholarship Programme fellowship, and memberships in ESR, ESUR, EAU, PLTR, SIU, ASCO, RSNA, SAR, and the Silesian Medical Council. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Mytsyk’s opinion, peer review constitutes a principal mechanism for maintaining the scientific standard of published work. By engaging independent experts to assess a manuscript’s methodological robustness, analytical clarity and validity of conclusions, it functions as a critical quality-control safeguard. Reviewers help identify and correct flawed reasoning, inadequate methodology or unclear reporting, thereby enhancing the reliability and transparency of the scientific record. Ultimately, peer review underpins trust in scholarly communication and enables editorial decisions to be made on the basis of expert evaluation rather than solely editorial discretion.

Dr. Mytsyk reckons that an objective review is one that evaluates a manuscript exclusively on its scientific merits—including design, data integrity, analytical approaches and validity of conclusions—without undue influence from author identity, institutional affiliation, or extraneous factors. To safeguard objectivity, he adheres to formal protocols: he declares any potential conflict of interest (COI) at the outset, he declines invitations when the topic lies outside his expertise or when a meaningful COI exists, and he favors review systems where author identity is masked to reduce unconscious bias. By concentrating on the evidence and reasoning presented, and by using structured review formats aligned with editorial and professional guidelines, he ensures a fair, transparent and methodologically grounded assessment.

Dr. Mytsyk thinks that full disclosure of any potential COI is fundamental to the credibility of published research. Conflicts — whether financial, intellectual, personal or institutional — may influence study design, data interpretation or the presentation of results, even when unintentional. Without transparency, both readers and reviewers are unable to assess the extent to which bias might have influenced the work. Editorial frameworks such as those of the ICMJE and COPE mandate such disclosures, and failure to comply may constitute a breach of publication ethics. While a COI does not necessarily invalidate a study, undisclosed COIs diminish confidence in its objectivity; conversely, transparent reporting enables informed evaluation and preserves the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Eric Chung

Prof. Eric Chung is a consultant urological surgeon at the AndroUrology Centre for Sexual, Urinary, and Reproductive Excellence and holds professorial academic appointments at the University of Queensland in Brisbane and Macquarie University Hospital in Sydney, Australia. He is the youngest recipient of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) Medal in recognition of exceptional service and leadership in the Society and served as the Past Chair of Male LUTS and Andrology sections in USANZ. He is the President-elect of the International Society of Sexual Medicine (ISSM) and Chair of the Education and Research Office in Sexual Medicine (EROS) for the Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine (APSSM). He runs an active clinical research centre focusing on Andrology, Prosthetics and Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgery. He has authored more than 280 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters, and is an invited speaker and surgeon mentor at more than 100 international meetings.

TAU: What role does peer review play in science?

Prof. Chung: Peer review process plays a critical part in scientific integrity and quality control by having relevant experts evaluate research quality, validity, and accuracy. It allows a mechanism to provide useful feedback to the author/s for improvement and identifying potential research errors or gaps in scientific reasoning, and acts as gatekeeper to ensure robust, accurate, and meaningful scientific work is published in academic journals.

TAU: What do you consider as an objective review?

Prof. Chung: It is important for reviewers to avoid personal biases and to base the review on scientific facts and maintain professional decorum. Journals should use deidentified authorship and provide objective and consistent criteria for review.

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

Prof. Chung: I look upon my invitation to serve as a reviewer as an acknowledgement of my expertise in the field and it is always great to have the “first preview” of interesting or cutting-edged scientific projects and be able to contribute to a better manuscript.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Anwar E. Ahmed

Dr. Anwar Ahmed serves as an Associate Professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine & Biostatistics (PMB) at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU). He earned a Ph.D. in Biostatistics and an M.Sc. in Statistics from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), alongside a B.Sc. in Applied Statistics and Demography from the University of Gezira in Sudan. Dr. Ahmed’s robust methodological expertise spans risk modeling, survival analysis, mixture modeling, longitudinal data analysis, and complex survey data analysis. With over 130 peer-reviewed publications to his name, his core research centers on biomarker evaluation and risk model development, and his recent work focuses on expanding access to optimal care for military populations. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Ahmed reckons that peer review is a foundational process involving independent evaluation of research by field experts, designed to uphold the integrity and progress of scientific knowledge. Key roles of peer review include:

• Boosting credibility: it identifies and mitigates biases, errors, or methodological flaws, ensuring only trustworthy, reliable research is shared.
• Upholding fairness: submissions are evaluated on scientific merit alone, not personal biases or institutional affiliations, fostering equity in publishing.
• Driving knowledge advancement: it filters for research that delivers meaningful contributions to the field, ensuring published work adds value to scientific discourse.
• Ensuring quality & rigor: reviewers rigorously assess study design, data analysis, and conclusions, maintaining high methodological standards for published research.

In Dr. Ahmed’s opinion, the existing peer-review system, while essential for maintaining scientific rigor, faces several limitations, including the risk of personal biases related to an author's background or research topic, the lengthy nature of the peer-review process that delays publication, a lack of constructive feedback for rejected submissions, and an insufficient pool of qualified experts available to conduct reviews. To address these challenges, the system can be improved by encouraging diversity among reviewers to minimize bias, implementing open peer review to enhance accountability and transparency, leveraging technology like AI for quality checks and submission management to streamline the workflow, and providing incentives such as recognition or credits to encourage broader participation and commitment from researchers.

“To all the dedicated reviewers out there, your contributions are invaluable to the scientific community! As experts, please continue to give back by reviewing and mentoring the next generation, upholding the rigor and integrity essential for our community. Thank you for your dedication and hard work! Keep inspiring and leading the way!” says Dr. Ahmed.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Armin Soave

Armin Soave received his medical education at multiple prestigious institutions: Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg (Germany), Universitá Cattolica Sacro Cuore of Rome (Italy), and in Buenos Aires (Argentina). He holds board certifications as a specialist in urology (FEBU), sexual medicine (FECSM), and clinical andrology (EAA), reflecting his diverse and specialized expertise in the field. He has a long-standing affiliation with the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, joining the Department of Urology there in 2010. In 2017, he was promoted to senior physician and Associate Professor of Urology within the same department. Since 2024, he has served as Head of Andrology at the Department of Dermatology and Venereology, which is affiliated with the institution’s Department of Urology. His core research focuses on andrology, male sexual dysfunction, and uro-oncology.

Dr. Soave reckons that peer reviews help to improve the quality of scientific research. It provides a unique opportunity to get feedback from dedicated experts in the field.

In Dr. Soave’s view, reviewers should center their assessments around four core questions to ensure thorough and targeted evaluation: 1) Is the research topic of relevance to the field? 2) Are the methodological approaches employed correct and rigorous? 3) Do the conclusions drawn align appropriately with the study’s data and findings? And 4) Is the manuscript well-suited to the scope and focus of the journal it is submitted to?

“(Though) to complete a review is time-consuming, it is worthwhile, because as a reviewer you always learn something new!” says Dr. Soave.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Chitaranjan Mahapatra

Dr. Chitaranjan Mahapatra is a Jang Young Sil Fellow Researcher at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea, with a strong interdisciplinary background spanning molecular biology, membrane biophysics, electrophysiology, and AI-driven translational medicine. He received his PhD in bladder smooth muscle electrophysiology, investigating the ionic and excitability mechanisms underlying overactive bladder and urinary incontinence at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India. He subsequently completed postdoctoral research at the University of California San Francisco (USA), CNRS/Paris-Saclay University (France), and the University of Bordeaux (France). His work integrates experimental electrophysiology, computational modelling, and bioelectricity to study ion channel biophysics, smooth muscle excitability, and neural systems. He is currently engaged in cardiovascular electrophysiological modelling research. His long-term vision is to translate fundamental bioelectric discoveries into clinical applications through multidisciplinary and collaborative science.

Dr. Mahapatra views peer review as essential for scientific rigor, but notes persistent challenges: slow cycles, inconsistent expertise, limited transparency, and reviewer fatigue. Interdisciplinary work is often undervalued, especially in specialized fields like bladder-urology research. Suggested improvements include structured templates, statistical expert involvement, reviewer training, open peer review, AI-assisted screening, and formal recognition or incentives for reviewers.

To mitigate inevitable biases, Dr. Mahapatra approaches every manuscript with objectivity and a clear focus on scientific rigor. He checks for conflicts of interest (COI) first, then evaluates manuscripts based on methodology, reporting clarity, ethics, and conclusion validity—avoiding assumptions and focusing on strengthening the work, not criticizing authors.

Dr. Mahapatra reckons that COI disclosure is vital for transparency. COIs (financial/institutional/personal) may subtly influence research—even in bladder health and urology—but disclosure provides context, enables journal safeguards, and enhances research credibility without discrediting the work.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Emily K. Clennon

Emily Clennon, MD, MPH, was born and raised in central Illinois and attended Grinnell College where she developed passions for sexual health and health systems and policy. She worked in HIV community health programming for the Iowa Department of Health for two years before moving to Oregon to complete an MD/MPH at OHSU where she remained for residency in Urology. She is currently a fellow in Pediatric Urology at Children’s Hospital of Colorado. Her scholarship focuses on health care access, cost, and policy across the spectrum of urologic diseases.

TAU: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Clennon: Peer review is critical to the scientific method and reporting process. Though as imperfect as any human pursuit is, peer review is the best mechanism we have for quality control and assessment of bias and corruption in the publishing process.

TAU: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Clennon: Reviewers – same as researchers – should be open-minded, inquisitive, objective, and appropriately critical. The goals of the reviewer are to evaluate and interrogate methodology and communication to identify gaps that, when addressed, elevate the work to as high a standard and as close to truth-telling as possible.

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

Dr. Clennon: Reviewing provides insights into new areas of inquiry and types of investigation that you could easily miss as a more passive consumer of scientific literature. It also improves depth of understanding of how others will read and critique your work which can significantly improve the quality of research you produce.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Juan A. Encarnación Navarro

Dr. Juan Antonio Encarnación Navarro is a Radiation Oncology specialist at the Virgen de la Arrixaca University Clinical Hospital (Murcia, Spain) and a researcher in the Clinical Oncology Group at IMIB. His academic journey includes completing his medical degree in 2015, residency in 2020, and PhD in 2022—with his doctoral focus on organ donation in patients with primary malignant brain tumors. His core research addresses the safety and feasibility of organ transplantation from donors with primary CNS malignancies—a national project endorsed by the Spanish Ministry of Health and supported by the Spanish National Transplant Organization. He collaborates closely with his hospital’s Transplant Coordination Unit on key studies, such as midazolam prescription as an alert for deceased donor identification and outcomes of kidney transplantation from donors with severe acute kidney injury. Additionally, he contributes to multicenter research in prostate and rectal cancer and has authored several peer-reviewed publications spanning oncology and neuro-oncology. In 2022, he was honored with the national Young Researcher Award from La Razón, recognizing his impactful contributions to the field.

Dr. Encarnación Navarro believes that peer review is a fundamental quality-assurance mechanism in scientific publishing. It ensures research is evaluated by independent experts, who verify methodological rigor, the validity of analyses, and the accuracy of conclusions. This process identifies potential biases, limitations, or errors before publication, strengthening the reliability of the scientific record. Peer review also promotes transparency and accountability, facilitates manuscript improvement through constructive feedback, and safeguards the scientific community from unsupported claims. Ultimately, it preserves the integrity of biomedical literature—ensuring clinical decisions, guidelines, and public health policies are rooted in robust evidence, a critical consideration in fields like oncology and transplant medicine.

In Dr. Encarnación Navarro’s view, a review becomes destructive when it fails to contribute to enhancing the scientific quality of a manuscript. This includes critiques lacking a methodological basis, dismissive comments without scientific justification, or feedback that targets authors rather than the work itself. Destructive reviews may also involve unfounded assumptions, unsupported statements, or expectations that exceed the reasonable scope of the study. Such reviews risk delaying publication without adding scientific value and undermine the collaborative purpose of peer evaluation—hindering rather than advancing the scientific process.

“Reviewing for TAU is aligned with the objective of supporting high-quality scientific dissemination in areas directly related to oncology and urologic research. The journal maintains rigorous editorial standards and promotes clinically relevant investigations that contribute to evidence-based practice. Participating in its peer-review process allows for the evaluation of emerging data, the reinforcement of methodological rigor, and the advancement of research in fields where accurate evidence is essential for patient care. Contributing as a reviewer is also a way to foster scientific collaboration and to support a publication platform committed to maintaining integrity, transparency, and excellence in biomedical research,” says Dr. Encarnación Navarro.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Junya Hata

Dr. Junya Hata is a urologist and researcher at Fukushima Medical University in Japan. His primary research centers on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), with a specific focus on the immunological mechanisms that drive BPH progression. He has led studies exploring the relationship between the complement system and prostatic inflammation and hyperplasia, and has shared these findings at both national and international academic meetings. Beyond his translational research in BPH, he specializes in robot-assisted urologic surgery—particularly robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). His clinical research in this area focuses on postoperative lower urinary tract dysfunction, urinary continence recovery, and the anatomical factors that influence functional outcomes. As a prolific contributor to his field, he has authored several peer-reviewed papers and actively serves as a reviewer for international journals. His overarching goal is to advance evidence-based urology and enhance functional outcomes for patients.

Dr. Hata believes that peer review is an essential pillar of scientific integrity. Its core function is to ensure new research undergoes objective, rigorous, and transparent evaluation before publication. Through constructive critique, reviewers assist authors in refining their methodology, data interpretation, and presentation—ultimately elevating the scientific value of the work. Peer review also serves as a protective measure for both the research community and the public, as it prevents the dissemination of unsupported or misleading conclusions. In his view, this process is more than just a quality assurance mechanism; it is a collaborative endeavor that sustains trust in scientific communication, which is particularly vital in clinical fields like urology where research directly impacts patient care.

Dr. Hata identifies several key challenges facing the current peer-review system, including the heavy burden on reviewers, variability in the depth and quality of reviews, and delays in the editorial process. He notes that as scientific research grows increasingly complex—especially in interdisciplinary areas of urology—many manuscripts require a broader range of expertise than a single reviewer can provide, leading to potential gaps in evaluation. To address these issues, he proposes targeted improvements: journals could develop clearer reviewer guidelines and promote specialized reviewer training programs to standardize review quality. Expanding recognition systems to acknowledge reviewers’ contributions would also help alleviate burnout and boost engagement. Increasing transparency, such as adopting open or double-blind review models, may minimize implicit biases that could affect evaluations. Additionally, leveraging technological tools—such as automated checks for statistical errors or plagiarism—can support reviewers by handling routine tasks, streamlining the process, and ensuring that both efficiency and scientific rigor are maintained.

“Although peer review is often an unseen effort, its impact is profound. Each thoughtful comment strengthens the evidence and improves the clarity of research that clinicians and scientists rely on. I encourage fellow reviewers to take pride in their contributions and continue engaging in this vital process. Together, we help build a more reliable, transparent, and collaborative scientific community,” says Dr. Hata.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Ozgu Aydogdu

Özgu Aydogdu, MD, PhD, is a urologist whose research areas encompass urinary stone disease, benign prostate diseases, and prostate cancer. His recent projects focus on prostate cancer screening and the health economic aspects of such screening. He emphasizes the indispensable value of peer review for advancing scientific research.

In Dr. Aydogdu’s view, peer review serves as a cornerstone for scientific progress. Reviewers, with their prior experience in the relevant field, play a critical role: they enable authors to examine their work from alternative perspectives. This not only refines the research but also helps readers better grasp the core ideas of the reviewed project and the significance of its findings.

Dr. Aydogdu points out a few considerations for reviewers. Firstly, reviewers should only accept assignments if their professional background and current knowledge equip them to contribute meaningfully. Additionally, dedicating sufficient time to provide constructive feedback is essential. Ultimately, the reviewed topic must align with the reviewers’ expertise and past research experiences to ensure insightful and valuable assessments.

“To review a paper is a great opportunity to update your current knowledge about a specific topic. It´s also an opportunity to guide other researchers from different parts of the world to improve the way they conduct research and write an article,” says Dr. Aydogdu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shek Long Tsang

Dr. Shek Long Tsang is an Honorary Clinical Tutor in the Department of Surgery at the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong. He is practising Urology at Queen Mary Hospital. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Hong Kong and is a member of both the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the College of Surgeons of Hong Kong. His clinical and academic interests focus on stone disease and renal cancer. He is an active researcher and presenter in the Asia-Pacific urological community, with multiple awards recognizing his work. His recent projects investigate the safety and efficacy of mini-PCNL and long-term oncological outcomes of renal carcinoma following surgery.

TAU: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Tsang: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity, serving as the essential quality-control mechanism protecting the medical literature from methodological flaws and erroneous conclusions. By subjecting manuscripts to expert scrutiny before publication, peer review ensures that only rigorously validated research reaches clinicians and patients. Beyond gatekeeping, reviewers provide constructive feedback that substantially improves research quality.

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

Dr. Tsang: A healthy peer-review system balances rigor with sustainability through transparency, objectivity, and fairness. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and base evaluations solely on scientific merit. Constructive, professional feedback delivered within reasonable timeframes helps authors meaningfully improve their work. Finally, reasonable workload limits maintain reviewer engagement. These elements create an equitable, sustainable ecosystem that preserves scientific standards while supporting the academic community.

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

Dr. Tsang: I integrate peer review as a core professional responsibility. I employ time-blocking strategies and realistic deadline assessment. Strategic prioritization focuses my reviews on core expertise areas where I provide maximum value. I limit my commitments to a reasonable number of high-quality reviews to ensure sustainability. I recognize peer review as a meaningful career investment that advances urological science and patient care, justifying time spent within demanding clinical and teaching schedules. This perspective transforms reviewing from burden into valued scholarly contribution.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Agate Escoffier

Agate Escoffier, MD, is Chief Resident in the Department of Urology and Andrology at Dijon University Hospital, France, and affiliated with Inserm UMR1231, with academic teaching duties at Université Bourgogne Europe. She is a member of the French Association of Urology Oncology Committee for external genital organ cancers. Her clinical research centers on genital organ surgical pathologies in men and women—including genital cancers, urethral disease, and reconstructive surgery—rooted in patient-centered care to boost functional and psychosocial outcomes. Using interdisciplinary approaches integrating social sciences and public health, her work addresses the full care pathway to optimize care quality and patient experience. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

According to Dr. Escoffier, peer review is key to upholding the quality and relevance of scientific research. It enables rigorous assessment of study methodology, result interpretation and clinical applicability, while also letting reviewers offer constructive advice to refine manuscripts and elevate their scientific value.

Dr. Escoffieer thinks that bias is inevitable, and awareness is the first step to mitigating it. She anchors her reviews in established reporting and methodological guidelines to structure evaluations, focusing strictly on study design and methods rather than research results. She also reflects on her own clinical perspective throughout the process and keeps the core goal of patient benefit at the forefront of all assessments.

“I allocate peer review within my dedicated academic time and prioritize manuscripts that match my expertise. I set aside focused time and limit the number of reviews I accept to maintain quality. I also review because I have benefited from constructive feedback during my training, and it helps me stay up to date with current methods, techniques, and gaps in the literature,” says Dr. Escoffier.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Manish Choudhary

Manish Kumar Choudhary is an Attending Urologist at Indiana Regional Medical Center (Indiana, PA, USA), with research focusing on urology, robotic surgery, uro-oncology and prostate cancer. He has a robust clinical and academic background, including urology training at PGIMER Chandigarh (2011), a kidney transplantation clinical fellowship at McMaster University (2015), and a two-year robotic uro-oncology fellowship at Mount Sinai Hospital’s Icahn School of Medicine—with extensive prostate cancer research focus. During residency, his urogynecology research earned the Best Poster Award at the 2011 European Association of Urology Annual Meeting. He is an active reviewer for multiple urology journals, with numerous peer-reviewed publications and book chapters in urology, robotic surgery and prostate cancer.

Dr. Choudhary thinks that a constructive review aims to elevate a study’s scientific quality, helping authors strengthen their manuscript and supporting editors in informed decision-making. It delivers evidence-based comments on the study’s strengths and weaknesses across research question, methodology, analysis, interpretation and presentation. By contrast, a destructive review lacks actionable feedback: it highlights flaws without offering solutions to address them, discourages authors, adds little editorial value and ultimately impedes scientific progress.

In Dr. Choudhary’s opinion, peer review is a key pillar for upholding research quality and credibility, acting as a critical quality-control mechanism for editors to evaluate a study’s scientific originality, methodology, analysis and interpretation pre-publication. It identifies methodological flaws, biases and ethical concerns, thereby enhancing the quality and reliability of scientific research. Beyond providing authors with constructive feedback, it aids editors’ publication decisions, fosters researcher accountability, drives adherence to ethical and methodological norms, and builds trust across the scientific community.

“I choose to review for TAU because it focuses on publishing high-quality, clinically relevant, and translational research across the spectrum of urology and andrology. The journal emphasizes basic science along with clinical research that aligns well with my academic and clinical interests. I value the journal’s rigorous peer-review process and its commitment to publish evidence-based research and innovation in urology. Serving as a reviewer allows me to support authors through constructive feedback and remain engaged with emerging research,” says Dr. Choudhary.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)