In 2026, 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.

Maharan Kabha, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Centre, Israel

Mohammed Shahait, University of California at Irvine, USA

Jason R. Browna, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, USA

Clément Larose, Laval University, Canada

Patrick Rein, HOCH-Health Ostschweiz Hospital, Swizerland

Ryuta Watanabe, Ehime University Hospital, Japan

Shuhei Hara, Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School, USA

Maharan Kabha

Dr. Maharan Kabha specializes in male reproductive health and sexual medicine. He serves as Senior Urologist and Andrologist in the Department of Urology and Director of the Andrology Service at Carmel Medical Center, Lady Davis Hospital, Haifa, Israel, which is affiliated with the Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology. He completed advanced postgraduate training in the Andrology Program at the University of British Columbia (UBC), under the mentorship of Dr. Ryan Flannigan, a clinician-scientist in the Department of Urologic Sciences. His clinical and research interests include male infertility and male sexual dysfunction. He is actively involved in translational research, innovation, and medical device development in fertility and sexual medicine, supported by the Mehoudar Center for Inventors at the Technion. His recent research also includes collaborative basic science studies on sperm biology and infertility with the Podbilewicz Laboratory, Department of Biology. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Kabha believes that peer review is a fundamental mechanism that ensures the quality, rigor, and credibility of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to critically evaluate methodology, analysis, and conclusions before publication, thereby strengthening the reliability and integrity of the scientific literature.

Dr. Kabha emphasizes that an objective review focuses on the scientific merit of the work rather than on the authors or institutions involved. It evaluates the manuscript based on methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the field, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. To maintain objectivity, he approaches each manuscript with a structured perspective, assessing the research question, study design, statistical analysis, and interpretation independently from his personal opinions or expectations. He also tries to provide balanced feedback by highlighting both the strengths and the areas needing improvement. He stresses that maintaining professionalism, fairness, and transparency is essential to ensure that the review process remains constructive and unbiased.

In Dr. Kabha’s opinion, disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) is essential for transparency and trust in scientific research. While a COI does not necessarily invalidate findings, proper disclosure allows readers and reviewers to interpret the results with appropriate context.

(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)

Mohammed Shahait

Dr. Mohammed Shahait is an Assistant Professor of Urology at University of California, Irvine (UCI), specializing in prostate cancer, robotic surgery, and precision diagnostics. He completed residency training at the American University of Beirut Medical Center, followed by fellowships in Endourology at the University of Pittsburgh and Robotic Urologic Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. His clinical and research work centers on outcome research in robotic surgery, advanced prostate cancer imaging, transperineal MRI-fusion biopsy, and personalized surgical outcomes. Dr. Shahait has authored over 100 peer-reviewed publications and leads multiple initiatives integrating genomics, radiomics, and artificial intelligence to improve risk stratification and recovery after prostate cancer surgery. He is deeply committed to mentorship, education, and innovation, and actively contributes to advancing academic urology through research collaboration and training programs.

TAU: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Shahait: One of my favorite quotes about peer review is by Chris Mooney,“Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader process of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.” Despite its imperfections, peer review remains the primary quality filter that ensures sound science reaches publication. It provides independent scrutiny, challenges assumptions, and often introduces new perspectives that ultimately strengthen the work.

TAU: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Shahait: To me, reviewing is an honorable responsibility with the goal of improving science. I approach each manuscript with the mindset of “How can this be better?” I focus on methodology, clarity, and clinical relevance rather than personal preference. I aim to give constructive, actionable feedback that helps authors elevate the quality and impact of their work.

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

Dr. Shahait: Time management is truly an art. I prioritize reviews in areas I’m passionate about or where I can add real value. I schedule dedicated blocks of time—just like clinic or operation time—so reviewing doesn’t become an afterthought. Treating peer review as part of my academic duty rather than an extra task helps me stay consistent and engaged.

(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)

Jason R. Browna

Jason Browna, MD, PhD, is a genitourinary medical oncologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and appointed as an Assistant Professor at the Case Western School of Medicine. He earned his PhD in Experimental Pathology and his MD at Yale University. He completed both his residency training in Internal Medicine and fellowship training in Hematology and Oncology at the University of Michigan. His research interests include early-stage clinical trials and application of novel biomarkers in genitourinary cancers. Recently, he has conducted retrospective real-world analyses on the impacts of pre-existing neuropathy and diabetes and on dose reductions on survival outcomes with enfortumab vedotin for advanced urothelial cancer. He also has been evaluating the role of circulating tumor DNA in treatment response and is designing prospective trials that utilize this biomarker. He is also associate program director of the fellowship program, and mentors students, residents, and fellows in various research projects. Connect with him on X.

Dr. Browna reckons that a good reviewer should take the time to carefully and critically read the article. They should be able to analyze and appraise the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and offer clear and constructive suggestions to the authors to strengthen their investigation.

According to Dr. Browna, one major limitation of the peer-review system is finding reviewers who are willing to spend the time to review articles. This leads to delays in the review process, leaving authors in limbo as to the outcome of their work. There are minimal incentives for reviewers, which could potentially improve the system. Reviews are also subjective, so including reviewers with different perspectives will help overcome this.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Clément Larose

Dr. Clément Larose is a clinician-researcher in urology specializing in andrology and uro-oncology, with a particular focus on prostate cancer risk stratification and modifiable risk factors. As a former Senior Registrar physician at the Nancy-University-Hospital in France, he is currently completing a fellowship and a Ph.D. in Clinical and Biomedical Sciences in the Department of Urology at the University Hospital of Quebec – Laval University, Canada. Actively involved in multidisciplinary research, he has presented his work at major international urology conferences, including the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology annual meetings. His work is driven by a strong commitment to advancing precision medicine through innovative and clinically applicable research. He is particularly dedicated to identifying modifiable risk factors that can inform targeted prevention strategies and improve long-term patient outcomes. Through international collaborations and high-impact scientific contributions, his objective is to shape the future of urology and contribute to transformative, patient-centered care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Clément Larose believes that peer review is essential in scientific research, as it acts as a quality-control system for knowledge before it is published and shared. First, it helps ensure scientific rigor and validity: independent experts evaluate whether the study design is appropriate, statistical analyses are correct, and conclusions are supported by the data, reducing the risk of methodological errors, bias, or overinterpretation of results. Second, it improves the quality of manuscripts, as reviewers often provide constructive feedback to help authors clarify ideas, strengthen analysis, and enhance the overall presentation of their work. Third, it serves as a filter for reliability and relevance, helping journals prioritize novel, methodologically sound, and field-relevant studies amid the large volume of scientific literature. Finally, it builds trust in science, as peer review signals that independent experts have critically evaluated the study, increasing confidence among researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and the public. In short, peer review protects the integrity of science and ensures published research is accurate, credible, and useful.

Speaking of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Larose notes that while it is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, it has well-known flaws. The main ones include publication bias—where positive results are favored over negative ones—slow turnaround times, and a lack of transparency due to often anonymous and unaccountable reviews. Reviewer fatigue is also an issue, as the work is voluntary and uncompensated. To improve the system, he believes three measures are essential: moving towards open peer review to increase accountability, implementing registered reports to tackle publication bias upfront, and formally recognizing reviewers' contributions to encourage higher quality and greater participation.

“Peer reviewers play a crucial but often invisible role in advancing science. Their time, expertise, and critical insights help ensure the quality, rigor, and credibility of scientific research. Although this work is frequently done behind the scenes and without formal recognition, it has a profound impact on the progress of knowledge. Thank you for your time, your rigor, and your commitment to science. Your work may go unnoticed by many, but it is the silent engine that drives scientific progress forward. Continued dedication from reviewers like you is essential to maintaining the integrity of the scientific process — and your contributions deserve the appreciation and recognition of the entire research community. Congratulations to each one of you,” says Dr. Larose.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Patrick Rein

Dr. Patrick Rein is a urologist and FEBU – Fellow of the European Board of Urology. He runs his own private practice in Switzerland and performs surgical procedures within the HOCH-Health Ostschweiz Hospital network. His main clinical and scientific focus is laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), particularly using miniaturized instruments with the MiLEP concept. In this context, he concentrates on techniques that aim to reduce urethral trauma while maintaining the full functional benefits of the classic HoLEP. A key aspect of his work is the use of Ultra Slim HoLEP instruments, which allow transurethral enucleation with smaller-caliber resectoscopes while preserving visualization and efficiency.

Dr. Rein points out two major limitations of the current peer-review system. One is its inefficiency. It is often difficult to find qualified reviewers, leading to delayed decisions and preventing high-quality work from being published in a timely manner. The other is bias and subjectivity, as reviews may be affected by personal, institutional, or geographic prejudice, which often disadvantages innovative or interdisciplinary research.

According to Dr. Rein, a good reviewer must be neutral and objective, assessing research based on clear criteria rather than personal preference, and remain fair and consistent in applying standards to all submissions. He also notes that the ability to deliver constructive feedback is essential; reviewers should not only identify problems but explain them clearly and offer practical solutions, which requires strong communication skills. In addition, he believes a qualified reviewer should be detail-oriented, possess sufficient professional expertise to make sound judgments, and stay open-minded toward diverse approaches and ideas.

“What motivates me is the opportunity to stay up-to-date with new studies and emerging ideas in the field. Peer review allows me to engage with current research before publication, which I find both interesting and intellectually stimulating. At the same time, I value the chance to make a constructive contribution to the scientific community. By providing thoughtful and helpful feedback, I can help improve the quality of manuscripts and support other researchers in developing their ideas further. That sense of contributing to the broader academic process is highly motivating for me,” says Dr. Rein.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Ryuta Watanabe

Dr. Ryuta Watanabe is a physician-scientist and Senior Assistant Professor in the Department of Urology at Ehime University Hospital, Japan. His research focuses on the molecular pathology of aggressive and treatment-resistant prostate cancer, particularly neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P). By integrating single-cell and spatial transcriptomics, his work aims to elucidate lineage plasticity, tumor microenvironment dynamics, and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. He has led multiple translational research projects using clinical specimens to identify novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets. He previously conducted research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center under the mentorship of Peter S. Nelson. He has served as a moderator for the Prostate Cancer Basic Research session at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting in 2025 and 2026. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Watanabe believes that the quality of peer review directly determines the quality of a journal. In that sense, he notes, reviewers are not just evaluators but essential contributors who shape the scientific standard of a field. He thinks that well-trained and dedicated reviewers are indispensable for maintaining rigor, especially in rapidly evolving areas such as cancer genomics. Peer review should not be viewed as a passive checkpoint, but as an active process that refines and elevates scientific work.

Dr. Watanabe identifies one of the major challenges as securing high-quality reviewers. He explains that reviewing requires significant time and expertise, yet it is often under-recognized. Providing financial incentives, he notes, is one possible solution, but it may not always lead to better quality and could even compromise the motivation behind peer review. Instead, he suggests that recognition systems—such as reviewer awards and public acknowledgment—can serve as effective ways to maintain motivation and encourage high-quality contributions. He emphasizes that building a sustainable system that values and supports dedicated reviewers is essential for the future of scientific publishing.

According to Dr. Watanabe, an objective review requires a balance between deep expertise and neutrality. While reviewers should fully utilize their domain-specific knowledge, personal preferences or biases should not influence the evaluation. In his own reviews, he aims to provide constructive and broadly valid critiques based on scientific rigor and methodological soundness. Rather than imposing his own perspective, he focuses on whether the study is logically designed and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. Maintaining this balance is key to delivering fair and meaningful peer review.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Shuhei Hara

Shuhei Hara, MD, PhD, is a board-certified urologist from Japan and a JSPS Overseas Research Fellow currently based at the Center for Transplantation Sciences, Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School, the U.S., where he is being trained in the Alessandrini Laboratory. He graduated from The Jikei University School of Medicine in 2016, completed initial clinical training at the National Center for Global Health and Medicine, and finished his urology residency at Jikei in 2021, where he subsequently practiced as a staff urologist. His clinical PhD focused on non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), and his peer-reviewed work has been mainly centered in urologic oncology, with one publication in the field of transplantation medicine. He is currently researching on how transplant immune tolerance mechanisms might be applied to cancer immunotherapy. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

In Dr. Hara’s view, peer review serves two interrelated functions in science. The first is a form of quality control—helping to identify manuscripts in which the methodology, statistical handling, or interpretation may not adequately support the conclusions drawn. The second, which he considers equally important, is constructive improvement: even manuscripts that are ultimately not accepted often contain a meaningful clinical question, and thoughtful feedback can help shape that question into a stronger form for a future submission. In urologic oncology and transplantation medicine, where review articles and meta-analyses can inform clinical guidelines and treatment decisions, this dual function may carry weight beyond the academic sphere. He therefore tries to approach each review with the awareness that the literature being shaped may eventually reach patients, and he aims to contribute as carefully as he can to that process.

According to Dr. Hara, an objective review is one that tries to evaluate a manuscript primarily based on its scientific merit—study design, internal and external validity, statistical appropriateness, and the alignment between data and conclusions—as much as possible independent of authorship, institution, or whether the findings happen to agree with his own prior work. Complete objectivity is probably difficult to achieve, but he tries to follow a deliberate sequence: he first reads the manuscript focusing on the research question and methods, then considers whether the chosen design and statistical approach match the data structure, and checks whether the conclusions remain within what the data actually demonstrate. Only afterward does he consider novelty and clinical impact. When a manuscript falls outside his core expertise, he shares this limitation honestly with the editor, and he would decline a review if he has collaborated with the authors or if the topic overlaps with an unpublished manuscript of his own.

Dr. Hara believes that disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is essential. The ICMJE and COPE frameworks codify this requirement for good reason: when conflicts are not disclosed, readers and reviewers may lack the context they need to weigh a study fairly. Even unintentional non-disclosure, he adds, can affect trust in the scientific record. As a reviewer, he tries to treat the COI section as a meaningful part of the manuscript rather than a procedural footnote. When conflicts are properly declared, readers retain the ability to interpret the work in context, and reviewers and editors can pay appropriate attention to design choices, endpoint definitions, and the framing of conclusions. In his view, transparent disclosure does not diminish a study; rather, it helps preserve the integrity of the peer-review process and supports the credibility of the broader scientific literature on which clinical decisions ultimately depend.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)