In 2025, ATM 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.

Thomas J O'Keefe, University of California, USA

Thomas R. Powell, The Texas Heart Institute, USA

Jessica Freydman, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA

Rakuhei Nakama, National Cancer Center Hospital, Japan

Lianne Mobbs, Wearables and Gait Assessment Research (WAGAR) Group, Australia

Mengqian Wang, University of North Carolina, USA

Thomas J O'Keefe

Tom O’Keefe is a breast surgical oncology fellow at the University of California San Francisco. He completed a fellowship in quality and safety at the Jennifer Moreno VA Hospital in San Diego where he conducted research on half-hitch knot configurations and developed a video-based curriculum which when viewed by residents resulted in a four-fold increase in the security of their knots tied in cavities. During residency at the University of California San Diego, he spent two years in the lab of Anne Wallace and David Vera, where he developed theragnostic radiopharmaceuticals targeting breast cancer and conducted outcomes research on patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Prior to medical school, he studied the photophysical properties of europium doped yttrium vanadate nanoparticles at École Polytechnique in Paris, France, and helped model seismic waves in an abandoned gold mine in South Dakota to assess the feasibility of underground third generation gravitational wave detectors.

ATM: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. O’Keefe: A reviewer must have integrity in deciding whether to accept an invitation to review a manuscript. To responsibly accept, the reviewer must possess a mastery of the subject matter relevant to the manuscript. Simply having published in the area is not a sufficient criterion—the reviewer must have a robust familiarity with the existing literature on the subject and the relative quality of the literature that is most pertinent to the manuscript. Not only must the reviewer possess a deep knowledge of this literature, but also the methods used by the paper including the specifics of any statistical tests or regression models that are employed. The merit of the work can only be appropriately assessed through this lens of expertise. Furthermore, a reviewer must have the time and energy necessary to adequately appraise the study. A hasty assessment by a subject matter expert may not be superior to a thoughtful analysis by a novice, though neither is particularly useful. The reviewer must approach the work under consideration with an open mind. Understanding the strengths and limitations of both the manuscript under consideration and the body of existing literature on the subject matter and how they interrelate is critical in deciding whether a given work warrants publication.

ATM: What do you consider as an objective review? How do you make sure your review is objective?

Dr. O’Keefe: An objective review must first assess whether the primary objective of a study can be adequately assessed with the data utilized. It must then confirm that the methods applied by the authors are appropriate for this objective and that the assumptions for all statistical tests and regression models are met. It is critical that the results are then interpreted by the reviewer in the context of the existing literature on the basis of the level of evidence of both the work under consideration and relevant existing publications. And when differences exist between studies of comparable levels of evidence, plausible explanations for the discrepancy must be considered by both reviewer and author. An objective review must finally consider the novelty of the study at hand and the meaningfulness of its contribution to the existing literature on the subject.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Thomas R. Powell

Dr. Powell grew up in Austin, TX and pursued his medical training in Houston. He completed medical school at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston and then anaesthesiology residency and fellowship in adult cardiothoracic anaesthesiology at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Heart Institute, where he now serves on the faculty. Clinically, he is actively involved in the care of patients undergoing complex cardiac and aortic surgery, as well as for patients with advanced heart failure who require the use of mechanical circulatory support devices, including a novel continuous flow total artificial heart. His other professional interests include process analysis, quality improvement, and resident educational initiatives. Connect with him on X @thomaspowellmd.

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

Dr. Powell: A healthy peer-review system is one that is rigorous, fair, and constructive, ensuring that scientific publications maintain high-quality standards, integrity, and relevance to the field. It should be transparent in its criteria, free from bias, and uphold ethical principles. A strong review system should also foster collaborative improvement rather than serve as a gatekeeping mechanism. The goal is not just to evaluate manuscripts but also to enhance the quality of research through meaningful feedback. Timeliness is another key aspect—delays in peer review can slow scientific progress, so an efficient and responsive process benefits both authors and the field at large.

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

Dr. Powell: Reviewers should approach manuscripts with objectivity, fairness, and a constructive mindset. As a peer reviewer, you are sharing accountability for the quality of the research! For me, key aspects to consider include:

• Scientific rigor and methodology – Does the study design support valid conclusions? Are the methods appropriate and reproducible?
• Clinical and translational relevance – Does the study contribute meaningful insights to the field?
• Clarity and organization – Is the manuscript well-structured, with a logical flow and clear explanations?
• Ethical considerations – Are there potential conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, or issues related to data integrity?
• Constructive criticism – Feedback should be actionable, respectful, and aimed at improving the work rather than discouraging the authors.

Ultimately, the role of a reviewer is to uphold scientific excellence while also fostering the professional development of researchers through supportive critique.

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

Dr. Powell: Several factors motivate me to engage in peer review. First, I am committed to advancing science. Peer review is crucial for upholding the integrity of medical literature. Through manuscript reviews, I play a part in ensuring that published research is rigorous, holds clinical significance, and has a sound methodology. Second, peer reviewing helps with my own professional growth. Reviewing allows me to stay updated on emerging research, critically assess new methodologies, and refine my own academic writing. Third, I view peer review as a way to give back to the scientific community. As a researcher and clinician, I've profited from peer-reviewed literature, so I view reviewing as a chance to contribute to the system that has influenced my practice. Finally, the process is intellectually stimulating. Interacting with novel ideas and offering thoughtful feedback is a rewarding intellectual activity that sustains my curiosity and involvement in my field. It's fascinating to discover the work of others.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jessica Freydman

Jessica Freydman is a leukemia clinical pharmacy specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA. She earned her PharmD from the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University in New Jersey and completed her residency at Boston Medical Center, where she launched the “Fe-armacist” run iron deficiency anemia clinic. Currently, she specializes in both inpatient and outpatient pharmacy practice for acute and chronic leukemias, as well as myelodysplastic syndromes. Her work focuses on managing medication toxicity from drugs like blinatumomab, pegasparaginase, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. She is also dedicated to quality improvement initiatives and promoting equitable care in diverse patient populations and community practice.

Jessica thinks that the peer-review process is crucial for filtering academic submissions and enhancing the quality of accepted literature. However, it has several limitations. First, as many reviewers work voluntarily, the process may attract a biased pool of experts. Reviewers with varying knowledge levels may offer inadequate or inaccurate feedback, leading to inconsistent publication decisions. Second, timeliness is a major issue. The process of finding reviewers and exchanging feedback is often slow, causing fragmented communication and delays in information dissemination. Additionally, while double-blindness helps mitigate bias, it has drawbacks. In some highly specialized research areas, it is possible to identify authors or reviewers based on subject matter or opinions, potentially leading to biased results under the cloak of anonymity. Moreover, lack of transparency can occur if reviews are not made public, as practices vary among journals. To improve the system, varying levels of transparency should be introduced, such as making reviewer feedback publicly available. Additionally, efforts should be made to expand the pool of research experts by highlighting the importance of peer review.

In Jessica’s opinion, an objective review is based on facts and evidence, and properly contextualizes information within the existing literature. To ensure objectivity, she takes several steps. Before accepting a review request, she assesses her expertise in the subject matter, ensuring she can draw on her own experience and knowledge of existing literature without being influenced by personal biases. She also checks for any ethical concerns and, after accepting the review request, scrutinizes the material for potential conflicts of interest. During the review, she follows a systematic checklist, evaluating the paper's organization, scientific soundness, relevance, and contribution to existing literature. Finally, she provides respectful and constructive feedback, and makes fair publication decisions.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Jessica believes that Disclosing COIs is critical for authors. Although scientific research should be evidence-based, COIs can unconsciously bias authors through partial exposure or skewed motivation. While COIs don't necessarily disqualify authors from publication, disclosing them gives readers context, clarifies the author's perspective, and provides a basis for critique. COIs can impact all stages of the research process, from study design to review. By disclosing COIs, authors add credibility to their work and strengthen the ethical integrity of published literature, promoting transparency and accountability.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rakuhei Nakama

Dr. Rakuhei Nakama is a distinguished figure in diagnostic radiology, affiliated with the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at Japan’s National Cancer Center Hospital. A graduate of Toho University School of Medicine, he completed residency programs in emergency medicine and radiology, earning board certification in both specialties. His research spans clinical and basic domains: clinically, he investigates interventional oncology using Japan’s nationwide Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database; basic research focuses on developing novel embolic materials for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding via swine models. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Nakama thinks that peer review is essential to scientific integrity, as it eliminates arbitrary influences, enhancing papers’ accuracy, fairness, and objectivity. Beyond rigor, it improves readability for diverse audiences, facilitating broader dissemination of research—making it a cornerstone of the scientific process.

In Dr. Nakama’s opinion, reviewers should avoid excessive criticism, noting every study holds value. Even when recommending rejection, he prioritizes constructive feedback to help authors refine their work, fostering progress over mere judgment.

As a busy scientist and doctor, Dr. Nakama allocates time for reviews by leveraging spare moments—reading papers during commutes, jotting notes on key points, and drafting comments when time permits. This efficient use of fragmented time ensures that he contributes to peer review without compromising clinical or research responsibilities.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Lianne Mobbs

Lianne Mobbs (formerly Koinis) serves as the Executive Director of Operations and Finance at the Wearables and Gait Assessment Research (WAGAR) Group in Sydney, Australia. With degrees in Psychology (Honours), Law, Finance, and Nursing, she brings a multidisciplinary background to her role, underpinned by a personal and academic interest in forensic psychology and the criminal mind. Her expertise drives strategic leadership in health research operations, where she manages large-scale projects focused on gait analysis and wearable technology for clinical care. Lianne has co-authored peer-reviewed publications and oversees complex funding, compliance, and research governance processes. Beyond her career, she is an active investor in Australian residential property and equities, applying analytical and risk-based thinking across domains. Outside of work, she enjoys outdoor activities, running, reading, and caring for her young daughter. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Lianne regards peer review as a “gatekeeper of scientific integrity”. It ensures research is methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and appropriately interpreted before reaching the public, promoting accountability, reproducibility, and quality across the scientific ecosystem.

A strong reviewer, in Lianne’s view, combines subject matter expertise, objectivity, and clarity. Precision in critique, a commitment to fairness, and the ability to assess both the science and its real-world implications are critical. Above all, reviewers must uphold confidentiality and provide constructive feedback.

To reviewers contributing to scientific progress, she says, “Your role is vital, though often invisible. Your intellectual labor preserves the credibility of science. Your time and expertise matter—thank you for shaping the quality and future of evidence-based knowledge.”

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Mengqian Wang

Mengqian Wang holds a Ph.D. in Information Science with a specialization in Health Care. She currently works as a Research Data Scientist at a hedge fund, focusing on market analysis and KPI estimation across the travel and energy sectors. Her recent projects include developing methods to extract quantitative KPI insights from legal documents using large language models (LLMs) and generating airline-related alpha signals from alternative data sources—with the goal of designing and aggregating statistically significant signals to guide real-time market trading strategies.​ Beyond her industry role, she remains deeply involved in the academic community. She serves as a peer reviewer for leading journals and conferences, and acts as an independent advisor to Ph.D. students across multiple university research labs.

Dr. Wang indicates two key limitations in the current peer-review system: difficulty detecting plagiarism and assessing state-of-the-art works. Reviewers often face constraints in accessing a broad scope of literature, and not all have the time or willingness to thoroughly verify a study’s originality and comprehensiveness.​ To address these challenges, she proposes targeted improvements:​

• provide automated tools to help reviewers identify potentially relevant prior works, enhancing the assessment of originality;​
• encourage including direct quotes from the original text in reviews, making it easier for both reviewers and authors to pinpoint issues and drive manuscript improvements;​
• develop more effective text-labeling systems or online platforms that enable precise, side-by-side, next-to-text commentary—strengthening the review process and fostering clearer, more constructive feedback.

According to Dr. Wang, an objective review is one that evaluates a manuscript based solely on the quality, rigor, and significance of its research, independent of personal preferences, affiliations, or potential conflicts of interest. To ensure her own reviews remain objective, she adheres to three core practices. She focuses on clearly defined criteria such as the soundness of the methodology, the validity of the results, and the clarity of the presentation. She avoids letting factors such as the authors’ identities, institutions, or reputations influence her judgment. Additionally, she supports her comments with evidence from the text and established academic standards, ensuring that my feedback is constructive, fair, and free from bias.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)