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

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)