In 2023, VATS 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.
January, 2023
Desiree Steimer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, USA
February, 2023
Andrei Gritsiuta, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA
March, 2023
Alison Wallace, Dalhousie University, Canada
April 2023
Hirohisa Kato, Yamagata University, Japan
June 2023
Takashi Eguchi, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Japan
August, 2023
Naoko Ose, Osaka Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
October, 2023
Takahide Toyoda, Chiba University Hospital, Japan
November, 2023
Takahiro Homma, St Marianna University, Japan
December, 2023
Richard G. Trohman, Rush Medical College, USA
January, 2023
Desiree Steimer
Desiree Steimer, MD, is a thoracic surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, USA. She completed her general surgery training at Baylor University Medical Center and cardiothoracic training at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She is board certified in both thoracic surgery and general surgery. Her research focuses on developing tools to assess patient frailty in older patients and creating interventions to help patients tolerate surgery better. She is currently working on understanding how nutrition impacts patients with esophageal cancer and surgical outcomes.
Peer review, in Dr. Steimer’s view, provides the opportunity for each of us to get feedback on our research from trusted colleagues in the field. Since the review process is anonymous, the feedback is objective and aims to improve the quality of work.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Steimer recommends authors follow reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT. She believes it is useful for both authors and reviewers to have a standardized and methodical way that researchers report their results. And the guidelines are one way to provide that structure to a manuscript.
“My motivation as a reviewer is to serve our community. Colleagues review and critique my research prior to publication and so serving as a reviewer to others allows me to ‘pay it forward’ and contribute my expertise to the group,” says Dr. Steimer.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
February, 2023
Andrei Gritsiuta
Dr. Andrei Gritsiuta is a general surgery resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA. He received his medical degree at Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia and completed a residency and fellowship in thoracic surgery at Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in lung biology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He completed his electives in thoracic surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and the University of Basel in Switzerland, as well as the Robotic Thymectomy Course hosted at Charite Clinic in Berlin, Germany. Dr. Gritsiuta has published 28 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has presented at 11 local, national, and international conferences. He frequently reviews articles for general and thoracic surgery in multiple journals. He is a member of the American Medical Association, European Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American College of Surgeons and American College of Osteopathic Surgeons.
Biases are inevitable in peer review. However, in spite of this, Dr. Gritsiuta deems that every reviewer should have a goal to minimize it. Personally, he applies the same systematic approach to every article he reviews, from case reports to prospective multicenter studies, evaluating content and conclusions, statistics, grammar and style, with an aim to minimize as many biases as possible.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Gritsiuta stresses the importance for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest. With growing numbers of medical businesses and relationships with medical professionals, it is highly important to keep the research process as independent as possible.
“During the review process, I have a privilege to encounter many incredibly interesting articles and research outside my day-to-day practice. That constantly forces me to improve my knowledge in the field of medicine,” says Dr. Gritsiuta.
March, 2023
Alison M Wallace
Dr. Alison Wallace, MD, PHD, FRCSC, is a thoracic surgeon with an interest in minimally invasive and robotic lung surgery. She completed her General Surgery residency at the University of British Columbia and subsequently pursued a Thoracic Surgery fellowship at the University of Toronto. Furthermore, she holds a PhD and has undergone extensive scientific training, including a postdoctoral fellowship at Columbia University in New York. Currently, Dr. Wallace serves as an Assistant Professor within the Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, at Dalhousie University, Canada. Within her division, she assumes the role of Director of Research and also shares the responsibilities of Co-Director for the QEII Lung Biobank. In her capacity as a surgeon-scientist, Dr. Wallace focuses her research on unraveling the intricate molecular mechanisms through which various environmental exposures, including smoke and radon, contribute to the onset and progression of lung diseases such as cancer and COPD. Notably, Dr. Wallace holds two patents centered around the prevention and treatment of lung diseases, showcasing her innovative approach to addressing these health concerns.
Dr. Wallace believes peer review plays a pivotal role in science by ensuring the quality, validity, and integrity of research. It serves as a system of checks and balances, validating research findings, filtering out flawed work, and facilitating communication among scientists. Ultimately, it contributes to the accumulation of trustworthy knowledge.
In Dr. Wallace’s opinion, reviewers in the peer-review process must maintain objectivity and confidentiality while offering constructive feedback to authors. Reviewers need to be vigilant about ethical issues, assess the relevance of the research, and evaluate the clarity and presentation of the paper. Timeliness in completing reviews is also crucial to the effectiveness of the process.
“I engage in peer reviewing to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and to hone my own critical thinking skills. I believe that engaging in the process makes me a better scientist. It offers opportunities for networking and to stay connected with the latest research,” says Dr. Wallace.
(by Brad Li, Alisa Lu)
April 2023
Hirohisa Kato
Dr. Hirohisa Kato received his M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Japan. After his residency in general surgery, cardiovascular surgery, and thoracic surgery, he became an Assistant Professor at the Department of Surgery 2, Yamagata University, Faculty of Medicine. He has also learned various surgical techniques at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, University of Hospital, Strasbourg, France, with a fellowship program from The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. He has worked at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Okitama General Hospital, and as a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Surgery 2, Yamagata University, Faculty of Medicine. His research interests include minimally invasive surgery, thoracoscopic sublobar resections and thoracoscopic segmentectomy. Connect with Dr. Kato on ResearchGate and LinkedIn.
Speaking of peer review in scientific writing, Dr. Kato thinks it should focus on maintaining the fairness, validity, persuasiveness and reliability of the journal; and this is needed not only for original articles or case reports, but also essential for editorials, brief reports and review articles.
According to Dr. Kato, there are a few things that reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers. First of all, it is important to attend different meetings or seminars to get to know the trend of each subjected field. And, with the current trend in mind, it is essential to understand the novelty of the paper while understanding the author’s goals with their opinions. He also emphasizes that it is crucial to evaluate whether both the author’s insistences and the opposite opinions could be described with a fair balance, and whether the purposes and conclusions are consistently described with the results supporting the author’s opinions.
On the prevalence of data sharing in scientific writing, Dr. Kato believes that research data are born from an event and they are firm and unwavering in science. He elaborates, “Based on the data arising from the event, scientists discuss and collaborate as expected. In the view of science, the data therefore should not be monopolized. However, it is also important to note that scientists should also be credited with the data they create.”
June 2023
Takashi Eguchi
Dr. Takashi Eguchi is a board-certified thoracic surgeon in Japan, affiliated with Shinshu University Hospital. He completed his surgical residency, thoracic surgery fellowship, and Advanced Thoracic Surgical Oncology Fellowship at Shinshu University Hospital, Japan, and at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, USA. Dr. Eguchi gained expertise in thoracic oncology research at MSKCC's Dr. Adusumilli Lab from 2014 to 2018 and earned his ECFMG certificate in 2017. At Shinshu University Hospital, Dr. Eguchi offers comprehensive, multidisciplinary oncology care, specializing in robotic surgery for thoracic malignancies, particularly robotic complex lung segmentectomy for early-stage lung cancer and pulmonary metastasis. His translational research focuses on lung cancer biology and management, exploring clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of spread through air spaces (STAS) and investigating perioperative risk assessment and management for early-stage lung cancer patients. Learn more about Dr. Eguchi's publications on ORCID or connect with him on Twitter (X).
Peer review, to Dr. Eguchi, ensures the quality and credibility of scientific research. It acts as a filter for flawed studies and provides valuable feedback to authors, especially crucial in fields like thoracic surgery that directly impacts patient care. He thinks a good reviewer should be knowledgeable, objective, and attentive to details. Ethical integrity and the ability to provide constructive feedback are also essential. From a reviewer’s perspective, it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE or PRISMA) during preparation of their manuscripts as this ensures transparency and quality, making it easier for reviewers to assess a study's validity. He further explains, “This is especially important in healthcare fields in which research impacts patient outcomes.” Finally, Dr. Eguchi would like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers, “Your behind-the-scenes work is invaluable to scientific progress. Though often unseen, your efforts uphold the quality of research and are deeply appreciated.”
(by Masaki Lo, Wymen Chen)
August, 2023
Naoko Ose
Dr. Naoko Ose currently serves at Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Osaka Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. She is one of a few female general thoracic surgeons in Japan and has a special interest in thoracoscopic and robotic surgery as minimally invasive procedures. Her clinical practice involves in minimally invasive surgery for not only malignant diseases such as lung cancer and thymic epithelial tumors, but also benign diseases such as extended thymectomy for myasthenia gravis, including the approach with uniportal thoracoscopic surgery and robotic surgeries. Her research activities focus on inflammatory thoracic disease as surgical treatment of NTM and empyema, surgical outcomes of myasthenia gravis, and education on minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer. She is a council member of the Japanese Association for Chest Surgery.
Dr. Ose believes that peer review and correction of errors by experts improves credibility of the paper. It also plays a role in preventing research misconduct. In her opinion, in addition to expertise, the reviewers must be objective and impartial, not be influenced by personal biases, and have a sense of respect for confidentiality. The ability to communicate critical opinions constructively is also important, as is the ability to complete the peer-review process in a timely manner.
Dr. Ose indicates that the institutional review board (IRB) is responsible for ensuring that research plans and practices are ethically and legally valid and protect the rights and safety of human subjects; research not approved by the IRB cannot demonstrate that it is ethically valid, which undermines the credibility and trustworthiness of the research and creates the possibility of legal sanctions. Therefore, she believes research must go through this process.
To encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene, she says, “I believe that peer review helps me to cultivate my own expertise and objective perspective. And let us continue to believe that our efforts behind the scenes have the power to create new knowledge and change the world of science better.”
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2023
Takahide Toyoda
Dr. Takahide Toyoda is an assistant professor in the Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Chiba University Hospital. He studied immuno-cell therapy for lung cancer at Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine. After graduating from graduate school, he conducted research on immunological mechanisms of primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Northwestern University, USA. Throughout his clinical career, he has conducted analytical studies on the surgical treatment of lung cancer, chest wall tumors, and lung transplantation using imaging and clinical data. In recent years, he has participated in a wide range of research activities, with a focus on reporting imaging evaluation methods for chest wall reconstruction and complications after lung transplantation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Toyoda believes that an important quality required as reviewers is to find delight in contributing to scientific progress and to face each research topic seriously and humbly. To accomplish this, he considers it important to emphasize the consistency of scientific logic and point out and ask for correction as appropriate when logical errors are found in the text. In addition, he also tries to highlight the positive aspects of each paper, refer to constructive opinions, and avoid criticizing the poor quality of the paper as a whole. Furthermore, with consideration for the authors and editors, he also considers a strict adherence to deadlines to be an important aspect of the peer-review process.
In Dr. Toyoda’s opinion, consistency is important for scientific articles that discuss scientific questions, the methods used to solve them, and the interpretation of the results. Pointing out overinterpretations of results or logical gaps is a key point to pay particular attention to when objectively reviewing papers as reviewers. As a reviewer, he has repeatedly reviewed papers and his own comments to ensure that his review points are adequately conveyed to the authors.
“As a reviewer, it gave me great pleasure to be involved in the publication of scientific articles. I also experience many benefits of updating my cutting-edge scientific knowledge, which directly motivates me to improve my clinical practice and research activities,” says he.
Dr. Toyoda believes that it is important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI). Each individual current scientist seeks better research results because of the competition for research funding and positions. They may inevitably influence results consciously and unconsciously. He hopes to maintain scientific ethics by requiring at least COI disclosures.
(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
November, 2023
Takahiro Homma
Dr. Takahiro Homma is an Associate Professor of Department of Chest Surgery at St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan. He earned his MD and PhD from University of Toyama, Japan, and completed the Foundation Course for Medical Education program, Medical Education Center, Kyoto University, Japan.
Dr. Homma thinks there are five major challenges in the existing peer-review system: (1) subjectivity, (2) time and effort burden, (3) flexibility towards new ideas and different perspectives, (4) inaccurate judgments, and (5) ensuring an adequate pool of reviewers. While advancements in technologies like AI offer numerous possibilities for improvement, there are persistent issues related to maintaining a balance with human factors and implementing monitoring mechanisms to prevent intentional biases and inaccurate assessments.
In addition, Dr. Homma indicates that a reviewer should possess the following skills; (1) expertise, (2) objectivity, (3) effective and constructive communication skills, (4) judgment, (5) time management, (6) enthusiasm and sense of responsibility, (7) flexibility, and (8) respect for confidentiality. As a reviewer himself, he aspires to cultivate these qualities.
“During my residency, I wrote my first original research paper, and it took two years before it was accepted. Despite encountering multiple rejections, all reviewers provided constructive feedback, which I incorporated into subsequent submissions to other journals. As the saying goes, failure teaches success. One might also rephrase it to say that rejection teaches acceptance,” adds Dr. Homma.
As a reviewer, Dr. Homma highlights it is important for research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval, and the reasons are as follows: (1) Protection of human subjects, (2) confirmation of the sincere attitude of researchers, (3) ensuring transparency that the research contributes to society, and (4) compliance with legal regulations. Omitting this process, to him, can lead to serious issues that diminish the reliability of the research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
December, 2023
Richard G. Trohman
Dr. Richard Trohman is a graduate of the University of Michigan Medical School and The George Washington University School of Business. He spent his entire 42-year career in academic medicine before retiring in October 2020. He directed the Electrophysiology, Arrhythmia, and Pacemaker Services at Rush University Medical Center from 1996-2020. He is currently Professor Emeritus, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology and the Grace Deforest and William Louis Veeck Endowed Professor Emeritus of Cardiovascular Research at Rush Medical College. He is a prolific author and writes/reviews questions for maintenance of board certification in Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology. He has served 9 journals as an editorial board member, is an associate editor of Frontiers in Physiology, and a senior associate editor of the Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology. He has received 4 teaching/mentorship awards and 18 awards reviewing for medical journals. He shared a 2013 Public Relations Society of America Silver Anvil award for Multicultural Public Relations and was honored for commitment to recruitment and collaboration with students and faculty of George Washington University in 2012.
Dr. Trohman reckons that the biggest limitations of the existing peer-review system occur when journals receive submissions that originate from countries where English is not the native language. The reviewer(s) encounter grammar/syntax issues that are quite time consuming to correct. At times, the information provided is inscrutable and reviewers have to guess what the authors are trying to convey. On occasion, he has suggested that poorly written manuscripts be sent to a scientific reviewing service before the formal peer-review process proceeds.
“Reviews are helpful to authors and readers. I’ve never failed to learn something when I agree to review. At times, the manuscripts I read change my mind about how to approach a clinical problem. At other times, a well written manuscript may trigger an idea that is new to me. I think that dedicated reviewers help both the authors and themselves,” says Dr. Trohman.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Trohman points out that Conflicts of Interest (COIs) should always be disclosed by authors, and, if in doubt, he errs on the side of transparency. He believes that nearly all reviewers perform the work avoiding undue bias and without self-serving intentions. He cannot think of an instance where someone crossed that line. Nevertheless, it would be naïve to believe that rejection has never been motivated by personal gain.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
