In 2024, TRO 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, 2024
Shin-Ichi Miyatake, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Japan
February, 2024
Irini Youssef, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
March, 2024
Fuqiang Wang, National Cancer Centre, Singapore
September, 2024
Hisashi Yamaguchi, The Ohio State University, USA
October, 2024
Hisashi Nakano, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Japan
January, 2024
Shin-Ichi Miyatake
Dr. Shin-Ichi Miyatake currently serves as a professor at Kansai Medical BNCT Center in the Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University. He is a member of several academic and professional societies, such as the Japan Neurosurgical Society, the Japan Society of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) and the Society of Neuro-Oncology. He was the president of 27th Japanese Society of Neuro-Oncology meeting and 6th Japanese Society of Neutron Capture Therapy meeting in 2009. Now he is a member of the Board of Councilors of ISNCT. His work in BNCT was vital for the development of the therapy in a number of patients. He was the principal investigator of company-lead, phase 1 and 2 trial of accelerator-based BNCT for recurrent malignant gliomas and the principal investigator of investigator-lead phase 2 trial of accelerator-based BNCT for recurrent and refractory high-grade meningiomas. He got the Hatanaka Award from 16th International Congress of Neutron Capture Therapy in 2014.
Dr. Miyatake emphasizes that peer review could help to evaluate manuscripts without any consideration of the author’s background, and improve the quality of the manuscripts.
Dr. Miyatake reckons that reviewers, while reviewing papers, should bear in mind that they should judge the manuscript fairly without any biases. The ability to improve the value of manuscript is also needed.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
February, 2024
Irini Youssef
Dr. Youssef is a radiation oncologist currently completing a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with a focus on brachytherapeutic procedures. Her research interests are in proton radiation, head and neck and the use of particle therapy to minimize toxicity. She has produced several works reporting on the benefits of using proton radiation in head and neck malignancies to improve toxicity rates.
Dr. Youssef points out that often times, the reviewers do not specialize in the area of the paper they are reviewing, for particularly specialized topics, which could be the limitations of the existing peer-review system.
On the other hand, Dr. Youssef indicates that it is important for authors to disclose Conflicts of Interest (COIs) as these may cause prejudice when reviewing/agreeing with findings.
“In general, I dedicate 1-2 hours of my personal time to research and/or peer review daily,” says Dr. Youssef.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
March, 2024
Fuqiang Wang
Dr. Fuqiang Wang is a radiation oncologist practising at the Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore. His sub-specializations are in colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary, and upper gastrointestinal malignancies. In addition, his research interests include radiomics, spatially fractionated radiotherapy and proton therapy. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Wang thinks the process of peer review ensures the quality, validity and integrity of research. By evaluating a study before it is published, it helps to maintain standards and credibility in scientific research.
Dr. Wang believes that peer review is about assessing whether the research methods are sound and if the results are reliable and accurately presented. Besides that, he appreciates clarity in the writing, with good organization of the content and coherence of the arguments presented. Where possible, he hopes to provide constructive feedback to help the authors improve their work, including suggestions for revisions or clarifications.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Wang reckons that data sharing is important as it signals transparency and accountability in research. Besides that, this is an avenue for verification for reproducibility and to promote collaboration.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
September, 2024
Hisashi Yamaguchi
Hisashi Yamaguchi works at Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University, USA. His research area covers proton beam therapy, oligometastatic tumor, gastrointestinal cancer, pediatric cancer, and radiation biology. He was affiliated with Fukushima Medical University in Japan as a certificated radiation oncologist, where he specialized in proton beam therapy for metastatic tumors and hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers. Currently, he is carrying out research on radiation biology at a university in the United States. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Yamaguchi thinks that reviewers provide constructive feedback to help clarify the content of the research and they suggest revisions to strengthen the main argument. Reviewers should focus on the quality of the paper and evaluate it fairly, without being influenced by the author's affiliation or reputation. In particular, reviewers’ personal preferences or differences in opinion with the author should not affect the evaluation.
“Peer review is an important opportunity to enhance my educational teaching abilities. Generally, I try my best to keep in mind to maintain a professional attitude without any hard comments,” says Dr. Yamaguchi.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
October, 2024
Hisashi Nakano
Hisashi Nakano, PhD, works at Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Japan. He is a medical physicist and an assistant professor. His research area covers medical physics, biophysics, and data science. He is conducting research that bridges radiation physics and radiation biology to predict the effects of radiation therapy on tumors, while also developing applications of cross-reality (XR) technology to provide safer and more efficient healthcare and radiation therapy. Learn more about him here.
TRO: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Nakano: A constructive review provides specific feedback and advice to improve the study, including suggestions for improvement while pointing out weaknesses in the research. In contrast, a destructive review merely offers criticism without suggesting solutions or alternatives, and it can negate the author's efforts. Constructive reviews are important because they enhance the quality of research and advance the entire academic community. Additional revision comments at the revision stage are also constructive if they offer specific, helpful suggestions for improving the paper and are presented in a way that the authors find acceptable. However, if additional comments are overly harsh or require extensive changes, they can become burdensome and be perceived as destructive. It is therefore essential to ensure that any further comments are clear and offer positive suggestions for improvement.
TRO: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Nakano: Disclosure of COI is crucial for ensuring the fairness and transparency of research. It is important to clarify any financial or personal interests that the authors may have. A COI can affect the credibility of a study, and disclosing it allows readers to assess its impact appropriately. The extent to which a COI influences research varies, but there is an increased risk of bias, especially when it concerns the interpretation of conclusions or the source of funding. Therefore, COI disclosure is essential to safeguard the integrity of the research.
TRO: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Nakano: In a previous paper I reviewed, the authors used a novel technique but did not clearly explain its benefits. During the review process, I suggested they clarify the advantages of this technique and highlight how it differs from others. The revised version successfully demonstrated the technique's superiority, which significantly enhanced the paper's value. The authors later expressed their appreciation, and it was rewarding to see how my input contributed to the quality of the paper.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
