In 2025, AOJ 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.
Huai Yong Cheng, University of Minnesota, USA
Thomas Mathieu, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Hamed Sadeghipour, Saint Louis University, USA
Zachary Herman, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA
Rafael Francisco Vieira de Melo, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Robert F. LaPrade, Twin Cities Orthopedics, USA
Huai Yong Cheng
Huai Cheng, MD, MS, MPH, is an associate professor of medicine at University of Minnesota, and a staff physician at Minneapolis VA health care system. He was trained in internal medicine, geriatric medicine, palliative and hospice medicine, endocrinology-osteoporosis, and cardiology. He has practiced geriatrics in both academic and non-academic settings including geriatric clinics, hospital, and post-acute and long-term care facilities, in addition to an endocrinology-osteoporosis clinic. He has conducted research on falls, polypharmacy, geriatric practice innovation and education. He received the Geriatric Academic Career Award (GACA), teaching award, and several medical education, and geriatric practice innovation grants. For the past 20 years, he has been dedicated to scholarly teaching, research, and leadership in geriatric education. He has published more than 30 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters. His current funded research focuses on the application of large language models to geriatric practice and education.
Prof. Cheng reckons that peer review could help the authors improve the quality of reporting their research findings and maintain the high quality of published papers. Journal can be a gate keeper to maintain the trustfulness of research results and to provide good and reliable research evidence to the providers and researchers. This could enhance high-quality care for the patients, high-quality education for the trainees and high quality of future research.
According to Prof. Cheng, the reviewers must be fair and objective to critically evaluate the research findings. One important goal as a reviewer is to help the authors to improve their papers. “I am stratified when I can help the authors improve their paper. Also, I like to learn from the authors who are working in the same research field,” says Prof. Cheng.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Thomas Mathieu
Dr. Thomas Mathieu is a Belgian specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation, with a particular focus on sports-related injuries. He is affiliated with both AZ Rivierenland and the University of Antwerp (UA). He completed his medical studies at the UA in 2017. He serves as the medical head for the football club SK Beveren in the Challenger Pro League and is a member of the Belgian Football Doctors & Associates (BFDA). His research interests include sports medicine and orthopedics with several publications to his name. He is especially known for his research in the pubic area. He discovered a new injury that can lead to pubalgia (an inferior pubic ligament lesion), which was later named after him. In 2021, he was honored with the International Sports Medicine Leadership Award. Dr. Mathieu has also treated multiple international athletes and Olympic competitors and is a renowned keynote speaker at international medical conferences. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
AOJ: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Mathieu: One of the primary issues is bias, whether conscious or unconscious, toward established institutions, renowned researchers, or specific methodologies. This can sometimes hinder innovative yet unconventional research from getting published. Additionally, reviewerfatigueis a growing concern; as the volume of submissions increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for journals to find qualified reviewers willing to dedicate time to thorough evaluations. Another major limitation is the lack of transparency - many peer reviews remain anonymous, which can sometimes lead to unconstructive criticism or inconsistency in evaluations. To improve the system, several measures can be taken. First, open peer-review models, where both authors and reviewers' identities are disclosed, could enhance accountability and encourage more constructive feedback. Second, incentivizing reviewers, whether through academic recognition, continuing education credits, or small financial rewards, could help alleviate reviewer fatigue and ensure that high-quality reviews continue to support scientific progress.”
AOJ: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Mathieu: Balancing clinical responsibilities, research commitments, and peer reviewing is undoubtedly challenging. To allocate time effectively, I incorporate reviewing into my weekly academic schedule, treating it with the same priority as my own research. Since last year, I have decided not to schedule clinic activities on 2 days a week (Wednesday and Friday). I have reserved these two days for scientific work and administration. This allows me to continue to achieve a high level in my own scientific research and also in the reviews that I perform. Moreover, I am selective about the papers I review, ensuring that I focus on manuscripts that align with my expertise and interests, allowing for more efficient and meaningful contributions. Lastly, I believe institutions should recognize peer review as part of academic workload, encouraging more scientists and clinicians to engage in the process without overburdening themselves.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hamed Sadeghipour
Dr. Hamed Sadeghipour is an assistant professor of anesthesiology and chronic pain management at Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Saint Louis University, MO. He is also director of the interventional pain services at Associated Physician Group, IL. He is double-board certified in anesthesiology and pain medicine. With a deep commitment to alleviating pain and improving patient’s quality of life, Dr. Sadeghipour integrates cutting-edge interventional techniques with a compassionate, patient-centered approach. He is deeply committed to advancing the field of pain medicine through research. To share and expand his knowledge, he has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, several abstracts, and books. He has also presented his work around the globe. He has received numerous awards and honors including the 2019 Excellent in Research Award from the Department of Anesthesiology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center,the SSM SLUCare Anesthesiology Award for Initiative, Creativity, and Leadership in Education, and recently Excellence in Professionalism and Patient Care from associated physician group. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Sadeghipour indicates that peer review plays a crucial role in science by acting as a quality-control mechanism, ensuring the validity, accuracy, and rigor of research before it is published, thereby maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific knowledge. He believes this is essential to ensure that the literature is optimized, and that published literature is scientifically sound.
To minimize bias in peer review, Dr. Sadeghipour thinks that reviewers should be self-aware of their own biases, base decisions on evidence and rationale, and consider multiple viewpoints, while also striving for consistent and objective processes. One way to avoid bias when reviewing one’s own work is to take a step back and evaluate it with a fresh perspective. Also, reviewers are recommended to use checklists to maintain objectivity, get feedback from others, and focus on facts over assumptions.
From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Sadeghipour reckons that conflicts of interest (COIs) can greatly influence the credibility of research work as the existence of research work leading to product development is inevitable. COIs have the potential to compromise judgements and decisions that should be made impartially. Such compromise could undermine community trust in research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Zachary Herman
Zachary Herman is a PGY-4 orthopaedic surgery resident at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He plans to pursue a career in academic sports medicine following completion of residency and fellowship. His research interests include ACL reconstruction, multiligament knee injuries, shoulder instability, rotator cuff pathology, and shoulder arthroplasty.
AOJ: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Herman: Peer review is crucial when publishing scientific literature. It provides a means for unbiased appraisal of research work in terms of methodology, statistical processes, and interpretation of the significance of results. Having our research reviewed by our peers provides an opportunity to see for a peer to see our own work in a different light. It is important as it can provide thoughtful checks and suggestions that improve our work, make it more comprehensive, and afford an opportunity successfully improve patient care.
AOJ: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Herman: Reviewers should bear in mind the methodology of a study and the research question that the authors are trying to answer. It’s necessary to assess whether the methodology of a study is adequate to answer the research question the authors are attempting to solve. Then, a reviewer should evaluate whether the results of the study accurately support the conclusions the authors attempt to make. Lastly, reviewers should have an understanding of the current literature surrounding the topic of the paper they are reviewing in order to make meaningful recommendations to the authors in terms of citations and results of other similar studies.
AOJ: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Herman: COI disclosure is definitely an important part of the scientific research process. COIs can result in biased selection of what scientific outcomes are reported as well as biased interpretation of results for personal or financial gain. Mandating COI reporting and understanding the authors’ COIs as a reviewer will help to better understand the purpose of the study as well as any possible bias in interpretation of results or conclusions of the study.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rafael Francisco Vieira de Melo
Rafael Francisco Vieira de Melo is a physiotherapist and researcher at the Lucy Montoro Rehabilitation Network of Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo. With a Professional Master's degree in Health Sciences, his research focuses on innovative rehabilitation approaches, particularly in sports injury recovery and neurorehabilitation. His recent work explores the application of robotic exoskeletons and blood flow restriction techniques in post-surgical recovery, demonstrating significant contributions to advanced rehabilitation methodologies. As a clinical practitioner, Dr. de Melo specializes in integrating cutting-edge technologies like functional electrical stimulation and robotic gait training into therapeutic protocols. He actively participates in training new professionals through residency programs and regularly conducts workshops on post-COVID rehabilitation and assistive technologies. His international certifications in robotic rehabilitation systems from leading Asian and European centers underscore his expertise in technological applications in physiotherapy. Recognized for his contributions to the field, Dr. de Melo serves as a peer reviewer for scientific publications and has been honored by professional organizations for advancing physiotherapy practice. His work bridges clinical practice with academic research, focusing on evidence-based interventions to improve functional outcomes in neurological and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Learn more about him here.
AOJ: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. de Melo: Peer review serves as a critical quality control mechanism in scientific research, upholding three fundamental pillars of academic work: validity, reliability, and ethical standards. This rigorous evaluation process acts as a safeguard, ensuring that published research meets established methodological criteria before contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. Through expert scrutiny, peer review identifies potential flaws in study design, data interpretation, and theoretical frameworks that might otherwise go unnoticed. The process also serves an educational function, as constructive feedback from reviewers often helps authors strengthen their work's clarity, depth, and practical applications. In my own research involving rehabilitation techniques, the peer review process has consistently helped refine both the technical aspects and clinical implications of my studies, ultimately leading to more robust and impactful findings. Beyond quality assurance, peer review maintains the self-correcting nature of science by preventing the dissemination of unsubstantiated claims while promoting transparency and reproducibility in research practices. This collective verification system remains essential for maintaining public trust in scientific advancement and ensuring that clinical applications are based on sound evidence.
AOJ: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. de Melo: Peer review represents a vital form of professional service that benefits both the scientific community and my own development as a clinician-researcher. The process provides early exposure to emerging innovations in my field, such as advancements in robotic rehabilitation and novel therapeutic approaches, keeping me at the forefront of clinical knowledge. This intellectual exchange serves as continuing education that directly informs my practice and research directions.
More fundamentally, I view peer review as an opportunity to contribute to the collective advancement of rehabilitation science - a discipline that has profoundly shaped my career. By helping to strengthen research methodology and clinical applicability, I can pay forward the same scholarly guidance I've received throughout my professional journey. This commitment to scientific rigor aligns with my broader mission to foster evidence-based practice and translate research findings into meaningful clinical applications. The intrinsic rewards of shaping quality research and maintaining high academic standards provide ample motivation, as does the professional responsibility we all share to uphold the integrity of our field. While uncompensated financially, the process offers invaluable opportunities for professional growth, networking, and contributing to meaningful scientific progress.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Robert F. LaPrade
Robert F. LaPrade MD, PhD, is a renowned complex knee surgeon practicing at Twin Cities Orthopedics in Edina and Eagan, Minnesota. Despite his full-time clinical responsibilities, he is also dedicated to teaching sports medicine orthopedic fellows and leads a team engaged in both bench-to-bedside and clinical research projects. His research predominantly centers around the diagnosis and treatment of complex knee pathologies.
Dr. LaPrade emphasizes the vital importance of peer review in scientific research. He believes that it is essential for achieving the highest level of integrity. By having blinded peers assess one's work, this process ensures that the study is methodologically sound, the data are valid, and the recommendations align with the actual findings. Moreover, peer review helps prevent the inadvertent overlooking of previously peer-reviewed research on the same topic, thus building on a solid foundation of existing knowledge.
When it comes to reviewing papers, Dr. LaPrade points out that reviewers should keep in mind the ultimate goal of scientific projects – to improve patient care. Additionally, they must ensure that the work is presented clearly so that journal readers can easily understand the study's findings.
Acknowledging the heavy burden of being a scientist and doctor, Dr. LaPrade views peer review as a privilege. He understands that it plays a crucial role in upholding the high standards of his profession. By participating in peer review, he contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the improvement of patient care, making it a worthwhile endeavor despite his busy schedule.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
