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.
January, 2025
Huai Yong Cheng, University of Minnesota, USA
Thomas Mathieu, University of Antwerp, Belgium
January, 2025
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)
