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
Mohammad Daher, Saint Joseph University, Lebanon
Marcin Krzysztof Waśko, Medical Centre of Postgraduate Education, Poland
Akinobu Nishimura, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan
Todd Phillips, Baylor College Medicine, USA
Jhulia Kawachi Cruz, Philippine Orthopedic Center, Philippines
Jean G. Louka, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, USA
Hong Jing Lee, Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore
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)
Mohammad Daher
Mohammad Daher is a final-year medical student at Saint Joseph University in Lebanon, with a strong focus on orthopedics. Driven by his passion for musculoskeletal medicine, his research spans various orthopedic subspecialties. He is preparing to apply for the orthopedic surgery match in the United States. Additionally, he serves as an editorial board member at BMC Surgery and a reviewer for several journals, contributing to peer-review and editorial processes to maintain the integrity and scientific rigor of published work. Learn more about him here.
AOJ: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Mohammad: A major limitation is the lack of incentives for reviewers, especially in emerging or mid-tier journals. While prestigious journals like JBJS or CORR attract established experts, many others struggle to recruit qualified reviewers, leading to inconsistent review quality and potential acceptance of weaker studies. To address this, offering reviewers free access to non-open access articles for a few days or publishing a monthly list of "all-star" reviewers could motivate more participation and improve standards.
AOJ: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Mohammad: To minimize bias, I follow a structured review format and focus strictly on the scientific merit and methodology of the manuscript. I make a conscious effort to remain aware of potential conflicts of interest or preconceived opinions about certain institutions, topics, or authors. Blinded review processes also help reduce the risk of bias. I avoid judging based on language quality or authorship and try to provide constructive feedback that improves the manuscript regardless of the final recommendation.
AOJ: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines during preparation of their manuscripts?
Mohammad: Absolutely. Standardized reporting guidelines are crucial for ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and overall quality in research. They help streamline the review process and allow reviewers to evaluate manuscripts more efficiently and systematically. As a contributor to the GAMER statement, which promotes standardized reporting for AI use in research, I firmly believe that guidelines like STROBE, CONSORT, and PRISMA are essential tools that elevate the scientific integrity of medical literature. Just as standardization improves outcomes in clinical care, it plays a vital role in enhancing the reliability and clarity of scientific communication.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marcin Krzysztof Waśko
Marcin Krzysztof Waśko is a pediatric orthopedic surgeon and his clinical and research focus on pediatric knee disorders, including skeletal immaturity, growth plate injuries, congenital and developmental knee conditions, and sports-related knee injuries in children and adolescents. He specializes in minimally invasive techniques and individualized treatment approaches, aiming to optimize outcomes for young patients. Beyond clinical practice, he is a researcher at Poland’s Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education (Centrum Medyczne Kształcenia Podyplomowego), an institution coordinating medical specialization programs nationwide. He is actively involved in academic leadership: writing books and scientific articles, heading training and advanced courses for physicians (including orthopedic surgeons and radiologists) during and after specialization, and lecturing to support ongoing professional development. He also supervises doctoral theses, fostering the next generation of researchers while driving innovation in pediatric orthopedic care through collaboration. Follow him on Instagram.
Dr. Waśko considers a healthy peer-review system as one that delivers reliable, unbiased, and substantive evaluations by qualified experts. Transparency, fairness, and freedom from conflicts of interest are foundational, with a focus on constructive feedback that strengthens research. Additionally, such a system respects the time of authors and reviewers and acknowledges reviewers’ contributions, ensuring the process remains sustainable and effective.
Dr. Waśko believes that objective, constructive, and respectful feedback centered on scientific merit, originality, clarity, and methodological soundness. Personal biases or conflicts of interest must be avoided or disclosed, and confidentiality is paramount—information from manuscripts should never be used for personal gain or shared externally. Timeliness is critical, as delays hinder scientific progress. Reviewers should also avoid gatekeeping, recognizing valuable contributions even if they challenge prevailing views or come from lesser-known authors or institutions. Ultimately, reviewers act as stewards of quality, aiming to improve work rather than merely judge it.
“I choose to review for AOJ because I value contributing to the advancement of high-quality research in the field. AOJ maintains rigorous academic standards, fosters constructive dialogue, and promotes ethical publishing practices—all of which align with my commitment to upholding scientific integrity. Reviewing for AOJ also allows me to stay current with emerging work, engage with a community of peers, and support authors in improving their research through thoughtful, fair, and constructive feedback,” says Dr. Waśko.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Akinobu Nishimura
Dr. Akinobu Nishimura is an orthopaedic surgeon and researcher in the Department of Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine at Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. His research focuses on foot and ankle sports injuries, endoscopic procedures including arthroscopy, peroneal tendon dislocation, hallux valgus, and ankle osteoarthritis. He graduated from Mie University in 2001 and earned his PhD there in 2010. After completing a clinical fellowship, he conducted biomedical engineering research at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (2013–2014). Since returning to Mie University in 2014, he has been actively engaged in clinical practice and research, including epidemiological studies in rural Japan. Dr. Nishimura has received several international traveling fellowships and currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Orthopaedic Science. His work combines clinical innovation and population-based research to enhance the understanding and treatment of foot and ankle disorders.
Dr. Nishimura believes the peer-review process is critical for ensuring the accuracy and rigor of scientific research. It helps maintain high standards for published studies and contributes to the development of both authors and reviewers. Reviewers not only identify weaknesses or issues in a study but also assist authors in enhancing their work, making it more meaningful and impactful. In return, reviewers benefit by being exposed to diverse research approaches and ideas, which broadens their academic perspective and deepens their understanding of the field.
However, Dr. Nishimura indicates that while it is important for reviewers to identify problems in a paper, they should avoid mere criticism. Reviewers should clearly explain why something is problematic and, when possible, offer constructive suggestions for improvement. The goal is not only to evaluate the paper but also to support the authors in refining it. Reviewers should approach the process as a form of academic collaboration, aiming to raise the overall quality of the work.
In addition, Dr. Nishimura stresses that it is essential for authors to disclose conflicts of interest (COI). This allows readers to recognize potential sources of bias in the study. Authors must be fully aware of how COIs could influence their research and strive to maintain transparency and objectivity, especially when study results may benefit a funding organization. If maintaining impartiality becomes difficult, authors should consider revising the study’s design or direction to minimize bias.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Todd Phillips
Todd Phillips is a fellowship-trained shoulder & elbow surgeon practicing out of Phoenix, Arizona with the CORE Institute. His research interests cover multiple areas: advancing knowledge of shoulder biomechanics, maximizing patient outcomes, mitigating patient complications, and integrating cutting-edge technologies—including artificial intelligence and mixed reality—into total shoulder replacements. Recent projects include exploring how technological innovations affect acromial fracture rates in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, describing outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using INFUSE, and studying 5-year outcomes of humeral head autograft use in primary reverse total shoulders with severe posterior glenoid wear patterns. Follow him on Instagram @ToddPhillipsOrtho.
Dr. Phillips reckons that peer review ensures the quality, validity, and credibility of scientific research through independent, expert evaluation of study methods, data, and conclusions. It helps identify errors, improve manuscripts, and align work with existing knowledge. By fostering objectivity and transparency, peer review maintains trust in published science. While it has challenges, it remains essential for advancing scientific knowledge.
In Dr. Phillips’ opinion, reviewers must assess a paper objectively, focusing on its scientific merit while trying to avoid personal biases. They should evaluate the rigor of the study's methods, which can often be more important than the findings themselves. The clarity and coherence of the writing are equally important, ensuring that conclusions follow logically from the data. Reviewers need to embrace the last step of the scientific method: reproducibility. Nowadays, novelty and positive p-values are highly sought after, but reproducibility from additional papers is arguably just as valuable to further the scientific endeavour.
Dr. Phillips acknowledges that reviewers’ dedication to evaluating papers plays a vital role in shaping science’s future. Their thoughtful feedback ensures only rigorous, credible research reaches the public, pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Though their work is often unseen, it is invaluable for advancing scientific progress and upholding the field’s integrity. He adds, “Thank you to you all. I appreciate the hours of work you put into the betterment of our field.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jhulia Kawachi Cruz
Dr. Jhulia Kawachi Cruz is an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports, shoulder, and elbow surgery. She completed her residency at the Philippine Orthopedic Center—the national referral center for orthopedic cases—where she managed complex trauma and developed an early interest in sports injuries. Later, she finished a Sports, Shoulder & Elbow Fellowship at Singapore’s National University Hospital, focusing on arthroscopic surgery and publishing most of her academic works. Now back in the Philippines, she builds her orthopedic practice while engaging actively in peer review, a way to give back to the academic community and align with global care standards. She aims to establish an athlete wellness center, focusing on injury prevention, management, and rehabilitation, while boosting performance via integrated care, training optimization, and long-term health monitoring.
Dr. Cruz thinks that peer review is the quiet but essential backbone of science. It fosters accountability—not to criticize, but to refine. It ensures research withstands scrutiny, making published work credible and meaningful. Beyond quality control, it encourages collaboration, as professionals help strengthen each other’s work before public release. In short, it keeps science honest and human.
Dr. Cruz regards each manuscript as a mentoring opportunity, not a judgment task. She focuses on methodology, clarity, and reproducibility—elements independent of authors’ names or institutions. Before submitting comments, she rereads to ensure they are constructive, not dismissive. When personal preferences may skew judgment, she pauses and refocuses on evidence. Awareness and humility are key to objectivity.
In Dr. Cruz’s opinion, institutional review board (IRB) approval distinguishes research from experimentation. It protects participants, ensures informed consent, and upholds human rights and scientific standards. Without IRB oversight, even innovative studies lose credibility, risking participant harm and eroded public trust. In clinical research, “Is this safe and ethical for the patient?” is foundational—and the IRB safeguards this, making its role indispensable.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jean G. Louka
Dr. Jean Louka is a triple fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon specializing in Foot & Ankle Surgery, Trauma, and Orthopaedic Oncology. He is currently completing a Foot & Ankle Fellowship at MedStar Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, following prior fellowships in Orthopaedic Trauma at the University of Louisville and Orthopaedic Oncology at the University of Miami. Throughout his training, he has gained extensive experience in complex reconstruction, limb salvage, deformity correction, and biologic approaches to nonunion management. His academic work focuses on the biomechanics of fixation and outcomes in orthopaedic reconstruction, with ongoing efforts to optimize surgical techniques and improve functional recovery. He has contributed to multiple peer-reviewed publications and is actively involved in research on fusion and arthroplasty outcomes, reconstructive strategies, and bone tumor management. As an engaged peer reviewer for several international orthopaedic journals, he is committed to advancing scientific rigor, fostering collaboration, and promoting evidence-based musculoskeletal care.
AOJ: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Louka: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity and serves as the essential quality control mechanism for scholarly communication. It ensures that research meets rigorous standards of methodology, validity, and ethical conduct before reaching the broader medical community. Beyond validation, peer review fosters critical academic dialogue between authors and reviewers, creating opportunities for constructive feedback that strengthens study design, data interpretation, and clinical applicability. This process maintains trust in published literature, a trust that clinicians rely upon daily when making evidence-based treatment decisions for their patients. Without robust peer review, the risk of flawed or misleading research entering practice would undermine patient safety and scientific progress. Ultimately, peer review protects both the credibility of medical science and the patients who depend on it.
AOJ: What should reviewers bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Louka: Reviewers must balance scientific rigor with empathy and constructive intent. The primary goal is not to gatekeep or reject, but to help authors refine their work and contribute meaningfully to the literature. This requires maintaining objectivity while recognizing the substantial effort behind every manuscript. Confidentiality is paramount, reviewers must respect the privilege of accessing unpublished work and never exploit that access. The tone of feedback matters deeply; criticism should be specific, actionable, and delivered with professional courtesy. Reviewers should evaluate whether the research question is clinically relevant, the methodology sound, the analysis appropriate, and the conclusions justified by the data. It's also important to assess whether the work adds value to existing knowledge rather than simply duplicating prior studies. Timely completion of reviews respects authors' career timelines and editorial workflows. Above all, reviewers should treat every submission with the same care and fairness they would hope to receive for their own work.
AOJ: The burden of being a doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Louka: I integrate peer review into my broader academic workflow as a complement to my clinical and research responsibilities. I typically review manuscripts during dedicated time slots when administrative tasks are lighter, allowing me to engage thoughtfully without compromising patient care or personal wellness. I recognize that peer review is not merely an obligation but an investment in professional development. Reviewing keeps me current with emerging evidence, surgical innovations, and methodological advances across foot and ankle surgery. It sharpens my critical appraisal skills, which directly enhances both the quality of my own research and my ability to evaluate literature for clinical decision-making. Moreover, serving as a reviewer provides insight into what constitutes high-quality scholarship, improving my own manuscript preparation. By viewing peer review as continuing education rather than an administrative burden, I find it both professionally rewarding and practically manageable within the demands of clinical fellowship training. The key is balancing your genuine enthusiasm for peer review with concrete examples of its benefits to your work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hong Jing Lee
Dr. Lee Hong Jing is a medical officer in the Singapore Armed Forces and a recipient of the SingHealth Medical Student Talent Development Award. He remains actively engaged in research collaborations with Singapore General Hospital, with a focus on radiographic parameters in arthroplasty and patient-reported outcome measures. His research has been recognized for international presentation, including at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting, and he plans to specialize in orthopaedic surgery in the future. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Lee reckons that peer review plays a pivotal role in upholding the quality and integrity of scientific research. While he acknowledges that receiving manuscript rejections can be discouraging, he stresses the importance of approaching reviewer feedback with an open and gracious mindset. Beyond feedback, he sees peer review as an unbiased vetting process that ensures research adheres to sound methodological standards and features clear, cogent writing. Ultimately, peer review serves as a critical bulwark against flawed or "bad science," safeguarding the credibility of the scientific enterprise.
According to Dr. Lee, reviewers are typically assigned manuscripts aligned with their field of interest or prior publication expertise—a strength that demands intentional objectivity. He emphasizes that even when a submitted manuscript contradicts a reviewer’s own research findings, the work must be read with an open mind. Reviewers, he argues, should prioritize providing constructive comments that help authors refine their work, rather than letting personal research biases influence their evaluation. This approach ensures that peer review fosters scientific dialogue and progress, even amid differing perspectives.
“I have never viewed being a doctor or a scientist as a burden. It remains a privilege to be able to help and heal patients. To me, the roles of scientist and doctor are synergistic: learning from a large sample of patients, synthesizing new knowledge, and enabling the next patient to benefit from it. Upon accepting a review, I typically jump straight to the abstract, methodology and results. This gives me a good idea of the meat of the paper. I then ponder over it throughout the week. Over a single weekend, I then scrutinise the paper line by line and make a final decision. I look forward to this as my own quiet time at the end of a long work week,” says Dr. Lee.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
