In 2026, 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.
Kevin Ilo, Nottingham University Hospitals, United Kingdom
Kevin C Ilo
Dr. Kevin Ilo, MD, PhD, FRCS (Orth) is an orthopaedic surgeon with specialist expertise in hip and knee replacements, including complex revision surgery. He was trained in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery in the United Kingdom, before completing advanced fellowship training in adult reconstruction at Nottingham City Hospital and at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has completed a PhD, focusing on modular total hip arthroplasty, implant corrosion, and long-term outcomes. He has published widely in peer-reviewed journals, presented internationally, and received multiple awards. He is committed to providing patient-centred, evidence-based care and is always seeking new ways to improve both the quality and the value of health care, whether through medical device innovations or process improvements. His current work includes exploring the application of 3D printing technologies in medical education, medtech innovation, and device manufacturing. As an enthusiastic educator, Kevin has taught extensively at undergraduate, postgraduate, and fellowship levels. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ilo highlights that peer review is a fundamental part of academic publishing, ensuring that research is robust, credible, and suitable for public dissemination. By subjecting manuscripts to critical assessment from independent experts, the process helps identify methodological weaknesses, inconsistencies, and areas where interpretation may be overstated. This improves the overall quality of published work and supports trust in the scientific literature. On a personal level, he finds peer review valuable for his own professional development, as it keeps him up to date with current evidence, strengthens his critical appraisal skills, and prompts reflection on his own research design and conduct.
On the issue of bias in peer review, Dr. Ilo acknowledges that it cannot be completely eliminated, so the goal is to recognize it and actively counteract it. He reviews manuscripts using a framework that prioritizes methodological quality, clarity, and whether the data support the conclusions. He strives to avoid being influenced by the institution or whether the results align with his personal beliefs or clinical practice. In his view, self-awareness, transparency, and a structured process are essential to reducing bias in peer review.
Regarding institutional review board (IRB) approval, Dr. Ilo emphasizes that it is essential because it confirms that research involving human participants complies with ethical standards. It ensures that risks, consent, confidentiality, and patient well-being are adequately addressed before the study begins. Without IRB approval, participants could face unnecessary risks, ethical or legal violations might occur, and the research may not be publishable or accepted. Additionally, it could result in disciplinary actions or regulatory penalties for the researcher and the institution.
(by Naomi Hu, Masaki Lo)
