In 2025, CCO 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.
Maryamalsadat Mahootiha, Oslo University Hospital, Norway
Arjun Pon Avudaiappan, Miami Cancer Institute, USA
Maryamalsadat Mahootiha
Maryamalsadat Mahootiha is affiliated with Oslo University Hospital and holds a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo. Her research endeavors are centered on leveraging data science and artificial intelligence within the domains of medicine and drug discovery. Specializing in medical imaging and multimodal data analysis for predicting patient outcomes, her latest project harnessed deep learning techniques to evaluate cancer prognosis by integrating radiological images and clinical factors. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Mahootiha reckons that peer review stands as a cornerstone of academic integrity. By entrusting manuscripts to experts in the relevant field, this process subjects research to meticulous scrutiny. Reviewers meticulously assess a paper’s methodology, experimental design, and overall rigor, ensuring that only accurate and well-founded work progresses. In an ideal scenario, constructive feedback from reviewers, even for well-crafted papers, serves as a catalyst for improvement. Authors may inadvertently overlook flaws in their research or writing. Reviewers, with their fresh perspectives, act as a safeguard against such oversights. Their diverse expertise, with some focusing on clinical implications and others on statistical analyses, enriches the research. Incorporating feedback from multiple reviewers refines the study, amplifying its impact and contributing to the advancement of the field.
In Dr. Mahootiha’s opinion, when evaluating papers, reviewers shoulder significant responsibilities. First and foremost, they must determine the clarity and comprehensibility of the manuscript. The research should not only be original but also offer novel insights, transcending mere replication of existing work. Detecting signs of academic misconduct, such as data manipulation or plagiarism, is non-negotiable. Clear presentation of results, along with a valid, well-explained, and reproducible methodology, is essential. Reviewers should also assess the potential applicability of the study’s findings to other research contexts, gauging its contribution to the broader academic landscape. Transparency regarding the study’s limitations is crucial, and when applicable, open-source coding can enhance research reproducibility. Finally, a comprehensive review of references ensures they are sufficient, accurately cited, and relevant to the research at hand.
In recent years, data sharing has gained prominence in scientific writing. While its importance is widely acknowledged, Dr. Mahootiha’s experience working with data in the U.S. and Europe has given her a nuanced, neutral perspective. She recognizes the challenges associated with data sharing. From an ethical standpoint, the extensive paperwork and rigorous anonymization processes often make sharing data a formidable task, and in some cases, outright impossible. In theory, open access to data enables researchers to test methodologies and establish benchmarks effectively. However, the realities of ongoing studies and the need to protect patient confidentiality present significant barriers. When sharing the entire dataset is not viable, she suggests that making research-related coding publicly available can still foster transparency and enhance the reproducibility of scientific work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Dr. Arjun Pon Avudaiappan is a urologist with nearly a decade of experience. Currently, he is a research fellow at Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, focused on research in uro-oncology. After completing his Urology residency in India, he further honed his clinical skills through advanced laparoscopic urology and Vattikuti robotic uro-oncology fellowships in India. He is interested in research on uro-oncology and endourology. With the increase in global life expectancy and the elderly population, he is currently researching the impact and outcomes of various interventions in genitourinary malignancies in this population subset. He has presented and published papers in various national and international conferences. His study, “Pathological Response and Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Among Octogenarians,” was awarded a best paper award at the 2024 AUA Conference. He is also exploring various treatment outcomes in kidney, bladder, prostate, and penile cancers, including organ-preserving strategies.
CCO: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Avudaiappan: Peer review plays an important role in maintaining scientific integrity. It helps assess the relevance of work to improve the quality of evidence-based medicine. Constructive feedback helps the reviewer and authors to learn and improve from each other’s knowledge and experience.
CCO: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Avudaiappan: Biases during peer review could limit the true potential and quality of the paper. During peer review, focusing on the content of the paper and exploring the means to improve the quality by suggesting positive feedback help both in self-development and help the authors develop new research ideas.
CCO: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Avudaiappan: Peer reviewing is a key to learning and helps develop new research ideas. It also helps understand the potential areas that need to be focused on to improve an evidence-based approach. It also enables networking and generating collaborative research with people in a similar field.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
