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
Fábio Rodrigues Ferreira Seiva, São Paulo State University, Brazil
Yutaro Nagano, Sapporo Medical University, Japan
José Pablo Miramontes-González, Río Hortega University Hospital, Spain
Gretchen G. Kimmick, Duke University School of Medicine, 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)
Fábio Rodrigues Ferreira Seiva
Prof. Fábio Rodrigues Ferreira Seiva is Associate Professor of Biochemistry at São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, Brazil. He holds a Ph.D. in Pathophysiology in Clinical Medicine, with research focusing on chronic non-communicable diseases—particularly cancer, diabetes, and obesity. His work emphasizes energy metabolism, oxidative stress, and potential complementary therapies like bioactive compounds and phytochemicals. A permanent faculty member of UNESP’s Postgraduate Programs in General and Applied Biology, and Experimental Pathology, he has authored over 70 peer-reviewed publications, won 19 research awards, and secured multiple competitive grants.
Prof. Seiva identifies the key traits of a strong reviewer: deep expertise (to provide credible feedback), fairness and objectivity (prioritizing the work over personal views), helpfulness (offering improvement ideas, not just criticism), attention to detail, confidentiality (respecting unpublished work), punctuality, and respect (avoiding harshness even for flawed manuscripts).
Prof. Seivapoints out the flaws of the current peer-review system: slow turnaround delaying research dissemination, low transparency (anonymous, closed reviews) causing inconsistency, difficulty recruiting unpaid reviewers, and variable/superficial feedback from overburdened reviewers. To address these issues, he suggests transparent models (e.g., publishing comments, open review) and symbolic financial compensation—recognizing effort to boost participation, quality, and efficiency.
To reduce biases in his review, Prof. Seiva focuses solely on a manuscript’s content and methodology (not authors/affiliations), uses standardized evaluation criteria for structure, critically reflects on his assumptions, and reassesses or consults guidance when uncertain. He believes that the awareness of unconscious bias is the key to fair, equitable reviews.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yutaro Nagano
Yutaro Nagano is a respiratory physician at the Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Sapporo Medical University. He earned his medical degree from the university in 2016, then completed residency and specialty training in respiratory medicine across multiple hospitals in Hokkaido. His research focuses on thoracic oncology—with a key focus on lung cancer—encompassing real-world cohort studies, treatment effectiveness comparisons, and methodological work in causal inference and meta-analysis. He also develops practical clinical AI tools (e.g., risk-prediction and decision-support models) in close collaboration with clinicians, aiming to enhance day-to-day clinical decision-making. Ultimately, his goal is to generate evidence that is both methodologically rigorous and directly useful for bedside practice.
Dr. Nagano views peer review as the scientific community’s core quality-assurance system. Independent experts assess a manuscript’s rigor, clarity, and relevance before it enters the scientific record—filtering out errors, identifying overinterpretation, and pushing authors to strengthen methods and presentation. Beyond quality control, it fosters constructive dialogue: refining ideas, boosting reproducibility, and helping readers trust that findings are credible and actionable.
In Dr. Nagano’s opinion, there are key limitations in the peer-review system: mismatches between reviewers’ expertise and manuscripts, variable review quality, delays, and limited recognition for reviewers. To improve the system, he suggests:
- Better reviewer-manuscript matching (using structured expertise profiles, augmented by AI for triage and conflict checks);
- Concise, checklist-guided reviews aligned with reporting standards;
- Targeted reviewer training and feedback;
- Meaningful recognition (e.g., certificates, CME credits, formal acknowledgment);
- Transparent editorial communication to align expectations.
According to Dr. Nagano, an objective review is rooted in data and logical inference—not personal impressions or preferences. To ensure objectivity, he systematically examines every section/paragraph to avoid missing critical issues;
he scrutinizes methodological biases that could skew results or confuse interpretation; he adopts the audience’s perspective to ensure conclusions are clear and consistent; and he provides constructive feedback: not just highlighting problems, but offering concrete, feasible improvement suggestions.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
José Pablo Miramontes-González
José Pablo Miramontes-González studied medicine at the University of Alcalá de Henares and later specialized at the University Hospital of Salamanca, where he also earned his doctorate with cum laude. He completed a two-year postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California-San Diego and currently works at the Río Hortega University Hospital. Additionally, he holds the position of Full Professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Valladolid.
CCO: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Miramontes-González: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing. It ensures that manuscripts undergo a critical, objective, and expert evaluation before entering the scientific record. This process safeguards the integrity, accuracy, and validity of the data, helping to filter out flawed methodologies, unsupported conclusions, or biased interpretations. Beyond quality control, peer review also improves manuscripts by providing constructive feedback, which often strengthens the clarity and rigor of the work. Ultimately, peer review fosters trust in the scientific community and ensures that published research meets the highest standards of evidence and ethical conduct.
CCO: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Miramontes-González: Reviewers must approach manuscripts with fairness, confidentiality, and scientific rigor. Key considerations include:
- Scientific validity: Are the study design, methodology, and statistical analyses appropriate and reliable?
- Originality and novelty: Does the work add new knowledge or perspectives to the field?
- Clarity and transparency: Are results presented clearly, with sufficient detail for replication?
- Ethical considerations: Are there concerns regarding patient safety, informed consent, or data integrity?
- Constructive feedback: Comments should be respectful, objective, and aimed at improving the manuscript—avoiding personal bias or undue criticism.
CCO: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Miramontes-González: Yes, COI disclosure is essential for maintaining transparency and credibility in scientific research. Financial, personal, or professional relationships can potentially influence study design, data interpretation, or reporting. A COI does not automatically invalidate a study, but undisclosed conflicts may undermine trust in findings and the journal itself. Openly declaring COIs allows readers, reviewers, and editors to assess the work in full context—minimizing potential bias and preserving the integrity of the research process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gretchen G. Kimmick
Gretchen Kimmick, MD, MS, FASCO, is a breast medical oncologist whose work centers on patient care while maintaining active engagement in clinical research. She contributes to trials and studies focused on breast cancer treatment, with specialized emphasis on caring for medically complex patients and enhancing the management of treatment-related side effects. She serves as Vice-Chair for the Cancer in Older Adults Committee and is a member of the Symptom Intervention Committee for the Alliance for Cancer Clinical Trials. She is also actively involved with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Her recent research projects include: (1) endocrine therapy side effect management and treatment adherence, (2) integrating geriatric evaluation into clinical practice, (3) the impact of steroid use and hyperglycemia on clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients, and (4) real-world evidence for using CDK4/6 inhibitors to treat hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.
Dr. Kimmick believes that peer review plays a pivotal role in upholding the quality of scientific publishing. Its core function, she notes, is to ensure that published work is pertinent to the field, scientifically accurate, and as comprehensive as possible—safeguarding the integrity of research that directly informs breast cancer clinical practice.
Because biases are inevitable in peer review, Dr. Kimmick leverages her extensive professional background to mitigate their impact. She draws on the knowledge accumulated over three decades of clinical and research experience, as well as the specialized skills acquired during her master’s degree studies in epidemiology.
This evidence-based foundation ensures her evaluations remain grounded in rigorous standards, allowing her to provide authors with constructive comments that improve and enrich their work—while minimizing the influence of personal biases on the review process.
“Peer review makes our published work better. I have benefited from the expertise of reviewers and try to use my expertise and knowledge to provide support to other authors. I also learn a lot in doing so. In order to ‘give back’, I try to review at least one paper for every paper I publish,” says Dr. Kimmick.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
