In 2023, many Mediastinum reviewers 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, 2023
Nestor Villamizar, the University of Miami, USA

February, 2023
Paul L Linsky, Medical College of Wisconsin, USA

April, 2023
Jefree Schulte, University of Wisconsin, USA

May, 2023
Kelly L. Vittetoe, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA

June, 2023
Javier García-Tirado, Autonomous Community of Aragon, Spain

August, 2023
Clinton T. Morgan, Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA

November, 2023
Debora Brascia, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, USA

December, 2023
Tadashi Sakane, Nagoya City University West Medical Center, Japan

January, 2023

Nestor Villamizar

Dr. Nestor Villamizar is an Associate Professor in the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, USA. He is the Program Director for the Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency, and he is co-director of the lung cancer screening program at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. He had his residency in general surgery at Duke University Medical Center and completed his fellowship in cardiothoracic surgery at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He has a particular interest in minimally invasive robotic thoracic surgery, including lung-sparing complex segmentectomy, complex lung resections after induction therapy, complex mediastinal tumors/cysts and operations for esophageal diseases. He is actively engaged in multiple clinical outcome research projects evaluating the short-term and long-term impacts of thoracic surgery interventions at the institutional level as well as nationally.

In Dr. Villamizar’s opinion, reviewers should be selective about agreeing to review papers that genuinely captivate their interest and not hesitate to decline to review those papers that do not. Reviewing too many papers can easily burn one out. By being selective, he thinks the quality of the reviews improves, and authors submitting papers may have more meaningful feedback that may ultimately improve the probability of getting the papers accepted for publication.

From a reviewer’s point of view, Dr. Villamizar emphasizes the need for authors to disclose any potential conflict of interest. He believes such a step is essential so that readers can take into consideration potential bias in the interpretation of results.

“I often learn a lot from what others are investigating. Some papers are completely novel, with contents that may apply to my current surgical practice and may result in improved patient outcomes. Other papers may not be novel, but give a different interpretation of results which motivates discussion and enrich learning.” says Dr. Villamizar.

February, 2023

Paul L Linsky

Dr. Paul L Linsky was born and raised in Birmingham, AL. He attended college and medical school at UAB. He then matched at the University of Louisville for general surgery. While there, he spent one year in a translational lab focusing on heart failure, organ perfusion, and ex vivo lung perfusion in large animal models. After residency, he was matched at UAB for his fellowship in cardiothoracic surgery, where he received exceptional training in robotic general thoracic surgery. He then joined the faculty of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, WI. Dr. Linsky specializes in robotic approaches to thoracic pathologies, both malignant and benign. He has busy clinical practices at both Froedtert Hospital and the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center. He conducts clinical outcomes research but focuses on medical education at all levels, being the Associate Clerkship Director for Surgery and the Program Director of the cardiothoracic fellowship. Connect with Dr. Linsky on X and LinkedIn.

A healthy peer-review system, according to Dr. Linsky, has reviewers of different levels of experience and trainings that are pertinent to the paper at hand. It should be straightforward and succinct. Most importantly, it should be constructive and supportive to the authors to educate and improve work without discouraging future contributions.

The way Dr. Linsky sees it, however, the peer-review system is not without limitations. The key limitation is the lack of volunteers. He explains, “It does take time out of your schedule to handle it and is not as valued as it should be. I think rewarding people for their efforts more uniformly and giving credit for the work that it takes would make it a better system.”

“Peer review is critical to the process of advancing the field of medicine. Having peers who know the needs of the patients and the limitations of our healthcare system evaluating research is key to the validation and utility of the work in question. I review because it is an important way to contribute to our field and should be done by all who really care about the patients under our care,” says Dr. Linsky.

(by Brad Li, Ailsa Lu)

April, 2023

Jefree Schulte

Dr. Jefree Schulte is an Assistant Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. He serves as lead of the Thoracic and Bone and Soft Tissue Service. He is the Director of Immunohistochemistry and Histology Laboratories and serves as Director of Electron Microscopy. His clinical interests include diagnosis of all benign and malignant conditions afflicting the lungs, heart, mediastinum, and serosal membranes. His research focuses on the diagnosis and classification of mesothelioma.

Dr. Schulte considers that a healthy peer-review system is characterized by timely, fair, and unbiased reviews. As a peer reviewer, he believes it is important to be cognizant of the previously published literature and that the article at hand should be scrutinized in light of the prior work done on the subject. Unfortunately, too many articles are quickly and succinctly rejected by reviewers due to a perceived lack of novelty. Often reviewers will cite a few articles stating, “this idea has been previously published by…” and state “this work brings no new information to the field.” A crucial and often overlooked step in the scientific method is reproducibility and replication of prior results. He believes that a peer reviewer should offer helpful and informative critiques of the article at hand and let the journal editorial office decide if the originality of the paper lacks to a degree which would make it unsuitable for publication. Otherwise, accepting to review a paper with the intent of recommending rejection due to a lack of originality signifies an unhealthy peer-review system.

Dr. Schulte points out biases are always inevitable when performing a peer review. Peer reviewer should recognize apparent grossly evident biases, such as reviewing a study in which the peer reviewer has a very similar study submitted to the journal or another journal, etc., and notify the editorial office of their inability to review a paper. Furthermore, the effect of biases can be minimized by the peer reviewer objectively analyzing the paper according to the scientific method. “The peer reviewer should ask themselves: What is the aim of the study? Are the methods clear and reproducible? Are the results concisely and clearly stated? Does the discussion summarize the results and reflect upon what currently exists in the literature? Are the limitations of the study discussed by the authors? Do the results support the conclusion? By forcing oneself to answer these pointed questions, the peer reviewer should be able to review the article more objectively,” he emphasizes. Deviating from these types of questions to questioning the actual merits of the study (i.e. novelty of the study and worthiness of publication), the reviewer moves from being an objective judge of the data to playing the role of editor, and at this point risks inserting personal biases into the review.

Dr. Schulte shares that too many times, he has seen overworked peer reviewers submit incorrect reviews of papers (either his own paper or another review provided on a paper he is reviewing). Sometimes it is obvious that the reviewer only skimmed the paper as they may raise points that are outside the aims or scope of the study. The most egregious example was when a review was returned on a paper he submitted, and the review was clearly that of another paper. Such reviews are of no value to the authors and peer reviewers should be respectful of the authors’ work and give them a fair and honest review.

Lastly, Dr. Schulte stresses that it is important for conflicts of interest (COIs) to be disclosed by authors. There may be obvious COIs that may call readers to question the objectivity of the authors (i.e. authors receive substantial payments from a pharmaceutical company and have published only favorable articles on a drug developed by the company). There are also many less obvious COIs. An author may perform medicolegal work for a law firm that deals with pediatric and perinatal medical malpractice and the author is a pediatric/perinatal pathologist who actively publishes in the field. There may be no obvious direct COI, but it is hard to say if such a relationship may produce a COI. Thus, it is important for authors to err on the side of disclosing even the most minor of COIs for full transparency.

(by Teresa Lin, Brad Li)

May, 2023

Kelly L. Vittetoe

Dr. Kelly L. Vittetoe is currently a PGY-2 Otolaryngology resident at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. She grew up in Knoxville, TN and completed her undergraduate studies at Duke University in Neuroscience and Global Health prior to matriculating to Vanderbilt for medical school and residency. In this early stage of her training, the majority of her efforts are focused on improving her clinical knowledge base and surgical skills. However, she had also the opportunity to work alongside outstanding faculty mentors on various research projects, the most recent of which focused on necrotizing fasciitis of the head and neck. Specifically, they described clinical risk factors which made a patient more likely to experience descending necrotizing mediastinitis as a complication of head and neck necrotizing fasciitis. Connect with Dr. Vittetoe on Twitter @KellyVittetoe.

MED: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Vittetoe: As scientific literature continues to be published at an ever-growing rate, the strain on the peer-review system to provide meaningful feedback in a timely manner also grows. My impression is that the system is fundamentally limited by the demand for content review outstripping the number of reviewers who are able and willing to provide quality feedback. I think it’s important that all researchers – seasoned academicians and trainees alike – do their part to contribute to the peer-review system by serving as a reviewer when the opportunity arises.

MED: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?

Dr. Vittetoe: In addition to a knowledge base relevant to the topic at hand, a good reviewer should also have patience, thoughtfulness, and a genuine desire to improve the scientific work of a peer. I think that a great reviewer shows attention to detail, gives feedback with kindness as well as candor, and is willing to invest significant time into giving meaningful comments to the author.

MED: Why do you choose to review for Mediastinum?

Dr. Vittetoe: I agreed to review a paper submitted to Mediastinum that was very closely related to my own research, which gave me the confidence to provide substantive comments on the project. I have benefitted from the feedback of very thoughtful reviewers in the past, which ultimately improved the quality of my research, and I feel a responsibility to provide that same service to others.

MED: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?

Dr. Vittetoe: Reporting guidelines can serve as a helpful tool for authors to ensure they are presenting all relevant information for readers. Adherence to the above guidelines, while at times formulaic, can ultimately improve the clarity and digestibility of our work. Furthermore, use of such guidelines allows reviewers to more easily identify and evaluate key components within a manuscript.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

June, 2023

Javier García-Tirado

Dr. Javier García-Tirado is the Head of the General Thoracic Surgery Service of the Autonomous Community of Aragon, in Spain. His department works simultaneously at the Miguel Servet University Hospital and at the Lozano Blesa Clinical University Hospital, both in Zaragoza. He is an associate professor in the Department of Surgery of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Zaragoza; Academician of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Zaragoza, and President of the Illustrious College of Physicians of Zaragoza. He was trained as a general thoracic surgeon at the La Princesa University Hospital in Madrid, and he belongs to the European Board of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons. His main areas of interest are the treatment of lung cancer, pleural pathology, and the management of postoperative and traumatic pain. Connect with Dr. García-Tirado on Twitter and LinkedIn.

In Dr. García-Tirado’s opinion, a good peer review should guarantee the scientific solvency of the works that will finally be published for dissemination among the international scientific community. He explains, “When I speak of solvency, I mean both the essential aspects of methodological adequacy, as well as the coherence of the results obtained and the discussion raised, but also all the ethical aspects that may be involved in the study presented.”

As a reviewer, Dr. García-Tirado believes that the reviewer's commitment to carry out his/her work within a reasonable period of time is very important, out of respect both for the authors of the article and for the editorial committee. It is also essential to him that the content of the paper to be reviewed is part of the area of expertise of the reviewer.

Seeing the prevalence of data sharing in recent decades, Dr. García-Tirado emphasizes that it is essential for scientific progress that can allow better prevention, early diagnosis, and more effective treatment of the disease in any of its manifestations. In short, it promotes the improvement of the quality of life of humanity in terms of health care.

“Facing a review is always an exciting opportunity to see and learn from the work of other colleagues. In addition, it helps me to refresh my own concepts and knowledge. On many occasions, you must consult issues that lead you to learn new procedures and knowledge. On the other hand, it makes you feel committed to the dissemination of scientific knowledge by participating in the accreditation of its veracity,” says Dr. García-Tirado.

(by Brad Li, Teresa Lin)

August, 2023

Clinton T. Morgan

Dr. Clinton T. Morgan is an Assistant Professor of Thoracic Surgery in the University of Kentucky’s Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery. He is board certified by the American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery. He obtained a combined MD/PhD from the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine and Public Health and the Integrated Program in Biochemistry. He completed his General Surgery Residency in 2018 and his Cardiothoracic Surgery Fellowship training in 2020 at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics. Dr. Morgan is dedicated to research advancing minimally invasive robotic thoracic surgery, quality metrics in treatment of lung and esophageal cancer, and diseases of the mediastinum.

In Dr. Morgan’s view, a healthy peer-review system is essential to ensuring quality standards in scientific and medical research publications. This is a complex task, but key elements include identification of appropriate expert reviewers by journal editorial staff and dedication of experts to fair and timely evaluation of research.

Dr. Morgan reckons that reviewers must consider many issues when reviewing manuscripts. Amongst the most critical of these issues are maintaining confidentiality, recognizing conflicts of interest (COI), maintaining journal and scientific standards, being objective and providing timely unbiased feedback. Disclosure of COI is an essential component of peer review because a COI can introduce bias, recognized or unrecognized, that can compromise the overarching goal of the review process, namely publication of scientifically rigorous research.

“I feel honored to review for Mediastinum as the journal has international reach that covers important topics relevant to thoracic surgery and thoracic disease,” says Dr. Morgan.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

November, 2023

Debora Brascia

Dr. Debora Brascia works as a Thoracic Surgeon at the University Hospital of Bari in Italy. She received her medical degree from Bari University and is currently pursuing a PhD in Cardio Nephro Thoracic Sciences at the "Alma Mater Studiorum" University of Bologna. In the past year, she has been recognized for her work in the field, receiving the 2023 Young Investigator award at the 37th European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Meeting in Vienna, Austria, as well as the 2023 AATS Emerging Thoracic Surgical Oncologist Fellowship from the American Association of Thoracic Surgery, among several other national and international awards. Dr. Brascia completed her internship and residency in thoracic surgery at the Bari University Hospital where she was selected as the Erasmus Traveling Scholar to experience observership periods in Finland and Germany. In 2021, she successfully completed the Course in Principles and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR) from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Dr. Brascia is a dedicated researcher who has authored or co-authored over 30 scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed medical journals. She is also a member of the ESTS Women in General Thoracic Surgery Committee. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

In order to provide valuable feedback on an article, according to Dr. Brascia, a reviewer should possess competence in the subject matter and stay updated with the latest guidelines and news. Additionally, the reviewer should aim to provide constructive comments that help improve the quality of the article by suggesting insights and additions, rather than criticizing or dismissing the article.

“I enjoy reviewing articles, especially those from distant parts of the world that cover topics I've previously worked on. I often discover useful ideas, both statistically and culturally, which enhance my experience as a researcher and broaden my knowledge,” adds she.

Dr. Brascia indicates that in this era, it is essential to share data and research results to ensure transparency and develop new collaborations between institutions. We need cooperative research aimed at enhancing our clinical knowledge. To achieve this, reviewers must increase the transparency and quality of the data. Collaboration and data sharing are crucial to obtain results that are more reliable and significant, obtained from a larger population.

(By Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

December, 2023

Tadashi Sakane

Tadashi Sakane is an Assistant Professor of Thoracic Surgery at Nagoya City University West Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan. After years of training as a thoracic surgeon, where he gained substantial experience of surgical treatment and chemoradiotherapy for thoracic diseases, he was trained in the field of surgical pathology and molecular biology. He obtained a PhD from Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences in 2019. His main areas of clinical interest are treatment of thoracic malignancies and he is actively engaged in multiple clinical research projects. His research topic includes the elucidation of molecular mechanisms of lung cancer and thymic epithelial tumor. Learn more about him here.

Reviewers need to keep many issues in mind in peer review. In Dr. Sakane’s opinion, reviewers should be objective, constructive, and confidential, and have humility and patience to contribute to scientific advance by insights with impartial perspective, instead of just criticizing or dismissing a manuscript. In addition, to show respect to both authors and editors, it is needed to respond promptly, but allocating enough time for reviewing.

Dr. Sakane enjoys reviewing manuscripts submitted to Mediastinum, as it covers the breadth of disorders related to mediastinum, which is very close to his research field. Reviewing manuscripts allow him to update his knowledge, and is a great learning.

It is essential that manuscripts are reviewed by appropriate scientists with relevant expertise, who have no conflicts of interest with the authors and the content. According to Dr. Sakane, reviewers should be familiar with the latest guidelines and topic regarding the manuscripts, and have sufficient knowledge and experience, including clinical, statistical, and methodological aspects.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Sakane thinks that reporting guidelines like CONSORT and CARE help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts and facilitate critical assessment and interpretation of the manuscripts not only by reviewers but also by editors and readers. Although these guidelines may not ensure transparency and accuracy completely, they help authors present their work precisely, which can serve as a guide for reviewers to understand the essence of the manuscripts clearly.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)