In 2025, MED 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.

Yoshito Yamada, Kyoto Katsura Hospital, Japan

Chris S Nabel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Jason Beattie, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, USA

Yoshito Yamada

Dr. Yoshito Yamada serves as Vice Chief of the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Kyoto Katsura Hospital, Japan. Graduating from Chiba University, he earned his Ph.D. in thoracic surgery in 2009. Following fellowships at Indiana University (U.S.) and University Hospital Zurich (Switzerland), he has made significant contributions to research in lung transplantation and thoracic oncology. His key interests include chronic lung allograft dysfunction, perioperative immunomodulation, and minimally invasive thoracic surgery. His work on transplant tolerance has been published in JHLT and Nature Communications. As a certified thoracic surgeon and transplant physician, he actively engages in clinical innovation and academic mentorship.

When evaluating manuscripts, Dr. Yamada’s primary focus is on whether the study is grounded in solid scientific reasoning, including robust methodology and appropriate statistical analysis. Only after confirming these foundational elements does he assess originality and clinical relevance. He particularly values research that demonstrates thoughtful construction and meaningful clinical applicability, as such studies contribute most significantly to advancing the field and improving patient care.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Yamada emphasizes the critical role of data sharing in scientific research. First, it ensures reproducibility, a foundation of scientific credibility that allows others to validate findings. Sharing data also enables the research community to address post-publication uncertainties by re-evaluating results. Additionally, openly accessible datasets facilitate secondary analyses and meta-analyses, generating new insights beyond the original study’s scope. Data sharing is more than transparency—it catalyzes cumulative scientific progress by empowering collaborative exploration and discovery.

“As someone involved in both writing and reviewing scientific papers, I find that the act of reviewing significantly sharpens my skills as a writer. It deepens my understanding of what makes a paper clear, rigorous, and impactful.

Engaging in peer review fosters critical thinking and a strong sense of responsibility toward the scientific community. I view reviewers as quiet guardians of academic quality, helping to uphold the standards of published research. For early-career researchers in particular, participating in peer review is a meaningful way to grow as both scientists and communicators,” says Dr. Yamada.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Chris S Nabel

Dr. Chris Nabel is an Attending Physician at the Center for Thoracic Cancers at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and a Clinical Investigator at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He completed his MD and PhD at the University of Pennsylvania, his Internal Medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and his Medical Oncology fellowship at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. His clinical practice focuses primarily on treating thymic epithelial tumors. Based at the Koch Institute, his translational research explores the biological processes in the normal thymus that predispose to malignant transformation, with a specific focus on thymic epithelial tumors.

Dr. Nabel believes that peer review is a cornerstone of responsible scientific stewardship. Its core role is to contextualize individual research within the broader body of knowledge, ensure studies meet rigorous methodological standards, and provide constructive feedback that strengthens the authors’ scientific contribution. By upholding these standards, peer review advances our collective understanding—turning individual work into trustworthy, impactful additions to the field.

Biases are inevitable in peer review. Dr. Nabel thinks that centering the science itself—prioritizing methodological rigor, data validity, and intellectual merit over personal preferences or preconceptions—helps mitigate bias. Given the increasingly multidisciplinary nature of 2025 research, it is also critical to acknowledge the limits of one’s expertise. As a reviewer, he focuses feedback on areas where he has relevant training and avoids overreaching judgments on topics outside his specialization, ensuring evaluations remain fair and grounded in competence.

“Keeping open time for unstructured/unpredictable activities such as peer review helps to ensure that time for things like peer review does not get subtracted from other important parts of the work day or personal life. As much as I can, I keep protected time during the work week for these activities, and also try to remain realistic about how many manuscripts I can review at any one time in order to maintain timelines for response that are respectful to the submitting authors,” says Dr. Nabel.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jason Beattie

Jason Beattie is an Interventional Pulmonologist (IP) at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts. He serves as Director of IP Research and Site Director of the IP Fellowship. Within the field of interventional pulmonology, his clinical and academic focus lies at the interface of Thoracic Oncology and IP, with a particular interest in leveraging immune oncology alongside minimally invasive procedures. Relevant to the journal, his research includes ongoing efforts to enhance conventional endobronchial ultrasound-guided sampling, including mediastinal cryobiopsy.

Dr. Beattie thinks that it is important for reviewers to view authors as close colleagues. A nurturing, comrade-oriented attitude fosters the right mindset for objective review—one that is helpful, fair, and encouraging, regardless of the overall feedback. So much effort goes into bringing a project to the submission stage, so respecting that work is paramount to him.

“I accept review invitations for subjects that interest me. Once I agree, my motivations are twofold: first, the service aspect— I see reviewing as a key part of an academic career. Second, staying sharp: academic medicine keeps us all busy, and extra tasks can feel burdensome. While we often only scan abstracts and figures to stay updated, the review process forces me to dive deeply into a manuscript, which is crucial for my ongoing professional growth,” says Dr. Beattie.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)