In 2025, JMAI 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.
Seung-Won Lee, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea
Lucas Lacerda de Souza, University of Campinas, Brazil
Rocio Nuñez Calonge, International Assisted Reproduction Unit, Spain
Noah S. Molinski, Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research, Germany
Ravneet Chhabra, Biocytogen Boston Corporation, USA
Thorsten Rudroff, Turku University Hospital, Finland
Adéla Koťátková, Jaume I University, Spain
Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, USA
Sandeep Reddy, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Tobias Straub, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Germany
Milan Toma, New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, USA
Seung-Won Lee
Prof. Seung Won Lee received his Bachelor's degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Seoul National University in 2011. He then earned his MD from CHA University in 2015, followed by a Ph.D. from the same university in 2018. Previously, he served as the chief of the Goseo Public Health Center and then as the Chair of the Data Science Department at Sejong University. Since 2022, he has served as an Associate Professor in the Department of Precision Medicine at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine. His research areas include Medical AI, Medical Big Data, and Digital Health. Learn more about him here.
Prof. Lee points out that the peer-review system, while essential, faces several significant limitations. Reviewer bias remains a persistent issue, whether unconscious preferences for certain methodologies, theories, institutions, or authors. The process is often unnecessarily protracted, delaying the dissemination of potentially impactful research. This is partly because reviewers receive minimal formal recognition for their considerable time and effort. Additionally, review quality varies substantially depending on reviewer expertise and commitment, meaning that errors may go undetected, particularly in highly specialized or interdisciplinary research. The growing volume of submissions has also strained the system, making it increasingly difficult to find qualified reviewers willing to commit their time. To improve the system, he recommends implementing more widespread double-blind or triple-blind reviews to minimize bias. Reviewers need better mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding high-quality peer-review work. He believes that AI tools can be cautiously integrated to assist with initial screenings, plagiarism detection, and statistical verification, allowing reviewers to focus on deeper analysis. Additionally, promoting more transparent review processes where reviews are published alongside papers could improve accountability and quality while providing valuable learning resources for early-career researchers.
Prof. Lee acknowledges that complete elimination of bias is impossible, but he employs several strategies to minimize its impact on his reviews. First, he practices self-awareness by consciously reflecting on his own preferences and preconceptions before beginning a review. When reviewing manuscripts, he follows a structured approach, systematically evaluating methodology, results, and conclusions against established standards in the field rather than personal preferences. He also makes it a practice to review papers outside his immediate specialty and geographical region, which helps broaden his perspective. Finally, he actively seeks to upgrade his knowledge about different research approaches and cultural contexts in science, which helps him appreciate diverse scientific traditions and methodologies, reducing the likelihood that unfamiliarity might be mistaken for poor quality.
Lastly, Prof. Lee would like to say a few words to thank all reviewers, “As we navigate the changing landscape of scientific publishing, your expertise becomes even more valuable. The critical thinking and specialized knowledge you bring to review cannot be replaced by technology, though it may be augmented by it. I believe we should collectively advocate for better recognition systems for reviewers, including academic credits, compensation, and formal acknowledgment in career advancement processes. Your dedication deserves recognition not just from authors but from the entire scientific community. Thank you for your invaluable contribution to scientific integrity and progress.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lucas Lacerda de Souza
Dr. Lucas Lacerda de Souza, DDS, MSc, is a prominent researcher affiliated with the Department of Oral Diagnosis at the Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. His academic journey is marked by a diverse set of qualifications. He obtained his DDS from the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), with specializations in Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology. Subsequently, he earned a Master’s degree in Oral Pathology from UNICAMP and is currently in the process of pursuing his Ph.D. at the same institution. His research interests span multiple areas, including head and neck pathology, salivary gland pathology, hematolymphoid disorders, and the innovative application of machine learning and large language models for diagnosis, education, and patient support. His contributions to the academic community are evident through his extensive publications in both oral pathology and artificial intelligence journals. Additionally, his research has been recognized with awards at national and international conferences. He is a member of the Brazilian Society of Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology (SOBEP) and has completed a research fellowship at the University of Pretoria (SA). He is now undertaking a fellowship at the University of Sheffield (UK).
Dr. de Souza emphasizes that peer review is of utmost importance as it serves as a safeguard for the quality, accuracy, and credibility of scientific research. When experts within the same field evaluate a study prior to publication, they act as a second set of eyes, capable of identifying errors, biases, or overlooked aspects that the authors might have missed. This process acts as a gatekeeper, allowing only studies that are well-designed and carry significant meaning to enter the scientific literature. Moreover, it encourages researchers to strive for excellence, knowing that their work will be closely examined by their peers. Additionally, peer review plays a crucial role in maintaining public trust in science by ensuring that the conclusions drawn are firmly rooted in reliable evidence. In essence, peer review is the bedrock of scientific integrity, facilitating the advancement of knowledge through collaborative efforts, critical evaluation, and continuous improvement.
According to Dr. de Souza, when reviewers assess a manuscript, they should place scientific rigor at the forefront. This involves ensuring that the research question is clearly formulated, the chosen methodology is appropriate for addressing the question, and the conclusions are adequately supported by the data presented. Assessing the originality and relevance of the study is also essential, as it helps determine whether the research makes a valuable contribution to the field and aligns with the scope of the journal. The clarity of the writing and the logical organization of the manuscript are important factors, as they directly influence the reader's comprehension of the work. Ethical considerations cannot be overlooked, and reviewers must confirm that all necessary approvals have been obtained and that the study complies with ethical standards, especially when human or animal subjects are involved. Reviewers are expected to offer constructive, respectful, and detailed feedback that can assist authors in enhancing the quality of their work. Maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest are vital for ensuring a fair, unbiased, and professional evaluation.
“Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific research. Their careful and unbiased evaluations ensure that published studies meet high standards of rigor, relevance, and ethical responsibility. Although their contributions often take place behind the scenes, they are essential to the advancement of science. By critically assessing manuscripts, offering constructive feedback, and upholding the values of transparency and objectivity, reviewers help strengthen the research community and support the dissemination of reliable knowledge. Their commitment is fundamental to the progress and credibility of science,” says Dr. de Souza.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Rocio Nuñez Calonge
Dr. Rocío Núñez Calonge holds a Biology PhD from Madrid’s Complutense University and is a human reproduction specialist with over 35 years of experience, starting at Madrid’s Ramón y Cajal Hospital in 1985. She completed post-doctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Reproduction and Women's Health and holds a Senior Embryologist degree from ESHRE. From 2005 to 2017, she served as Tambre Clinic’s deputy director, quality head, Tambre Foundation secretary, and Ethics Committee founder. She is a Bioethics Master, and she teaches reproduction-focused master’s programs at universities including Complutense (Madrid) and Barcelona. Now she is a scientific advisor at UR International Group, and her research focuses on male fertility, reproductive ethics, the impact of environmental factors on semen quality, and ethical aspects of assisted reproduction. Learn more about her here.
Beyond clinical and research work, Dr. Calonge emphasizes the critical role of peer review in science. She identifies it as a cornerstone of quality control, verifying methodological soundness and filtering flawed work, while enhancing credibility among scientists, policymakers, and the public. Constructive feedback from reviewers refines research, and the process upholds ethical standards, acting as a gatekeeper for scientific rigor.
Dr. Calonge points out an important quality of reviewers – accountability – evaluating scientific rigor, originality, and clarity; ensuring ethical compliance; and providing respectful, objective feedback. Confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest are paramount, as reviewers must balance critical assessment with fairness. In essence, peer review, as she sees it, safeguards scientific integrity—essential for advancing fields like reproductive science, where rigor and ethics directly impact patient trust and progress.
Lastly, Dr. Calonge would like to say a few words to all dedicated reviewers, “Your dedication as a reviewer is the silent engine behind scientific progress. Though often unseen, your careful scrutiny, constructive feedback, and commitment to quality uphold the integrity of research worldwide. Thank you for your invaluable contribution—science moves forward because of people like you.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Noah S. Molinski
Noah S. Molinski is a medical researcher currently serving as Head of Research at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany. He holds a Master of Science degree from Technische Universität Braunschweig and has transitioned his research focus from astrophysics to medical applications. His primary research expertise centers on medical physics applications, including whole-body hyperthermia treatments for cancer therapy, development of computational solutions for neuroradiological diagnosis, and biomedical instrumentation. With his interdisciplinary background bridging physics and medicine, he brings unique analytical perspectives to clinical research challenges. Beyond his primary research, he is actively involved in scientific advisory work, due diligence consulting for technology companies, and investing in innovative startups, contributing to the translation of research discoveries into clinical applications. Learn more about him here.
JMAI: Why do we need peer review?
Molinski: Peer review acts as the profession’s immune system: it blocks bad science from reaching patients and distorting clinical practice. In medical research, flawed studies don’t merely waste resources; they can be lethal. We bear a moral duty to ensure every research piece influencing patient care undergoes rigorous review by experts who grasp both its scientific basis and clinical implications.
JMAI: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Molinski: A healthy peer-review system should be fast, transparent, and honest. We need reviewers who are not afraid to say "this isn't good enough" when patient safety is at stake. The system must reward thorough, constructive criticism over politeness.
JMAI: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Molinski: I block weekly time because rigorous review prevents harmful treatments from reaching patients and accelerates life-saving breakthroughs. Every manuscript I evaluate could directly impact someone's care. This work makes me a better researcher while keeping me connected to cutting-edge developments that inform my own studies. We owe our patients nothing less.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ravneet Chhabra
Ravneet Chhabra holds a PhD in cell and molecular biology from the University of South Florida, Tampa. Her prior research focused on renal and ovarian cancer, delving deeply into understanding the role of iron overload, epigenetic regulation of miRNAs, and chemoresistance in these cancer types. Currently, she works as the associate director of business development for Biocytogen Boston Corporation, collaborating with scientific researchers and collaborators to facilitate their preclinical research projects, which specialize in oncology, immunology, inflammatory diseases, metabolic disorders, and neurological diseases. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Chhabra believes that reviewers should always focus on the major objective of peer review, which is to improve the overall quality of the manuscript and ensure scientific rigor. Additionally, as part of the same ecosystem, reviewers should remember that the feedback they provide needs to be as well-articulated as they would like to receive when they are on the submitting end of a manuscript.
However, Dr. Chhabra points out that although the peer-review process is extremely valuable, it can be subjective and there is a risk of bias in certain cases. The lack of clarity in reviewer comments can also lead to potential rejections and confusion among authors, causing delays in publications. Young researchers in need of guidance for improvement may be demotivated by harsh comments. To improve this, she suggests allocating time for a thorough review, providing clear guidelines and detailed feedback. If recommendations are given, supporting them with evidence and examples can be more constructive. Balancing negative and positive comments in a respectful manner would encourage authors to invest more time and effort in improving the manuscript.
Lastly, Dr. Chhabra shared an interesting story from her review experience, “There was a time when I had to review a manuscript on an airport due to time constraints. I was trying to hide my laptop the whole time, because I kept thinking how weird it would be if the authors were somewhere close to me by any chance. I never reviewed another paper in a public place again.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Thorsten Rudroff
Dr. Thorsten Rudroff, Ph.D., FACSM, is a Professor of Experimental Neuroimaging at the Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital in Finland, with over 20 years of expertise in neurophysiology. His work focuses on fatigue and cognitive dysfunction in neurological disorders like Multiple Sclerosis and long COVID-19, and he leads efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced neuroimaging (PET, MRI, CT) to transform medical research and patient care—especially for infectious and neurological conditions. A Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine since 2016, his recent research centers on long COVID mechanisms/treatments, AI-driven neuroimaging analysis, and the intersection of AI and neuroscience. He has authored several books and serves on editorial boards for neuroscience and brain research journals.
Dr. Rudroff views a healthy peer-review system as balancing rigor with mentorship: it needs constructive, educational feedback, 2-to-4-week turnarounds, bias mitigation (via diverse reviewers/structured criteria), transparent accountability, reviewer recognition/training, openness to innovation (e.g., AI), and collaborative dialogue.
To minimize peer-review bias, Dr. Rudroff points out that author identifies until assessing merit, challenges initial reactions to avoid favoritism or resistance to novelty, distinguishes “unfamiliar” from “inferior” methods, uses checklists for objective criteria, and delays judgments to calm emotions.
Dr. Rudroff thinks that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is essential—undisclosed conflicts erode trust. COIs (financial or intellectual) influence small, cumulative choices (e.g., stats, result framing) rather than overt fabrication, and institutional ties can also skew research. Disclosure lets the community evaluate evidence fully informed.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Adéla Koťátková
Adéla Koťátková holds an international Ph.D. in Applied Languages, Literature, and Translation from Jaume I University (UJI) with an award-winning thesis on clinical case narratives in mental health. She is currently an Assistant Professor at UJI’s Department of European Languages and Cultures and a member of the López Piñero Interuniversity Research Institute for Science Studies. Her research focuses on healthcare communication, discourse analysis, and applied linguistics, with a particular interest in how language shapes understanding in medical contexts. She leads two interdisciplinary projects with Hospital La Fe and its Health Research Institute on improving quality of life in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and on using AI to adapt medical reports for patients. She has been a visiting researcher at the University of Cambridge and the University of Valencia, and collaborates in interdisciplinary research groups across universities on health sciences, education, media, and literature. Learn more about her here.
JMAI: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Koťátková: A healthy peer-review system is one that combines scientific rigour, impartiality, and mutual respect. It should ensure that each manuscript is evaluated by suitably qualified experts in the field, following transparent and consistent criteria. It must also foster constructive feedback that not only identifies areas for improvement but also helps to enhance the overall quality of the work and supports the professional development of authors, particularly young researchers. Furthermore, a healthy system should enable the assessment of articles within a reasonable timeframe, as prolonged delays can be discouraging for authors of innovative research awaiting the completion of the publication process.
JMAI: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Koťátková: One of the main limitations of the current peer-review system—experienced by all involved in academic publishing—is the high rate of reviewer refusals to evaluate manuscripts, largely because this work is often insufficiently recognised. In the Spanish academic system in which I work, once an academic has obtained a few certificates of having acted as a referee, there is little additional incentive to continue reviewing, as further activity does not contribute to career advancement. This makes it difficult to motivate academics to undertake demanding and unpaid work that offers them no tangible benefit in professional progression. Reviewing should therefore be far more valued within university systems. Assessing a manuscript is both a significant responsibility and a considerable workload. It would also be beneficial for universities to offer specific training programmes for reviewers and for journals to provide well-designed evaluation forms, combining closed questions—reflecting the editors’ key concerns—with open sections where referees can express their views. A dedicated section for confidential comments to editors is also excellent practice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla
Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, FACP, holds key roles as Co-Founder and Chief Medical AI Officer of Massive Bio, Network Chief of Hematology and Oncology at St. Luke’s University Health Network, and Associate Professor at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine. Internationally acclaimed for advancing artificial intelligence (AI), precision oncology, and clinical trial innovation, his recent work focuses on AI-driven trial matching, multimodal drug discovery, and real-world data integration—all aimed at accelerating cancer research and enhancing equitable patient access. A member of ASCO, ACS ACTS, and CancerX, he has also been recognized by the White House Cancer Moonshot initiative for his contributions. His leadership bridges oncology, data science, and policy, shaping the future of patient-centered research worldwide.
JMAI: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla: A constructive review delivers clear, evidence-based feedback to help authors strengthen their work while upholding the scientific process. It highlights strengths, identifies gaps, and offers practical suggestions to improve methodology, analysis, or presentation. In contrast, a destructive review dismisses or criticizes without context, provides no actionable guidance, or reflects bias instead of scholarly evaluation. Importantly, a review should not aim to showcase the reviewer’s expertise or discredit the authors. Constructive reviews elevate both the manuscript and the field, while destructive ones impede progress.
JMAI: What qualities should a reviewer possess?
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla: Reviewers must embody fairness, rigor, and humility. They need to stay objective, be well-versed in current literature, and pay close attention to methodological details. Respecting the time and effort of authors, while maintaining confidentiality and integrity, is also crucial. The best reviewers balance critical analysis with mentorship, recognizing that every submission presents an opportunity to advance knowledge and foster collaboration in science. Additionally, a sense of curiosity and openness to new knowledge should guide their work.
JMAI: Is Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure important for authors?
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla: COI disclosure is essential to preserve transparency and trust in science. Having potential conflicts is not inherently problematic—given the close collaborations between academia, industry, and healthcare—but disclosure allows readers and reviewers to interpret findings in the proper context. Failing to disclose can damage credibility and raise concerns about bias, whereas transparent reporting lets the scientific community judge the work on its merits. Ultimately, COIs can impact research design, interpretation, or dissemination, but their effects can be reduced through accountability, peer review, and adherence to ethical standards.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sandeep Reddy
Professor Sandeep Reddy is the head of the disciplines of healthcare management and health information management at the School of Public Health and the lead for the Health, Human Biology, and Medtech theme at the Centre for Data Science at Queensland University of Technology. He also serves as the chairman of the Centre for Advancement of Translational AI in Medicine, an institute dedicated to facilitating the integration of AI into healthcare. A certified health executive, certified health informatician, and a digital health expert recognised by the World Health Organisation, he has a background in medicine and healthcare management with training in machine learning and health informatics from diverse sources. His current research primarily focuses on the factors necessary to integrate AI into clinical care and health service delivery. He has also written numerous articles and books on the application of AI in medicine. Previously, he established local and international forums to advance AI in healthcare and has been a member of various international committees in the same field. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JMAI: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Prof. Reddy: Essential qualifications include subject matter expertise, a strong commitment to advancing scientific knowledge through comprehensive reviews, and the ability to provide impartial evaluations of submitted work. Additionally, reviewers should possess excellent analytical skills and a keen eye for detail, enabling them to identify both the strengths and potential weaknesses in manuscripts. Effective communication is also crucial, as constructive feedback helps authors refine their research and contributes positively to the academic discourse. By upholding these standards, reviewers support the integrity of the peer-review process and enhance the overall quality of published research, ultimately fostering innovation and progress in their respective fields.
JMAI: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Prof. Reddy: Peer review often goes unrecognised by universities and publishers. I commend this journal for acknowledging the voluntary work of its reviewers with such profiles. Alternatives for recognition include waiving or discounting article processing charges. Such tangible appreciation not only motivates reviewers but also highlights the essential role they play in maintaining the rigour and credibility of scientific publishing. Providing additional incentives, such as formal certificates of contribution or opportunities for professional development, could further encourage participation and excellence in peer review. Recognising reviewers’ commitment in meaningful ways will help attract dedicated experts and reinforce the collaborative spirit that underpins progress in research, ensuring that the peer-review process remains robust and effective for the benefit of the academic community.
JMAI: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scenes?
Prof. Reddy: Reviewers play a pivotal role in upholding the integrity and quality of scholarly communication, often working diligently behind the scenes without widespread recognition. Their careful, critical insights help authors refine their work, foster innovation, and ensure that research meets the highest standards. By choosing to contribute their time and expertise, reviewers not only advance the field but also help shape the future of science. I encourage all reviewers to take pride in their contributions, knowing that their efforts are foundational to the evolution of knowledge and are valued by the entire academic community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tobias Straub
Tobias Straub is a physician-scientist and Head of the Bioinformatics Core Facility at the Biomedical Center of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich. Trained in both medicine and molecular biology, his work focuses on high-throughput genomics and transcriptomics—with a particular emphasis on chromatin regulation, gene expression, and quantitative analysis pipelines. In recent years, his focus has shifted toward advancing reproducible research in the life sciences, championing robust experimental design, transparent workflows, and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data management principles. He is actively involved in teaching statistics and reproducible research practices to early-career scientists, and works to build institutional infrastructure that supports rigorous, well-documented computational analysis. Most recently, he has explored the potential of large language models as tools to streamline the scientific process; while conversational AI assistants have become daily companions that accelerate his work, he emphasizes the need to approach AI-generated output with substantial skepticism. Learn more about him here.
JMAI: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Straub: Peer review serves two main priorities: First, it is a structured mechanism for detecting obvious flaws and crucial weaknesses before a study becomes part of the permanent record. This includes problems in design, statistics, controls, data handling, and logic of inference. Especially in medicine and life science, such weaknesses can lead to misleading conclusions, wasted resources, or even harmful downstream decisions. Second, peer review provides independent feedback that challenges the authors’ framing and stimulates consideration of alternative interpretations, methods, and analyses. External reviewers are less invested in a specific narrative and can therefore question assumptions that may be invisible to the authors. Both functions make peer review an important, although imperfect, safeguard. It reduces the risk that unsound work passes unchallenged and encourages authors to refine their arguments. At the same time, peer review should never be seen as a certificate of truth, but as one critical step in ongoing collective scrutiny.
JMAI: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Straub: The central principle is that data, its quality, completeness, and formal interpretation matters far more than the storytelling around it. A compelling narrative cannot rescue weak or ambiguous evidence. Reviewers should first remember that their primary responsibility is to the scientific record and, in medicine, ultimately to patients and the public, not to authors or journals.
The key question is not “Is this exciting?” but “Are the data and inferences sound enough that others can trust, critique, and build on this work?”
JMAI: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?
Dr. Straub: Yes, this is important, but mainly as a tool for transparency rather than as a guarantee of quality. Reporting guidelines were all developed because poorly reported research makes critical appraisal almost impossible, even when underlying work is good. For reviewers, adherence to these checklists drastically reduces the time spent guessing what was actually done. Key elements such as pre‑specification of outcomes, handling of missing data, flow of participants, or risk‑of‑bias domains are explicitly documented. This allows reviewers to focus their skepticism on the validity and robustness of methods and inferences, rather than on reconstructing basic information that should have been reported. However, ticking all boxes of a guideline does not transform a weak or biased study into a strong one. As a reviewer, one should see reporting guidelines as a minimum standard for transparency and completeness, and then apply independent methodological and statistical judgement on top.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Milan Toma
Dr. Milan Toma, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Clinical Sciences at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM), specializing in computational biomechanics, biomedical engineering, and AI-assisted medical diagnostics. Born in Slovakia, he earned his PhD in Structural Biomechanics from the Technical University of Lisbon and has held research positions across Europe, Asia, and North America, including a Marie Curie Fellowship in France. He is the author of over 100 peer-reviewed studies and 4 books, including AI-Assisted Medical Diagnostics and a book on medical misinformation. His research focuses on fluid-structure interactions in the human body, with applications in brain, cardiovascular, and fetal biomechanics. Dr. Toma integrates machine learning into medical diagnostics, advancing areas like orthopedic patient classification, prenatal surgical guidance, and real-time patient monitoring. Through interdisciplinary collaboration, he is dedicated to improving healthcare outcomes via cutting-edge computational and AI-driven solutions. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
JMAI: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Toma: A healthy peer-review system prioritizes a deep understanding of field methodologies, especially in the relatively new domain of medical AI. Many current studies only focus on aggregate metrics like final accuracy, which can be misleading—high accuracy often stems from shortcuts such as data leakage, where test set information inappropriately influences model training, along with other overlooked improper practices. Thus, it is critical for reviewers to assess AI model training dynamics, not just final results. A sound system requires studies to detail training processes, validation methods, and safeguards against flaws; without this scrutiny, flawed algorithms may enter clinical practice, endangering patients. To address this, I wrote a textbook guiding researchers and reviewers to identify proper practices and avoid pitfalls, thereby upholding research quality and ensuring AI solutions are safe, reliable, and effective in real-world applications.
JMAI: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Toma: Reviewers must approach papers with a critical eye, particularly in medical AI where stakes are high. A key focus is evaluating whether AI model training was conducted properly—many studies boast high accuracy, but this often results from data leakage or other shortcuts that undermine result validity. Reviewers should carefully check if authors took measures to prevent such issues and if training and validation processes are clearly described and reproducible. Additionally, they need to verify that studies acknowledge limitations and provide realistic assessments of a model’s real-world applicability, as improperly trained AI may perform well in controlled settings but fail clinically, eroding clinician trust in the technology. By going beyond surface-level metrics to assess training dynamics and ensuring only rigorously validated studies are published, reviewers safeguard the field’s integrity and foster trust in medical AI for better healthcare outcomes.
JMAI: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Toma: My motivation for anonymous, non-profitable peer review comes from a deep sense of responsibility to the scientific community and patients—medical AI systems directly and profoundly impact patient outcomes, so rigorous evaluation prevents harm and preserves trust in the field. Peer review also lets me educate researchers and clinicians new to medical AI, who often overlook pitfalls like data leakage, by offering constructive feedback to refine their work and raise awareness, fostering higher research standards. Furthermore, I believe we must prepare the next generation of medical professionals to not just use AI, but critically evaluate it as skeptical auditors. Peer reviewing is my way of contributing to this mission, ensuring AI tools are not only innovative but also reliable and genuinely beneficial to healthcare.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
