In 2026, 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.

Erica C Jonlin, University of Washington, USA

Justin G. Peacock, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USA

Masao Noda, Jichi Medical University, Japan

Farah W. Brink, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, USA

Jatin Sridhar Naidu, University College London, UK

Erica C Jonlin

Erica Jonlin is the regulatory manager for clinical research activities in the University of Washington (UW) Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine (ISCRM) and the UW Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, where she is responsible for educating and assisting investigators in complying with FDA and IRB regulations. She regularly lectures on the history of human subjects protection, and publishes on ethical conundrums in clinical research and stem cell research. An active member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), Dr. Jonlin was a member of the ISSCR Ethics Committee, serving as first author on a paper discussing how to evaluate scientific justification in pluripotent stem cell research. Her previous experience included serving as IRB administrator at UW, advising the IRB on regulatory matters and documenting committee reviews and decisions. Dr. Jonlin has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, which she earned at the University of California, Los Angeles. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

JMAI: What role does peer review play in science?​

Dr. Jonlin: Peer review helps keep authors accurate and honest. Although attempts to publish fraudulent data are rare, when it occurs, peer review will generally find it. But more importantly, peer review identifies gaps in data and gaps in analysis – whether inadvertently left out or deliberately omitted. Peer review improves the science by evaluating study design. Sometimes a research team lacks critical elements, even expertise, on their team and will therefore misinterpret their own data. The expert peer reviewers will be able to identify those errors and omissions, and they will find exaggerated findings or hype, and question these. Additionally, peer reviewers often have ideas to improve illustrations and graphics used in the papers. Finally, peer reviewers also improve the communication and writing style of the authors. Unfortunately, poor writing style can be detected as often among native English speakers as well as among those for whom English is a second language.

Most scientific teams lack regulatory and ethics expertise. In studies utilizing human specimens, many scientific teams will miss critical human subjects protection elements, and may even be unaware of the informed consent provided by specimen donors, or the terms of IRB review and approval. A regulatory reviewer will query the authors and ask for consent forms and IRB approvals to make sure specimen donors did indeed consent to the use of their specimens in the research that was conducted.

Peer review teaches the authors things they may not know. Papers in the field of Artificial Intelligence are of particular concern. A typical team publishing in this area has expertise in AI, but not in science and medicine, or has expertise in science and medicine, but not in AI. There are few individuals with expertise in both. Without the complete range of expertise on the team, serious errors and assumptions will be made in the research and publications.

JMAI: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Jonlin: To perform an objective review, a reviewer must focus their review and comments on areas of their own expertise, and rely on other reviewers to provide critique of elements outside that expertise. In other words, “only comment on/assess what you know.” It is important to be civil and fair and give the authors the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they did their best. Authors may be missing certain elements due to misunderstanding or time pressures or poor communications between authors or, in the case of students or trainees, their mentors. A reviewer should check the references cited in the paper and make sure they are complete and correctly interpreted, and that the most recent and relevant references have been consulted by the authors. The reviewer needs to be sure they understand the authors’ methodology in order to evaluate the completeness of the authors’ discussion, and ultimately the validity of the conclusions.

JMAI: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?

Dr. Jonlin: I just do it; I think of peer review as part of my job, as part of my mission and responsibility as a member of the overall scientific enterprise. It is a moral imperative. We cannot have bad science getting into the literature. Thus, if I can play a role in stopping bad science from being published and, better yet, improving the good science that should be part of the scientific literature, I must do this. Once a publication is out there, it has the potential to either improve our scientific knowledge base and help people, or cause serious damage, including hurt human subjects. As we know, it is nearly impossible to overcome the damage of bad publications, no matter the number of retractions and papers demonstrating the misleading or even erroneous nature of the publication. Case in point: the infamous paper by Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet in 1998, that claimed MMR vaccines cause autism. We still have not lived that down.

(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)

Justin G. Peacock

Justin G. Peacock, MD, PhD, is the Associate Dean for Research and Assistant Professor of Radiology and Bioengineering at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland. He is also the Associate Program Director for the Diagnostic Radiology Residency at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. A board-certified academic nuclear radiologist and educator, his scholarship spans nuclear radiology, artificial intelligence in healthcare, medical and radiology education, adult learning theory, and technology-enhanced education across undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education. Dr. Peacock has authored 51 peer-reviewed publications. He serves as a reviewer and consulting editor for multiple radiology and AI journals, including AJR, JNM, Academic Radiology, R3, Clinical Nuclear Medicine, and JMAI. He has developed training programs for students, technologists, trainees, and faculty on the ethical and effective use of AI technologies. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

JMAI: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?

Dr. Peacock: A healthy peer-review system is rigorous, fair, constructive, and efficient—essential for upholding scientific literature quality and credibility, yet facing challenges like overextended reviewers, delayed timelines, and difficulty finding qualified participants. It should be less adversarial and more of a quality-improvement process, with clear reviewer expectations, guidelines, and rubrics aligned with reporting standards. Focused on key issues (validity, relevance, transparency, clarity) rather than minor faults, its goal is to help authors produce high-quality work timely and respectfully.

JMAI: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?

Dr. Peacock: Reviewers should prioritize improving literature over judging it, focusing on critical factors: scientific rigor, methodological soundness, ethics, clarity, originality, and relevance. They must distinguish major concerns (affecting trustworthiness) from minor stylistic or academic disagreements. Feedback should be respectful, specific, actionable, and prioritized; timeliness is also critical to avoid delaying knowledge dissemination. Smart AI can assist by streamlining processes and identifying gaps, but must support—not replace—human judgment and protect intellectual property.

JMAI: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Peacock: My primary motivation is improving literature in my key fields: nuclear radiology, AI in healthcare, and medical education. Peer review is a direct way to advance these areas. It is also a professional responsibility and community service—paying back the support I’ve received from reviewers throughout my career. Though anonymous and uncompensated, it’s meaningful: it strengthens science, education, and patient care, and I’m particularly motivated by helping authors refine valuable work and supporting more efficient, constructive review processes.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Masao Noda

Dr. Masao Noda, MD, PhD, MBA, is affiliated with Jichi Medical University and specializes in pediatric otolaryngology and otologic surgery. His research interests include device development, artificial intelligence model development, validation of generative AI models, and gene therapy. In the field of AI, his work has focused on the application of AI to otolaryngologic surgery and on clinical demonstration projects involving AI and IoT for vertigo care. Through his clinical practice and research, he aims to bridge medical needs and technological innovation, contributing to the advancement of patient care and the development of medical artificial intelligence.

Dr. Noda believes that a healthy peer-review system is one that is fair, constructive, timely, and transparent in its purpose. The main role of peer review is not only to judge whether a paper should be published, but also to help improve the quality of the research. A healthy system, he adds, allows reviewers to provide honest and balanced feedback, while authors are given a reasonable opportunity to revise and clarify their work.

Dr. Noda advises that reviewers should be fair, objective, and constructive throughout the review process. He notes that reviewers should carefully evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and clarity of the manuscript, while providing comments that are helpful for both the authors and the editor. He also emphasizes that it is important to avoid personal bias, respect confidentiality, and complete the review in a timely manner. Overall, he thinks that reviewers should aim to support the improvement of the manuscript and contribute to maintaining the quality of academic publishing.

“I am engaged in research related to artificial intelligence in medical and clinical situation, so I was pleased to receive a review invitation from JMAI. I believe that scientific achievements in AI-related fields should be published in a careful and meaningful manner, especially in areas connected to medicine and healthcare. By reviewing for JMAI, I hope to contribute to maintaining the scientific quality of the journal and to supporting the publication of valuable research in the best possible form,” says Dr. Noda.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Farah W. Brink

Dr. Farah W. Brink, MD, MPH, works as a child abuse pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at The Ohio State University College of Medicine. She finished her child abuse pediatrics fellowship in 2013 and has since served as an attending physician. Currently, she holds the position of Associate Division Chief of Research within the Division of Child and Family Advocacy, and also serves as affiliate faculty at the Center for Injury Research and Policy, Abigail Wexner Research Institute. Her research covers all aspects of child maltreatment, with a core focus on adopting machine learning techniques to identify physical abuse in an ethical and equitable manner.

Dr. Brink thinks that peer review underpins the integrity of scientific research. It guarantees the quality and precision of research outcomes, refines study design, logical interpretation and data analysis to elevate overall publication standards. It also curbs subjective bias and prevents deceptive research conclusions. Verified by professional evaluation, published findings gain greater credibility among readers, consolidating academic benchmarks before research results gain widespread recognition.

In Dr. Brink’s opinion, current peer review is constrained by reviewer prejudice, insufficient transparency and lengthy assessment cycles. Reviewers may show preference toward prestigious institutions, renowned scholars or mainstream theories, while implicit bias may cause unfair dismissal of innovative viewpoints. Anonymous reviewing keeps judgment procedures undisclosed, leaving flawed and biased assessments unregulated. Moreover, prolonged reviewing delays the timely dissemination of scientific breakthroughs. Establishing unified objective evaluation criteria and opening review details to the public can enhance systemic integrity. More crucially, tangible incentives should be introduced to motivate seasoned researchers and guide junior scholars to engage in reviewing work. Valid approaches include acknowledging review contributions in career assessment, awarding professional development credits, granting public honors, providing financial compensation and offering privileged access to academic resources. Enlarging the reviewer pool and boosting participation will streamline assessment procedures. This accelerates the clinical application of research advances and brings better health outcomes to patients and the general public.

“Peer review is often an unseen but vital contribution to the advancement of science. To those who dedicate their time and expertise to this work, your efforts play a critical role in ensuring the rigor, credibility, and impact of scientific research. Although much of this work occurs behind the scenes and may not always receive formal recognition, it remains foundational to the progress of science. By continuing to contribute, along with encouraging and mentoring others to do the same, you help sustain a collaborative academic environment that ultimately benefits both the scientific community and the patients and populations we serve,” says Dr. Brink.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Jatin Sridhar Naidu

Dr Jatin S. Naidu, MBBS, BSc, is affiliated with University College London and will soon begin clinical practice at Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust in London, UK. His research interests focus on artificial intelligence applications in radiology workflows and the use of radiomics for prognostic stratification in intermediate-stage malignancies with heterogeneous treatment pathways. He serves as a peer reviewer for several journals, including BMJ Public Health, Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine, and Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence. Alongside his research, he remains actively engaged in medical education: he previously worked as an Anatomy Demonstrator at University College London and currently contributes to an international undergraduate teaching programme for medical students at Monash University, Australia. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Naidu views constructive peer review as a rigorous, fair, and thorough process that upholds high standards of scientific credibility and quality. He employs a structured framework, dividing feedback into “what went well” and “even better if” sections, each further categorized into major and minor comments. When delivering feedback, he prefers the “feedback-sandwich” approach, emphasizing that the manner of presentation is just as important as the critique itself—this approach also acknowledges the significant time and effort authors invest in preparing and submitting their manuscripts. A destructive review, by contrast, lacks structure, fairness, or constructive direction, failing to respect authors’ efforts and offering no meaningful guidance for improvement.

According to Dr. Naidu, it is very important to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI) as they influence the credibility of findings. Financial relationships, industry sponsorship, personal affiliations, or academic competition can introduce conscious or unconscious bias at multiple stages of a study, including methodology, analysis, and publication decisions. Consequently, transparent disclosure of COI is considered a fundamental component of ethical research practice and evidence-based scientific communication.

“I chose to review for JMAI because of its focus on the rapidly evolving intersection between artificial intelligence and clinical medicine, particularly within medical imaging and healthcare innovation. As my own research interests include artificial intelligence applications in radiology workflows and radiomics, reviewing for the journal provides an opportunity to contribute to the advancement of high-quality, clinically relevant research in this field. I value the role of peer review in maintaining scientific rigor and improving manuscript quality, as well as the opportunity to be among the first to read potentially groundbreaking, clinical practice-changing research,” says Dr. Naidu.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)