In 2025, VATS 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 VSports.

Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer VSports app下载. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.

Margherita Cattaneo, IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Italy

Yosuke Matsuura, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japan

Alberto Cabañero Sánchez, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Spain

Akio Hara, Suita Municipal Hospital, Japan

Hirohisa Kato, Okitama Public General Hospital, Japan

Patrick Deniz Hurley, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK

Simon Gourdeau, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, Canada

Rachid Eduardo Noleto da Nobrega Oliveira, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Brazil

Margherita Cattaneo

Dr VSports注册入口. Margherita Cattaneo earned her medical degree from the University of Milan in 2015 and completed her residency in Thoracic Surgery at the same institution in 2021.

Currently, she works at the Thoracic Surgery and Lung Transplant Unit of the IRCCS Foundation Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan, where she is involved in both oncological and transplant programs, especially in lung procurement and EVLP. From 2022-2024, she was also a research fellow at the University of Milan, participating in clinical and pre-clinical research projects in lung transplantation and EVLP fields. In addition, Dr. Cattaneo has experience in scientific publishing, with numerous articles published in international journals; she is also an active speaker, having participated in several conferences and seminars, and has contributed to collaborative research projects V体育官网入口. She is also a member of the European and the Italian Thoracic Surgery Societies. Learn more about her here.

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

Dr. Cattaneo: Transparency, impartiality, and accountability are mandatory to keep a healthy peer-review system. The peer-review process should maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the reviewers’ identity: this encourages honest and unbiased feedback without fear of retribution V体育2025版. Moreover, I think it is very important to enlist reviewers with diverse expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscripts and enhance the review process by incorporating multiple perspectives.

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

Dr. Cattaneo: Reviewers should provide constructive, detailed, and respectful feedback that helps authors improve their work; constructive criticism is key to advancing the quality of research. I think the most important aspect that reviewers have to check is the accuracy of statistical analysis, ensuring the reliability of the data presented; moreover, they have to check on proper citations and the absence of plagiarism VSports app下载.

VATS: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?

Dr. Cattaneo: Reviewers should be free from conflicts of interest and should evaluate submissions based on their scientific merit, without bias. This ensures that all research is judged fairly, regardless of the author's identity or affiliation VSports手机版. Along these lines, a peer-review system can effectively uphold the quality and credibility of scientific research, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in a meaningful and impactful way. Being part of this fundamental aspect of scientific research is what motivates me to participate in this peer-review system.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yosuke Matsuura

Dr. Yosuke Matsuura, an Associate Professor at the Department of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research in Tokyo, Japan, specializes in minimally invasive thoracic surgery and precision medicine for lung cancer. His research centers around realization of precision surgery, with clinical and research interests including using ctDNA to determine truly resectable lung cancer and developing a model to reproduce collapsed lungs during surgery from preoperative images V体育安卓版.

Dr. Matsuura emphasizes that peer review is fundamental for upholding the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. It serves as a vital checkpoint, ensuring that studies have a sound methodology, are well-supported by evidence, and contribute meaningfully to their fields. Through constructive feedback, peer review enables authors to refine their work, correct errors, and enhance clarity V体育ios版. Moreover, it builds trust in scientific literature by weeding out flawed or misleading research before publication.  This process strengthens the scientific knowledge base and supports evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice and policy development. When a paper undergoes third-party review, it can reveal arbitrary logical flaws in the development and conclusions. It may also lead to new interpretations of the data or discoveries that the author was unaware of, ultimately contributing to the healthy growth of science.

When reviewing manuscripts, Dr. Matsuura believes reviewers should be objective, fair, and constructive. They need to assess the novelty, methodology, and clinical or scientific relevance of the study, ensuring that the conclusions are firmly supported by the data. Reviewers must be vigilant about potential biases, both their own and those within the study, and offer feedback that is both critical and helpful. Maintaining confidentiality and adhering to ethical guidelines are also crucial responsibilities. Specifically, reviewers should focus on two key aspects VSports最新版本. First, they should objectively evaluate the novelty of the paper and take care to eliminate any obvious biases. Second, from a broad perspective, they should provide advice on what elements could be added to enhance the author's research and offer constructive feedback to drive the research forward.

Dr. Matsuura holds the view that data sharing is essential for scientific research. Open data promotes transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration, which are all vital for scientific progress. By making research data accessible, other researchers can validate findings, conduct meta-analyses, and build on existing work, thus accelerating the advancement of the field. However, he also stresses that data sharing must be carried out responsibly, taking into account ethical concerns, patient confidentiality, and intellectual property rights. In clinical research, for instance, de-identifying data and obtaining appropriate consent are necessary to safeguard patient privacy. Additionally, ensuring data quality and proper documentation are crucial for maximizing the usability of shared datasets. Overall, cultivating a culture of responsible data sharing benefits the scientific community and improves the reliability of research results.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Alberto Cabañero Sánchez

Dr. Alberto Cabañero Sánchez works at the thoracic surgery department of the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. He obtained his medical degree from the Complutense University of Madrid and completed his training in thoracic surgery at the Ramón y Cajal University Hospital. He is currently the resident mentor and the safety referent of the thoracic surgery department. His areas of interest are thoracic oncology, minimally invasive surgery and multimodal management of the surgical patients. He belongs to several national and international societies related to thoracic surgery and respiratory pathologies, and collaborates with different clinical committees within his workplace. Follow him on ORCID.

VATS: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Sánchez: I recognize peer review as a cornerstone of scientific integrity and progress. This process ensures that research—whether in surgical techniques, patient outcomes, or novel therapies—meets rigorous standards before publication. By subjecting studies to expert scrutiny, peer review helps identify methodological flaws, biases, or misinterpretations, ultimately enhancing the reliability and credibility of medical advancements. It also fosters continuous learning and improvement, guiding evidence-based practice in thoracic surgery and beyond.

VATS: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Sánchez: An objective review is one that evaluates a study based solely on its scientific merit, methodology, and validity, without being influenced by personal biases, institutional affiliations, or external pressures. As a thoracic surgeon in a university hospital, I ensure objectivity in my reviews by focusing on key aspects such as study design, statistical analysis, reproducibility, and clinical relevance. 

I always try to assess whether the study aligns with established scientific principles and best practices in thoracic surgery and compare findings with prior research to ensure consistency and scientific soundness. I try to avoid personal or institutional bias and base my critique on logical reasoning and evidence, offering specific suggestions for improvement rather than subjective or negative opinions.

VATS: Why do you choose to review for VATS?

Dr. Sánchez: I choose to review for VATS because it is a specialized journal dedicated to advancing the field of video-assisted thoracic surgery, a technique that has significantly improved patient outcomes by reducing invasiveness, hospital stays, and recovery times. Reviewing for VATS allows me to stay at the forefront of emerging techniques, technologies, and clinical outcomes in minimally invasive surgery.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Akio Hara

Akio Hara, based at Suita Municipal Hospital in Osaka, has an educational background that includes graduating from Osaka University and attaining a PhD from Okayama University through epidemiological research. His area of special interest lies in reducing treatment invasiveness. Presently, his research efforts are concentrated on simplifying and facilitating the wider implementation of lung segmentectomy. This surgical procedure is minimally invasive but presents technical complexities. He can be reached on X @A_H_GTS.

VATS: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Hara: Peer review by impartial outsiders is essential to ensure the integrity of scientific research. In addition to this, I believe that another important role of reviewers is to help improve the quality of the research and its presentation.

VATS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Hara: One of the main issues with the current peer-review system is that the benefits of reviewing are not always clear, leading to an imbalance between the demand for and supply of reviewers. Personally, I take on reviews as much as possible because I find it a valuable learning experience. However, the educational benefits of reviewing are not always easy to perceive. Ideally, while maintaining the integrity of the review process and preventing misconduct, there should be some tangible incentives for reviewers.

VATS: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?

Dr. Hara: The benefits of peer review may not always be immediately visible, but it is valuable not only as a contribution to science but also as an opportunity to update one's own knowledge. I encourage everyone to take on peer review whenever possible, as it is a meaningful way to contribute to science and enhance our own learning.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hirohisa Kato

Dr. Hirohisa Kato holds M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the Faculty of Medicine at Yamagata University in Japan. After completing residencies in general surgery, cardiovascular surgery, and thoracic surgery, he served as an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery 2 at Yamagata University's Faculty of Medicine. He further enhanced his surgical skills by undertaking a fellowship from The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital in Strasbourg, France. Since June 2020, he has been working at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Okitama Public General Hospital. His research interests center around minimally invasive surgery, sublobar resections, thoracoscopic segmentectomy, and near-infrared fluorescence imaging. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Kato points out that one of the significant limitations of the current peer-review system is the variability in the reviewing levels among different reviewers. To address this issue, he suggests the creation of a scoring system. Such a system could potentially standardize the review process and help elevate the overall quality of reviews. By having a structured way to evaluate reviewers' performance, it would be possible to ensure more consistent and accurate assessments of manuscripts, thereby enhancing the credibility and reliability of the peer-review system.

According to Dr. Kato, reviewers need to be attuned to the trends in the specific field of the paper they are reviewing. With an understanding of these trends, they should assess the novelty of the research while also grasping the author's goals and incorporating their own opinions. It is crucial for reviewers to determine whether the authors have presented both their own goals and opposing viewpoints in a fair and balanced manner. Additionally, they should check if the purpose, conclusion, and results of the study are in harmony, with the results effectively supporting the author's opinion. This comprehensive approach helps in providing a thorough and meaningful evaluation of the manuscript.

Dr. Kato shares an interesting anecdote from his review experiences. Despite the implementation of the double-blind system in some review processes, he has on occasion been able to predict the authors of the submitted manuscripts. This situation poses a dilemma for him as he is committed to maintaining fairness in the review process. He questions whether he should continue with the review when faced with such a situation, highlighting the challenges that can arise even within a system designed to ensure objectivity and impartiality. This experience underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards and the difficulties that reviewers may encounter in trying to do so.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Patrick Deniz Hurley

Dr. Patrick Deniz Hurley is a fourth-year Thoracic Surgery Registrar at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, a major UK thoracic centre. His clinical practice concentrates on minimally invasive techniques, including robotic and VATS procedures. He serves as Treasurer of the Global Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (GTSRA), aiming to enhance international training and collaboration. His research focuses on comparing surgical approaches in thoracic oncology, particularly lymph node dissection, and his work has been recognised with the Prof. Jean Deslauriers Award. He is an active member of ESTS and SCTS. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

VATS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Hurley: One limitation of the existing peer-review system is the variability in review quality. Any particular manuscript can receive varying reviews depending on reviewer’s background, institutional bias or personal preferences. I believe that this can be improved by developing a standardized evaluation criteria as well as promoting reviewer training programs. A standardized review process could also improve time limitations reviewers may face by streamlining the process.

VATS: What do you consider as an objective review?

Dr. Hurley: I consider an objective review as one that evaluates all manuscripts on an even ground. The basis is on merit, rigor and contribution to the field of interest. I focus exclusively on what is presented in the manuscript rather than making assumptions about the authors' intentions or capabilities. An objective review must be aware of potential biases such as research topic, institutional origin or personal preferences which may influence the judgement. When I identify areas for improvement, I strive to provide specific, actionable suggestions rather than vague criticisms.

VATS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Hurley: COI disclosure is critical for maintaining integrity. Transparency in this regard gives readers the confidence that the science presented is true. This is particularly important in a field such as thoracic surgery where there is substantial industry involvement. Undisclosed financial relationships may have a detrimental effect on the scientific utility of the presented data. However, conflicts do not automatically invalidate research. This is why it is essential to ensure transparency so that readers can trust the credibility of the publication and have confidence in applying them clinically.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Simon Gourdeau

Dr. Simon Gourdeau is an anesthesiologist and professor practicing at Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, an academic oncology medical center in Montreal, Canada. He completed his medical degree and anesthesiology residency at the University of Montreal, and after residency, he further refined his technical skills through a thoracic anesthesia fellowship at the Cumming School of Medicine in Calgary, Canada.​ Fascinated by the physiology of thoracic anesthesia, he has developed a deep interest and specialization in this field. As an active member of the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society, he frequently works in the thoracic operating room in his clinical role and contributes to the development of thoracic anesthesia protocols. He is also deeply involved in educating trainees, colleagues, and other healthcare professionals. His research interests include pain management in thoracic surgery, lung isolation techniques, and strategies for protective one-lung ventilation.​

Dr. Gourdeau believes peer review is key to ensuring published research is reliable, accurate, and of high quality. As a vital part of the scientific process, when experts in the field evaluate research, they can spot errors, biases, or flaws that might otherwise be missed. Peer review also acts as a safeguard against spreading misleading or inaccurate findings, protecting both scientific integrity and patient welfare. Additionally, through constructive feedback, it helps enhance papers, making them more accessible and engaging to readers beyond the research community.​

To minimize potential biases in peer review, Dr. Gourdeau emphasizes that while biases are unavoidable, the goal is to reduce them as much as possible. Staying objective—avoiding personal biases or preconceived ideas—is key. A solid knowledge of the literature helps keep reviews focused on what's new and relevant. Carefully reviewing methods ensures the study is well-designed, and offering constructive feedback improves research rather than criticizing authors. Using standardized review guidelines and tools also keeps the process consistent and fair.​

“I would like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation to all the reviewers whose invaluable contributions often go unrecognized. Your work is the driving force behind both published and unpublished medical literature, ensuring that only high-quality, reliable research reaches the public. The peer-review process is not only essential for advancing science but also a fantastic opportunity for personal growth—deepening your expertise and staying at the forefront of new developments in your field. Thank you for your ongoing contributions, which have a lasting impact far beyond the pages of any journal,” says Dr. Gourdeau.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rachid Eduardo Noleto da Nobrega Oliveira

Rachid Eduardo Noleto da Nobrega Oliveira is a thoracic surgical oncologist who is part of the Thoracic Oncology Surgery Service at Barretos Cancer Hospital in Barretos, Brazil. His current research centers on perioperative regimens that combine chemotherapy and immunotherapy for stage II and III lung cancer. Additionally, he has a strong interest in expanding minimally invasive techniques for mediastinal tumors, such as robotic and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). He leads multicenter meta - analyses focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes in thoracic surgery. Moreover, he is involved in teaching within residency programs, mentoring emerging researchers, and promoting international collaborations to advance thoracic oncology surgery. Follow him on Instagram.

Dr. Oliveira views peer review as the cornerstone of scientific credibility. This process ensures that methods, results, and conclusions are critically assessed by independent experts. It upholds methodological rigor, spots potential biases, and enhances clarity, thereby building trust in published findings among both the scientific community and the public.​

In terms of what constitutes an objective review, Dr. Oliveira believes that it is one based on predefined criteria including methodological quality, clinical relevance, and clarity of presentation, without any personal or institutional biases. To guarantee his own reviews are objective, he adheres to guidelines like CONSORT/PRISMA depending on the study type, uses standardized checklists, and cross-verifies conclusions against the presented data. He avoids letting judgments be influenced by the authors’ reputation or affiliations.​

“I choose to review for VATS because the journal brings together a community committed to advancing minimally invasive thoracic surgery. By reviewing for VATS, I help ensure that each publication meets the highest scientific and technical standards, facilitating the dissemination of safe and effective techniques. Moreover, the journal’s international visibility amplifies the impact of VATS research, benefiting patients and surgeons worldwide,” says Dr. Oliveira.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)