In 2025, JOMA 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.

Yitzhak Brzezinski Sinai, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Israel

Yitzhak Brzezinski Sinai

Yitzhak Brzezinski Sinai, MD, MBA, is a dual-trained anesthesiologist and healthcare innovator at Tel Aviv Medical Center and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. As the founder of the Tel Aviv Anesthesia Simulation Team (TAST), he leads the development of multidisciplinary simulation programs and "Serious Games" to revolutionize clinical training. In his role as Director of Preoperative Digitalization, he drives cutting-edge digital health solutions for personalized anesthesia assessment. He has published widely in anesthesiology, obstetrics, and medical informatics, blending clinical expertise with technological innovation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

To Dr. Sinai, an objective review is one devoid of personal anecdotes or biases, relying solely on evidence-based data and methodological rigor. It evaluates a manuscript’s validity by asking: Does the research align with established scientific principles, and are its claims supported by robust evidence? Objectivity means prioritizing reproducible results and logical consistency over subjective opinions.

Dr. Sinai considers guidelines like STROBE, CONSORT, and PRISMA indispensable for scientific clarity and reproducibility. These frameworks:

• Structural Rigor: They guide authors to present research logically, ensuring all critical elements (e.g., study design, data analysis, ethical considerations) are addressed systematically.
• Transparency: By standardizing reporting, guidelines enable reviewers and readers to assess methodology and results fairly, reducing ambiguity or omission.
• Efficiency in Review: Well-structured manuscripts that adhere to guidelines are easier to evaluate, saving time for both authors and reviewers.

“I believe that we all engage in a cycle of giving and receiving in life. Serving as a reviewer offers a unique opportunity to give selflessly, sharing knowledge without expecting anything in return, aside from the fulfilment that comes from contributing to the advancement of others,” says Dr. Sinai.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)