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

Dave Singh, Stanford University, USA

Sami I. Nassar, Medical University of South Carolina, USA

Rachel Uppgaard, University of Minnesota, USA

Hidetaka Kuroda, Kanagawa Dental University, Japan

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)

Dave Singh

Prof. Dave Singh, trained in the UK, holds three doctorates: Dental Medicine, Craniofacial Cleft Palate Development, and Orthodontics. An Adjunct Professor in Sleep Medicine at Stanford University, he has authored over 220 medical/dental publications, 9 books/chapters, and 22 patents. Awarded by the International Association for Orthodontics in 2005, 2013, and 2014, he founded a start-up listed on NASDAQ in 2020. In 2019, he received the US Invisible Disabilities Association award, and in 2020, a lifetime achievement award for inventing the DNA Appliance—FDA-approved in 2023 for adult OSA and 2024 for children, the first palatal expander for this indication. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Prof. Singh emphasizes that peer review is essential for evaluating the validity of submitted research, ensuring that published work meets scientific rigor and contributes meaningfully to the field. Nevertheless, he points out that current limitation of the peer-review system include reduced reviewer motivation due to time constraints. To address this, incentives such as academic recognition, publication credits, or institutional support should compensate reviewers for their efforts, balancing the workload and maintaining quality.

In Prof. Singh’s opinion, an objective review remains dispassionate, focusing on data and evidence rather than authors’ affiliations or backgrounds. By basing critiques solely on the presented research—such as methodology, results, and conclusions—reviewers ensure fairness and uphold scientific integrity.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Sami I. Nassar

Dr. Sami I. Nassar is a first-year resident in the Department of Surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). Prior to beginning residency, he completed a year-long clinical research fellowship with the Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery at MUSC, where his work focused primarily on head and neck cancer and vestibular disorders. He has authored multiple peer-reviewed publications, including studies on suicide risk factors in head and neck cancer patients and the emerging role of liquid biopsy in head and neck cancer care. Notable works include “Risk Factors for Suicide Among Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” and “The Role of ctDNA and Liquid Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Head and Neck Cancer: Towards Precision Medicine”. He remains dedicated to advancing evidence-based care in the field of otolaryngology. Learn more about him here.

JOMA: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Nassar: Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and quality of academic publishing. By incorporating critical and constructive feedback from fellow experts, the peer-review process helps ensure that research is scientifically sound, methodologically rigorous, and free from bias prior to publication. This is particularly vital in the medical field, where published findings can directly inform clinical practice, shape treatment protocols, and guide future research directions. Beyond quality control, peer review fosters scholarly dialogue, enabling authors to engage with perspectives they may not have previously considered. This collaborative refinement ultimately enhances the clarity, depth, and impact of the work, making the peer-review process a cornerstone of scientific advancement.

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

Dr. Nassar: Reviewers play a crucial role not only in critiquing a manuscript, but also in contributing to its improvement. While serving as a reviewer, it's important to assess whether the research is methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and makes meaningful contributions to the topic being studied. Reviewers should also evaluate whether the manuscript is logically organized, clearly written, and accessible to a multidisciplinary audience. Importantly, feedback should be constructive and specific, with the aim of helping the authors strengthen their work. Offering insights or highlighting overlooked literature can significantly elevate the manuscript's quality and relevance. Ultimately, reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding scientific integrity, ensuring that each manuscript meets the highest standards before publication.

JOMA: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?

Dr. Nassar: Yes, data sharing has become an essential component of modern scientific practice. It promotes transparency, reproducibility, and accountability, which are principles that are foundational to credible research. By making raw data accessible, researchers enable others to validate findings, conduct secondary analyses, and integrate data into broader investigations, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In clinical and translational research, data sharing can accelerate discovery, facilitate inter-institutional collaboration, and ultimately contribute to enhancing patient outcomes. When done responsibly, with appropriate safeguards for participant and patient privacy, sharing data contributes to improving research quality and drives innovation.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rachel Uppgaard

Rachel Uppgaard, DDS, FACS, is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Minnesota. She maintains a full-scope clinical practice, with specialized focus on TMJ surgery, orthognathic surgery, benign pathology, complex implant reconstruction, and care for patients with Fanconi anemia. Her research spans key areas: early diagnosis of premalignant and malignant pathology in Fanconi anemia patients, educational research on teaching local anesthesia administration and tooth extraction, dental clearance for patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), and odontogenic infections.

Dr. Uppgaard points out two core qualities that peer reviewers should bear in mind: critical thinking and curiosity. A reviewer, she notes, must approach manuscripts with a critical mindset to assess whether the research and its methodological approach are scientifically sound. Equally important is curiosity—this drives thorough engagement with the work, ensuring no gaps or flaws in the science are overlooked. Together, these traits enable reviewers to uphold the rigor of published research.

Despite the heavy burden of clinical and scientific work, Dr. Uppgaard prioritizes peer review by proactively setting aside several hours each month for the task. For her, the commitment stems from a dual responsibility: ensuring not only the quality of her own work but also that published research undergoes thorough vetting. She also frames review as a learning opportunity—reminding herself that each review expands her knowledge, making the time investment both meaningful and valuable to her professional growth.

“As an author and a reviewer, I’m very grateful for the folks that put in the time to review and make sure that what is going out into the world is good science.  Reviewers take the time to point out our own blind spots and make the work we are doing better. I’m always so grateful for those who do it in a polite manner,” says Dr. Uppgaard.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hidetaka Kuroda

Dr. Hidetaka Kuroda is a Lecturer in the Department of Dental Anesthesiology at Kanagawa Dental University in Japan, serving as both a clinical anesthesiologist and a medical educator. His clinical practice focuses on perioperative anesthetic management for patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery, as well as pain treatment for patients with trigeminal neuropathy. In addition to his clinical responsibilities, he is actively engaged in research exploring the neurobiological mechanisms of pain, stress biomarkers in dental settings, and the psychological aspects of dental phobia. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Kuroda indicates that peer review is an essential step in helping researchers express their findings more appropriately and effectively. It serves as a critical quality control mechanism that bridges the gap between initial research findings and their final presentation to the scientific community. Through constructive feedback, peer review helps authors refine their arguments, clarify their methodology, strengthen their interpretations, and ensure their work is communicated in the most accurate and accessible manner possible.

As a reviewer, Dr. Kuroda is conscious that his role is not to simply criticize or find fault with the research, but rather to help authors minimize publication bias and present their work in the most balanced and rigorous way possible. He focuses on identifying potential sources of bias—whether in study design, participant selection, data analysis, or interpretation—and suggesting ways to address or acknowledge these limitations transparently.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Kuroda believes that research data sharing is necessary in certain cases, particularly to demonstrate the integrity and authenticity of research findings. In an era where research reproducibility and transparency are increasingly emphasized, sharing raw data allows other researchers to verify that the reported results are not fabricated and that the statistical analyses were conducted appropriately.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)