In 2026, 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.
Daisuke Oiwa, Hinode Makomanai Dental Hospital, Japan
Christopher M. Lee, Ohio State University College of Dentistry, USA
Daisuke Oiwa
Dr. Daisuke Oiwa is a dentist at Hinode Makomanai Dental Hospital in Sapporo, Japan, and is affiliated with the Division of Public Health, Department of Social Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine. His clinical and research interests include dental anesthesiology, perioperative management, exaggerated gag reflex, dental anxiety, dental epidemiology, and public health. His recent research focuses on ultrasound-guided inferior alveolar nerve block for pain management following impacted mandibular third molar extraction, ultrasound-guided glossopharyngeal nerve block for suppressing the gag reflex, intraoperative pressure injury prevention in dental patients with special needs, early childhood caries prevention in kindergarten settings, and the clinical epidemiology of dental anxiety and exaggerated gag reflex. Through both clinical practice and research, he is committed to improving the safety, comfort, and quality of dental care. Learn more about him here.
Peer review is important because it helps improve the quality of manuscripts and enables readers, clinicians, and researchers to access more reliable scientific information. For Dr. Oiwa, the value of peer review lies not only in refining individual studies but also in strengthening the evidence that supports scientific research and clinical practice.
A healthy peer-review system should be transparent, including appropriate information about reviewers, and should promote constructive communication that benefits both authors and reviewers. Such a process encourages meaningful dialogue, improves the quality of manuscripts, and contributes to a more trustworthy scientific publishing environment.
One limitation of the current peer-review system is the variability in the quality and focus of reviews. Dr. Oiwa suggests that greater use of checklists and reporting guidelines could help authors prepare appropriate manuscripts while supporting reviewers in conducting consistent and high-quality evaluations. Strengthening these aspects of the review process would further improve the reliability and overall quality of scientific publications.
(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)
Christopher M. Lee
Dr. Christopher M. Lee, DMD, is a general dentist in Ohio with clinical interests in hospital dentistry, implant dentistry, digital workflows, and dental education. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Clinical Dentistry and Associate Program Director of the General Practice Residency at The Ohio State University College of Dentistry and currently practices comprehensive dentistry with Augusto S. Fojas, DDS. His scholarly work focuses on improving clinical education, patient safety, and evidence-based care through educational research and clinical investigations. His recent projects include implant curriculum development in graduate dental education, the dental management of medically complex patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and interdisciplinary collaboration between medicine and dentistry. He also has a strong interest in digital dentistry, including intraoral scanning, CAD/CAM technologies, guided implant surgery, and digital dentures. Connect with him in Linkedin here.
For Dr. Lee, peer review helps ensure that scientific findings extend beyond individual clinical experience. While a particular treatment approach may work well for one clinician, it should also be scientifically validated and applicable to a broader range of clinicians and patients. Peer review provides an objective process for evaluating whether research is supported by sound scientific methods and whether its conclusions can be applied beyond a single individual's experience. In this way, it strengthens evidence-based healthcare and promotes consistent, high-quality patient care.
A healthy peer-review system is one that critically evaluates whether a study's methodology, analysis, and conclusions are scientifically sound while considering whether the findings can be generalized to broader clinical practice. Dr. Lee emphasizes that peer review helps identify potential bias, improves the quality of research, and ensures that published studies meet rigorous scientific standards. Ultimately, he notes that peer review is “not about validating an individual clinician's opinion or experience—it is about advancing evidence-based dentistry and providing reliable information that improves patient care for everyone.”
Finding time for peer review can be challenging while balancing clinical practice, family, and other professional responsibilities. Although reviewing offers little financial reward, Dr. Lee considers it an important professional responsibility that extends beyond academia. He is motivated by the knowledge that high-quality research leads to better patient care and stronger dental education, benefiting students, residents, and practicing clinicians alike. Even after transitioning from an academic institution to private practice, his commitment to education and evidence-based dentistry has remained unchanged. He explains, “Those two passions—improving patient care and supporting the education of future clinicians—continue to motivate me to dedicate time to peer review despite my busy schedule.”
(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)
