In 2025, TGH 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.

Julia Maroto-García, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Spain

Sorabh Kapoor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

Carmine Suppa, MUSC Children's Health, USA

Harit Agroia, Loma Linda University, USA

Chen-Yang Su, McGill University, Canada

Dan Carter, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Julia Maroto-García

Dr. Julia Maroto-García is a PhD Specialist in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine in the Department of Biochemistry at the Clínica Universidad de Navarra in Madrid, Spain. In 2016, she obtained her degree in Pharmacy from the University Complutense of Madrid, Spain. Between 2017-2021, she completed her specialized training at the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga. Afterwards, she did her PhD studies at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Malaga on the use of free light chains in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, where she was honored CUM laude. Currently, she is focused on neurodegenerative and endocrinology diseases. She has been the President of the Commission of Residents and Young Scientists of the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQC), in which she actively collaborates by conducting conferences and scientific presentations. Learn more about her here.

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

Dr. Maroto-García: A healthy peer-review system is one that maintains rigor, transparency, and fairness while fostering constructive feedback to improve the quality of scientific work. It should ensure that articles are reviewed by experts in the field who are unbiased and objective. The review process should be timely, with clear communication between authors, editors, and reviewers. Furthermore, a healthy system encourages diversity in perspectives, allowing both positive and negative feedback to be delivered professionally and thoughtfully. It should also ensure confidentiality, integrity, and respect for the authors’ work while maintaining accountability in the review process.

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

Dr. Maroto-García: The primary motivation for me to engage in peer review is a deep commitment to advancing science and ensuring the integrity of published work. Peer review is a fundamental part of maintaining the credibility and quality of scientific literature, and I feel a sense of responsibility to contribute to this process. By reviewing, I can help identify flaws, suggest improvements, and ensure that the work being published is both scientifically sound and valuable to the community. Additionally, peer reviewing allows me to stay updated on the latest developments in my field, expand my own knowledge, and contribute to the broader scientific community without the expectation of financial gain. The intrinsic reward of supporting the development of high-quality research is what drives me.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Sorabh Kapoor

Dr. Sorabh Kapoor is a distinguished abdominal transplant and HPB surgeon specializing in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). After graduating from Government Medical College Jabalpur, he completed rigorous training in general and gastrointestinal surgery at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. His passion for liver transplantation led to the GB Ong Fellowship at Hong Kong’s Queen Mary Hospital, a global leader in LDLT, and hepatocyte transplant research at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He further honed his skills through an ASTS-accredited fellowship at Virginia Commonwealth University, mastering both living and deceased donor liver and kidney transplantation. He has been pivotal in establishing LDLT programs across India, including centers in New Delhi, Mumbai, southern India, and Ahmedabad. Since 2021, he has served as Surgical Director of the LDLT program at UNC Chapel Hill, focusing on donor safety with complex anatomy and expanding LDLT for oncological cases. His work bridges clinical excellence with research innovation, aiming to redefine transplant indications and enhance donor outcomes in challenging surgical scenarios. Learn more about him here.

TGH: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Kapoor: Peer review serves an important purpose in improving the quality of research by ensuring research is conducted in a sound scientific and ethical manner and the results are reported correctly. It also serves as a teaching method, especially for new researchers as a good-quality peer review should serve as a guiding document for enhancing not just the current manuscript but also subsequent submissions. The peer-review process is not a one-way street; the evaluation of different manuscripts from diverse regions keeps the peer reviewers in touch with current research and methodology, and improves the quality of the reviewers’ research as well.

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

Dr. Kapoor: It is important to evaluate all manuscripts objectively without bias based on language or personal philosophy regarding a disease or treatment modality. My goal when evaluating a manuscript is to first look at the basics - why the research was done, if the methods were scientifically correct and are the results or data obtained accurate. It is also important to ensure that the conclusions drawn are based on the study results and to ask the question - how does the manuscript advance the knowledge about a disease or condition or its management. The reviewer needs to keep an open mind when evaluating a manuscript and not come to premature conclusions. The reviewer can often serve as a coach for enhancing the manuscript by recommending meaningful suggestions and comments and can hence serve as a conduit for enabling relevant important research to get published for the benefit of all readers. Finally, the peer review should not merely be a criticism, but aim at improving the manuscript and encouraging the authors.

TGH: 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. Kapoor: I believe the peer-review process is a cornerstone of scientific research. While it may seem a burden at times in between busy clinical or research commitments, the foundation of scientific knowledge rests on the back of sound, independent, unbiased and unemotional assessment of all research. The end goal of the peer-review process should be to contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Carmine Suppa

Carmine Suppa, DO, is a physician in the Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at MUSC Children's Health. He joined the department after completing a general pediatrics residency and pediatric gastroenterology fellowship at Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York. He cares for children with general gastrointestinal issues including but not limited to: constipation, reflux, peptic disease, short gut, difficulty swallowing, eosinophilic esophagitis, celiac disease, functional GI disorders, liver disease, and nutritional deficiencies. He has a particular area of focus in the field of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is director of MUSC's pediatric IBD clinic. More specifically, he has training and experience in the use of point of care intestinal ultrasound (IUS) in evaluating disease activity in patients with IBD. He has current research in the use of IUS in pediatric IBD along with being the site primary investigator for multi-center industry trials for pediatric IBD.  

TGH: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Suppa: Peer review is an important aspect of research. It helps ensure the quality, validity, and credibility of what is being published, as many sources have continued to point out. The process can identify errors in not just results but methodology and even improve manuscripts due to the constructive feedback given. This is particularly important in the age of the internet and social media as information can quickly be disseminated irrespective of credibility. It is important to always consider the source of the material and who has reviewed it. Without a peer-review process, the clinical application of research would be difficult and potentially harmful to patients in terms of medical research.

TGH: How do you make sure your review is objective?

Dr. Suppa: When beginning a review, I pay close attention to which entity is sponsoring/funding the study (if applicable), the methodology, the hypothesis, whether the results fulfill the aims outlined in the methods, and whether the conclusions appropriately reflect the results. Also, it is important to consider how, if at all, the research attempts to advance the field and the audience of the intended journal. To remain objective, it is important to consider any conflicts of interest, be constructive in feedback with the intention of improving the manuscript, and most importantly, focus on the academic work itself.  

TGH: From a reviewer’s perspective, do you think it is important for authors to follow reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA and CARE) during preparation of their manuscripts?

Dr. Suppa: I think it is important to follow these guidelines where applicable as the guidelines that often offer a set of checklists help ensure a more standardized process in reporting results. This standardized approach not only makes comparing results across studies easier, but also identifies expectations for authors, which improves the quality of the initial submission. It also make it easier to review the manuscripts efficiently when trying to identify important aspects that may be missing or incorrect.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Harit Agroia

Dr. Harit Agroia is an adjunct professor and senior public health manager with 15+ years of experience in higher education and health program planning, administration and evaluation. Her research and scientific interests include: epidemiology of infectious diseases; food and nutrition sciences; using implementation science methods to understand effectiveness of public health implementation strategies; and application of theoretical models to evaluate behavior change interventions. She has conducted and published research on hepatitis C within carceral settings, specifically seeking to understand patient perceptions of hepatitis C screening programs, factors that increase transmission risk for hepatitis C, and impact of response efforts to control hepatitis C outbreaks in controlled facilities. She holds a Doctorate and a Master’s in Public Health from Loma Linda University’s School of Public Health and is a certified Master Health Education Specialist.

TGH: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Agroia: As a peer reviewer, I see my role as helping to uphold the quality and integrity of science by carefully evaluating research before it enters the published record. Peer review allows me to assess whether a study’s methods are sound, its data reliable, and its conclusions well supported, while also identifying errors, gaps, or unclear reasoning that authors may need to address. By offering constructive feedback, I not only help improve the clarity and rigor of the work but also contribute to ensuring that published research is trustworthy, relevant, and valuable to the scientific community. Ultimately, I view peer review as both a responsibility and a service—strengthening science through critical, fair, and thoughtful evaluation.

TGH: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?

Dr. Agroia: In my view, a constructive peer review is one that provides thoughtful, evidence-based feedback aimed at improving the quality and clarity of the work, even when offering criticism. It highlights both strengths and weaknesses, gives specific and actionable suggestions, and maintains a professional, respectful tone. By contrast, a destructive review is dismissive or overly harsh, focuses only on flaws without offering solutions, or allows bias and personal judgment to overshadow objective evaluation.

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

Dr. Agroia: Even with a busy schedule, I make it a priority to set aside time for peer review because I see it as an important responsibility to the scientific community. It also exposes me to new perspectives, approaches, and emerging ideas, which broadens my thinking and often sparks improvements in how I design, analyze, and write about my own research. Reviewing manuscripts not only helps maintain the integrity and quality of published research, but it also allows me to contribute to the advancement of my field in a meaningful way.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Chen-Yang Su

Dr. Chen-Yang Su earned his PhD in Quantitative Life Sciences at McGill University (2022–2025), where his research integrated large-scale genomics and plasma proteomics to identify causal protein drivers of complex diseases and prioritize drug targets. He has co-authored over 30 publications in top journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, Nature Genetics and The Lancet Haematology, and is supported by prestigious Canadian fellowships (CIHR CGS-D, FRQS). He holds an MSc in Computer Science from Mila – Quebec AI Institute and a BSc in Computer Science and Biology from McGill University. He serves on the International Genetic Epidemiology Young Investigator Committee and is an editorial board member for various journals. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Su reckons that a strong reviewer is fair, objective and constructive, with relevant subject-matter and methodological expertise. They must disclose conflicts of interest and prioritize research rigor—including study design, statistics, transparency and reproducibility—alongside clinical and translational relevance. Valuable reviews are clear, actionable and respectful, with feedback delivered in a timely manner.

According to Dr. Su, peer review is scientific citizenship: it is a practical way to enhance the scientific literature by boosting clarity and rigor, and to support authors with targeted suggestions that make studies more informative and reproducible. Reviewing also keeps him current on novel findings and methods, and hones his own writing and critical thinking skills. Additionally, he feels a responsibility to contribute and pay it forward, as other researchers invest their time to review his work.

“TGH publishes clinically meaningful, translational research in gastroenterology and hepatology which aligns with my interests. I also appreciate the journal’s professional editorial handling and the opportunity to contribute to a venue that values constructive peer review and real-world clinical impact. I am also glad to support TGH as part of my broader reviewing activity across journals,” says Dr. Su.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Dan Carter

Dan Carter, MD, FEBGH, is a gastroenterologist and clinician-scientist at Chaim Sheba Medical Center’s Department of Gastroenterology, and Clinical Associate Professor at Tel Aviv University’s Grey Faculty of Medicine, Israel. He leads the Neurogastroenterology and Pelvic Floor Unit and heads the Intestinal Ultrasound (IUS) Service. His clinical and research focus spans functional/motility disorders, pelvic floor dysfunction, and advanced GI physiology, with core expertise in IUS. His research interests include AI integration in IUS for bowel inflammation assessment, automated image analysis, and the development of tele-ultrasound/augmented reality training platforms, with recent projects on AI-driven IUS in IBD and GI characterization in hypermobility-related disorders. He leads multicenter collaborations translating advanced diagnostics into clinical practice. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

Dr. Carter reckons that a constructive review is thorough, objective, and focused on elevating a manuscript’s scientific rigor, clarity and clinical relevance. It delivers balanced, evidence-based feedback on study design, methodology and interpretation, acknowledges strengths, differentiates major limitations from minor fixable issues, and offers practical, realistic suggestions to strengthen conclusions and contextualize work within existing literature. A destructive review, by contrast, is unbalanced, vague or dismissive, with unsubstantiated criticism and no actionable guidance—it may overemphasize minor flaws, overlook study contributions, or reflect personal bias over objective scientific assessment.

In Dr. Carter’s opinion, peer review is a central pillar of science, safeguarding the quality, credibility and integrity of published research through independent expert evaluation of study design, methodology, analysis and interpretation. It identifies methodological weaknesses, biases and overinterpretation before findings enter the scientific record. Beyond quality control, it enhances research clarity, transparency and reproducibility by pushing authors to refine analyses and present data rigorously. It also supports editors’ informed decisions, contextualizes new findings within existing knowledge, and upholds the cumulative, self-correcting nature of scientific progress.

“Reviewing for TGH aligns with my role as a clinician and clinical scientist, enabling me to contribute my expertise in both clinical care and research methodology while engaging in constructive scientific dialogue that ultimately advances the field,” says Dr. Carter.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)