In 2026, 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.
Santosh Sanagapalli, St Vincent’s Hospital, Australia
Koji Takahashi, Eastern Chiba Medical Center, Japan
Santosh Sanagapalli
A/Prof. Santosh Sanagapalli, BSc (Med), MBBS, PhD FRACP, is a gastroenterologist, clinician researcher, and specialist in swallowing disorders. He undertook a clinical research fellowship in gastrointestinal physiology at University College London and completed his PhD at the University of Sydney. He established the Centre for Swallowing & Oesophageal Disorders at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia, where he runs an active clinical research program. His research is primarily focused on improving the diagnostic methodology used to investigate swallowing disorders and reflux, including high-resolution manometry, ambulatory reflux monitoring, endoscopy, and barium oesophagography.
TGH: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Sanagapalli: Peer review remains one of the central quality-control mechanisms in science. At its best, it improves manuscripts, detects flaws, challenges overstatement, and helps ensure that published work meets a reasonable standard of rigour. But we should also be honest about its limitations. Peer review is often slow, inconsistent, and conservative; it can sometimes favour orthodoxy over novelty. Reviewers are typically unpaid, overcommitted, and asked to perform a highly skilled task with very little formal recognition. So while peer review is essential, it is not a guarantee of truth. It is better understood as a process of critical scrutiny and refinement rather than a stamp of infallibility. I am in support of further work to consider and develop alternative or complementary approaches to standard peer review; these approaches may improve transparency and reduce some of the opacity and gatekeeping of traditional closed review.
TGH: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Sanagapalli: An objective review is one that evaluates the manuscript rather than the authors. It should focus on methodological rigour, originality, transparency, relevance, and whether the conclusions are actually supported by the data. The key question is not “Do I agree with this?” but “Is this study well designed, fairly interpreted, and clearly reported?” One simple but very important contributor to objectivity is blinding reviewers to authorship and institutional affiliation. I think journals that use blinded peer review should be commended for doing so, and I appreciate that TGH follows this approach. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why many GI journals still do not. It is such a simple step, yet it likely reduces prestige bias and institutional bias substantially. In my own reviews, I try to stay objective by using a structured mental checklist: Is the question important? Are the methods appropriate? Are the statistics sound? Are the conclusions justified? Have the limitations been acknowledged? Reviewers should aim to improve papers, not simply showcase their own opinions.
TGH: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Sanagapalli: Yes, absolutely. COI disclosure is essential because bias is not always overt; it can influence study design, interpretation, emphasis, and even which questions are asked. A disclosed conflict does not automatically invalidate a study, but an undisclosed one undermines trust. Transparency is therefore critical. Research should still be judged on its methods and reproducibility, but readers deserve to know what interests may have shaped the work.
(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)
Koji Takahashi
Dr. Koji Takahashi is the Chief Physician in the Department of Gastroenterology at Eastern Chiba Medical Center in Chiba, Japan. He earned his M.D. from Oita University Faculty of Medicine and his Ph.D. from Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Prior to his current position, he served as an Assistant Professor of Medical Oncology at Chiba University Hospital. As a board-certified specialist and supervising doctor in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy, Dr. Takahashi has extensive clinical and research expertise in advanced diagnostic and therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly ERCP, EUS, and peroral cholangioscopy. His clinical practice focuses on endoscopic interventions for pancreatobiliary disorders. In the research arena, he primarily focuses on clinical research related to the biliary tract and pancreas. His recent grant-supported projects include the genomic analysis of pancreatobiliary maljunction and elucidating the carcinogenic mechanisms of cholangiocarcinoma from primary sclerosing cholangitis. Learn more about him here.
TGH: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Takahashi: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific progress and integrity. It serves as an essential quality-control mechanism that ensures research is conducted rigorously, analyzed properly, and reported accurately. In fields like gastrointestinal endoscopy and pancreatobiliary disorders, where clinical guidelines and patient outcomes are directly influenced by published literature, the peer-review process is especially crucial. It acts not only as a filter to prevent the dissemination of flawed or biased data but also as a collaborative and educational process. By providing constructive feedback, reviewers help authors refine their methodologies, clarify their conclusions, and ultimately elevate the scientific and clinical value of their manuscripts.
TGH: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Takahashi: An objective review is an unbiased evaluation based purely on the scientific merit of the manuscript—its study design, methodological rigor, data accuracy, and logical interpretation—free from personal, institutional, or geographical biases. To ensure my review is objective, I approach each manuscript with an open mind. I start by evaluating the fundamentals: whether the hypothesis is clear and if the conclusions genuinely reflect the results obtained. I consciously set aside my own preferences regarding specific endoscopic techniques or treatment modalities. Furthermore, I consult current literature independently rather than relying solely on the authors' references to gain a balanced perspective. Providing specific, evidence-based, and actionable feedback in a professional and collegial tone is also key to maintaining objectivity.
TGH: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Takahashi: Transparent disclosure of COI is absolutely essential in scientific publishing. While researchers generally strive for objectivity, a COI—whether financial or non-financial—can inadvertently introduce bias into various stages of research, from study design and patient selection to data interpretation and conclusion formulation. This is particularly relevant in clinical studies involving novel medical devices, such as biliary stents or advanced endoscopic equipment, where industry ties and funding are common. A disclosed COI does not invalidate a study's findings; rather, it provides reviewers and readers with the necessary context to critically interpret the data. Ultimately, full transparency helps maintain the trust of the scientific community and the general public in medical research.
(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)
