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

Ryo Matsuoka, Jikei University School of Medicine, Japan

Jeong Heo, Pusan National University Hospital, Korea

Rama Tarakji, Nova Southeastern University, USA

Sara Guerra, University Hospital Zurich, Italy

Tomotaka Tanaka, JA Hiroshima General Hospital, Japan

Angela W. Tang, Columbia University College, USA

Ethan Shamsian, New Jersey Medical School, USA

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)

Ryo Matsuoka

Ryo Matsuoka is a pediatric gastroenterologist and endoscopist at The Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan. His clinical practice focuses on pediatric inflammatory bowel disease, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders, and advanced endoscopic assessment in children. He serves as a steering committee member of the Japanese Society for Pediatric IBD Research and is actively engaged in national academic initiatives covering pediatric gastrointestinal infection, immunology, and allergy. His research centers on intestinal mucosal immunology and epithelial–immune crosstalk, with a particular focus on metabolite-driven type 2 inflammation and the tuft cell–ILC2 pathway. He highly values every clinical encounter and strives to objectively and accurately share insights drawn from individual patient cases with the global medical community. Through clinical practice, translational research, and international academic collaboration, he aims to benefit not only his own patients but also children living with gastrointestinal diseases worldwide. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Matsuoka views a healthy peer-review system as one that safeguards scientific quality while helping valuable research become clearer and more rigorous. He believes that peer review should not act merely as a rigid gatekeeping process. In medical research, published work can ultimately shape clinical diagnosis and treatment strategies, making careful, thoughtful review a form of responsibility toward patients. A sound system should acknowledge diverse forms of scientific contribution. Not every impactful study takes the form of large prospective trials; meaningful advances can also emerge from careful clinical observations, rare case reports, retrospective analyses, and early translational investigations. Strong peer review evaluates each work based on its own research objectives, while ensuring conclusions are properly grounded in available data. Ultimately, he views the ideal peer-review framework as a collaborative effort among editors, authors, and reviewers united by the shared goal of advancing reliable, trustworthy science.

Dr. Matsuoka reckons that objective review requires acknowledging authors’ natural tendency to interpret data and existing literature in ways that align with their own hypotheses—a common human inclination rather than intentional misconduct. Accordingly, reviewers should evaluate manuscripts with impartiality, critical judgment, and careful deliberation. In his own review practice, he assesses whether conclusions are fully supported by empirical data, whether alternative interpretations are adequately considered, and whether cited literature is accurately interpreted. He also consciously distinguishes between essential scientific requirements and personal academic preferences. Particularly in clinical research, he maintains that balanced, unbiased interpretation is indispensable, as published findings may directly influence patient care.

According to Dr. Matsuoka, responsible data sharing is especially vital in pediatric research and rare disease studies, where single institutions often lack sufficient patient cohorts. With strict safeguards for patient privacy, cross-border sharing of research data and clinical experience can greatly accelerate medical progress. In this regard, he notes that international academic journals play a key role in connecting global knowledge beyond geographical boundaries. Meanwhile, he points out that excessive or disorganized raw information can weaken manuscript clarity and dilute core messages. Supplementary materials therefore serve a valuable purpose, enabling transparent data disclosure, additional analytical details, and comprehensive methodological documentation without compromising the main text’s readability. Reviewers should encourage appropriate, ethical data sharing while guiding authors to maintain clear, balanced, and focused scientific presentation.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jeong Heo

Jeong Heo, MD, PhD, is a Professor of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine at Pusan National University Hospital in South Korea. He earned his MD, MS, and PhD from Pusan National University and has held the position of full professor since 2013. His research focuses on hepatocellular carcinoma, chronic hepatitis B and end-stage liver diseases, with specialized interests in systemic therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors and functional cure-oriented treatment strategies. He has acted as a principal investigator and steering committee member for numerous landmark international clinical trials, including the EMERALD, B-Clear and B-Well programs, alongside multiple phase II/III HCV-related studies. An extensively cited scholar, his publications appear in prestigious journals such as Nature Medicine, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, with his citation ranking placing him among the top 3–5% of global hepatology researchers. Learn more about him here.

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

Dr. Heo: A healthy peer-review system operates with rigorous standards, impartial judgment and a constructive orientation. Rather than merely acting as rigid gatekeepers, reviewers should function as collaborative partners to help authors refine manuscript quality and enhance presentation clarity. Timeliness is also indispensable; prolonged review delays hinder disciplinary advancement, especially for fast-growing specialties like oncology and hepatology. Additionally, the ideal system features high transparency and clear accountability, requiring reviewers to take ownership of their assessments. It integrates stringent methodological requirements with an inclusive academic atmosphere, offering specific, executable and respectful feedback while recognizing authors’ hard work. Sustained academic communication even after publication further optimizes the entire peer-review ecosystem.

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

Dr. Heo: Reviewers need to evaluate all manuscripts with intellectual integrity and modesty, prioritizing scientific authenticity over mainstream theories or personal academic preferences. For clinical research, reviewers must thoroughly assess whether study design, statistical methods and outcome indicators can effectively validate research hypotheses. It is critical to differentiate acceptable research limitations from fatal flaws that invalidate core conclusions. Reviewers should avoid over-critiquing manuscripts and requesting redundant experiments when available data is adequate. They also need to guard against confirmation bias and deliver critical, collegial feedback in a respectful tone instead of making disparaging remarks.

TGH: Why do you choose to review for TGH?

Dr. Heo: TGH plays a vital role in bridging basic scientific research with clinical applications in the fields of gastrointestinal and liver diseases. I serve as a reviewer at TGH because I believe that experienced and competent reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality of such translational research. Having experienced both basic and clinical aspects of liver disease research—ranging from oncolytic virus platforms to Phase 3 systemic therapy clinical trials—I aim to provide a perspective that evaluates not only methodological rigor but also clinical relevance and practical applicability. I consider it my professional responsibility to support a journal that contributes to the broad liver disease research community, particularly in Asia, where the burden of HBV-related liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Rama Tarakji

Dr. Rama Tarakji is an Internal Medicine resident in Miami, Florida, and holds a Master of Public Health from Nova Southeastern University. Her academic interests include gastroenterology, hepatology, quality improvement, and clinical outcomes research. Her work has been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at leading gastroenterology conferences, including the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Digestive Disease Week (DDW), and the Canadian Gastroenterology Association–International Gastrointestinal Consensus (CGA-IGC), where she has received multiple awards. Dr. Tarakji is pursuing a career in academic gastroenterology, with the goal of integrating patient care, research, and medical education to improve outcomes for patients with digestive diseases.

For Dr. Tarakji, peer review is one of the cornerstones of scientific progress. By providing independent evaluation, it helps ensure that research is accurate, methodologically sound, and clinically meaningful before entering the scientific literature. Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential weaknesses, improving clarity, and confirming that conclusions are supported by the available evidence. Although no review system is perfect, she considers the process strengthens the credibility of published research and promotes the dissemination of evidence that clinicians and patients can trust.

A healthy peer-review system should be fair, constructive, timely, and objective. Rather than simply identifying flaws, reviewers should focus on improving the quality of a manuscript through thoughtful and balanced feedback. Scientific rigor, originality, and clinical relevance should guide the evaluation process while personal bias is minimized. Dr. Tarakji also emphasizes the importance of effective communication among authors, reviewers, and editors, together with reasonable review timelines and appropriate recognition of reviewers' contributions. Ultimately, the shared goal of peer review is to advance science through collaboration and constructive critique.

Balancing clinical training, research, and personal commitments requires careful time management. Dr. Tarakji accepts review invitations selectively, focusing on manuscripts that align with her areas of interest, allowing her to both contribute to and learn from the review process. She usually sets aside dedicated time outside her clinical responsibilities, often during evenings or weekends, to complete reviews thoughtfully and on schedule. By remaining organized and selective, she is able to provide meaningful feedback while maintaining the quality of both her clinical work and her peer-review responsibilities.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Sara Guerra

Sara Guerra is a translational scientist based in Zurich and currently works as a Research Associate at University Hospital Zurich. Born in Switzerland and raised in Portugal, she moved to Italy in 2017 to pursue a PhD in Translational Medicine at the Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, including a research stay at Institut Cochin (INSERM) in Paris, before relocating to Zurich for her postdoctoral research and continuing there in her current position. Throughout her career, a consistent focus on metabolism and mitochondrial biology has guided her research across multiple disease settings. Her work has encompassed metabolic and liver diseases, including NAFLD, NASH, and liver regeneration, and more recently pancreatic cancer, with an emphasis on mitochondrial function and tumor-immune interactions. Alongside laboratory research, she is also involved in clinical research and regulatory science.

For Guerra, peer review extends well beyond evaluating the accuracy of a study or the robustness of its experimental design. It also examines how findings are interpreted and whether new conclusions are appropriately placed within the existing body of scientific knowledge. She explains, "Knowledge also becomes meaningful only when it is shared and trusted by a community." In an era when scientific information is more accessible than ever but its reliability is not always guaranteed, she considers peer review a responsibility not only to assess scientific quality but also to scrutinize the evidence and sources on which authors base their claims.

A healthy peer-review system is built on unbiased, critical, and constructive evaluation. Guerra does not regard rejection as the default outcome of the review process, recognizing that scientific research is conducted within an international community where language barriers and different research approaches are common, particularly for early-career authors. Constructive criticism and clear questions, rather than simple judgment, should therefore remain the central purpose of peer review. Such an approach gives authors the opportunity to refine their work, explain their reasoning where appropriate, and continue developing as researchers. A good review strengthens both the manuscript and the author.

Although balancing multiple responsibilities is part of a research career, Guerra does not see peer review as an additional burden. Instead, she values it as one of the most rewarding ways to stay engaged with emerging discoveries, gain early insight into new research, contribute her own expertise, and encounter ideas that challenge her thinking. She puts it, reviewing is “not an additional burden competing with my other work. It is an essential part of my development as a scientist, and of my contribution to scientific knowledge,” and she therefore treats it as an integral part of her work rather than something separate from it.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Tomotaka Tanaka

Dr. Tomotaka Tanaka, MD, PhD, is Director of the Endoscopy Center, Director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Center, and Chief of Gastroenterology at JA Hiroshima General Hospital, Japan. He earned his PhD in Medicine from Hiroshima University. His clinical and research interests focus on inflammatory bowel disease, therapeutic endoscopy, colorectal neoplasia, and granulocyte and monocyte adsorptive apheresis (GMA). He is actively engaged in clinical research aimed at optimizing treatment strategies for ulcerative colitis through the use of practical biomarkers and real-world evidence. In addition to his research activities, he contributes to the scientific community by serving as a peer reviewer for international gastroenterology journals. His long-term goal is to bridge clinical practice and research to improve outcomes for patients with digestive diseases.

Dr. Tanaka regards peer review as an essential quality-control mechanism in scientific research. He considers that it helps ensure studies are scientifically rigorous, ethically conducted, and clearly presented before publication. Beyond identifying limitations, peer review provides authors with constructive feedback that can strengthen both the quality and impact of their work. In his view, the process plays a vital role in maintaining trust in scientific publications and supporting the continuous advancement of medical knowledge.

A healthy peer-review system, according to Dr. Tanaka, should be fair, transparent, constructive, and respectful. He emphasizes that reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively on the basis of their scientific merit rather than personal opinions or preferences. At the same time, authors should receive thoughtful comments that facilitate meaningful improvements to their work. He emphasizes that mutual respect among authors, reviewers, and editors is fundamental to preserving both the integrity and efficiency of the scientific publication process.

Balancing the responsibilities of clinician, administrator, and researcher requires careful time management, yet Dr. Tanaka considers peer review an integral part of his professional responsibilities. He typically dedicates time to reviewing manuscripts during the early morning or in the evening after completing his clinical duties. By accepting review invitations in areas closely aligned with his expertise, he is able to provide constructive and efficient evaluations. He also values peer review as an opportunity to remain informed about the latest advances in gastroenterology and inflammatory bowel disease while contributing to the continued development of high-quality scientific research.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)

Angela W. Tang

Dr. Angela W. Tang obtained her medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, followed by an internal medicine residency at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and a chief residency at St. Mary Medical Center in Long Beach, CA. She trained residents at the Santa Monica-UCLA Family Practice and St. Mary Internal Medicine Residencies for over a decade before taking a hospitalist position with Healthcare Partners (HCP) in Southern California. She is currently an Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Rheumatology, at Stanford University, where she works with the Immune Behavioral Health Clinic team to improve care for children with Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS). She is also active in community education and advocacy for PANS.

TGH: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Tang: Peer review is a critical step towards promoting integrity, accuracy, original contributions, and clinical relevance in medical publications.

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

Dr. Tang: Constructive reviews offer suggestions to improve a paper, possibly pointing to additional sources that fill logical gaps or balance an argument. They may suggest ways to improve the flow and readability of the paper. Even if a paper is not accepted initially based on the review, authors can receive information that would strengthen their work for resubmission. Reviewers need to encourage authors to continue their work, recognizing how difficult it is to write a truly good article. A destructive review does not provide this encouragement or the necessary guidance.

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

Dr. Tang: To be honest, it is very difficult to find time for this important work in an era where we are all bombarded with tasks and communications. I simply stay up late(r) and tell myself that it is making a difference to medicine and, eventually, to patients. When I need extra motivation, I ask myself how science would be in the absence of peer review (for instance, if an algorithm or non-peer were doing the reviewing), and this gets me going!

(by Alan Liu, Masaki Lo)

Ethan Shamsian

Dr. Ethan Shamsian is a PGY-3 Internal Medicine resident at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a prospective gastroenterology fellow with academic interests in hepatology, gastrointestinal health disparities, health literacy, and artificial intelligence in gastroenterology. He has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications spanning hepatology, gastroenterology, and medical education, with work published in prominent journals. His research has been presented at national meetings, including DDW, ACG, and AASLD, where he has contributed studies on liver disease screening, health disparities, patient education, and emerging AI applications in gastroenterology. In addition to research, he is passionate about medical education and mentorship. He serves as a peer reviewer for several medical journals and co-founded MedDuo, an educational platform providing individualized board preparation and residency application advising for medical students. Connect with him on X here.

TGH: Why do we need peer review?

Dr. Shamsian: Peer review is essential for maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific research. It provides an independent assessment of a study's methodology, analysis, and conclusions before publication. Reviewers often identify limitations, suggest additional analyses, and help authors communicate their findings more clearly. This process ultimately strengthens the final manuscript and improves the reliability of the published literature. By promoting accuracy and transparency, peer review helps ensure that research can be trusted by clinicians, researchers, and patients alike.

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

Dr. Shamsian: A healthy peer-review system is one that is fair, objective, timely, and constructive. The purpose of peer review should be to improve the quality of research rather than simply determine whether it should be accepted or rejected. Reviewers should provide respectful, evidence-based feedback while recognizing both the strengths and limitations of a study. Authors, in turn, should view the process as an opportunity to strengthen their work. When both reviewers and authors share the goal of advancing scientific knowledge, the entire process becomes more effective.

TGH: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?

Dr. Shamsian: One aspect of peer review that I have found particularly rewarding is seeing how constructive feedback can transform a manuscript. I have reviewed studies that were scientifically sound but benefited greatly from clearer explanations, additional analyses, or a more balanced discussion. Reading the revised versions and seeing those improvements has reinforced my appreciation for the collaborative nature of peer review. As both an author and a reviewer, I have learned that thoughtful feedback often strengthens not only the manuscript itself but also the authors' future work. That shared commitment to improving science is what makes the process so valuable.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)