In 2026, TCR 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.

Agnieszka Nowacka, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland

Saori Furuta, MetroHealth/Case Western Reserve University, USA

Krzysztof Kowalski, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland

Agnieszka Nowacka

Dr. Agnieszka Nowacka is an assistant professor in the Department of Neurosurgery, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland. She earned her PhD in medical sciences in 2013 with a dissertation on angiogenesis in malignant brain tumors. Her academic career integrates clinical and scientific work, with a focus on neuro-oncology and innovative therapeutic approaches. She is a co-inventor on a European patent for a dolorimetric adapter for handgrip dynamometers, developed to enhance the objectivity of pain assessment. Her scientific achievements include numerous peer-reviewed articles and active participation in national and international research collaborations. Moreover, she regularly serves as a reviewer for scientific journals and presents her work at international conferences. Learn more about her here.

TCR: What role does peer review play in science?

Dr. Nowacka: Peer review is basically science’s quality control system. Before research gets published, other experts in the same field carefully evaluate it to make sure the methods are sound, the results make sense, and the conclusions are supported by evidence. It helps catch mistakes, biases, or weak arguments that the original researchers might have missed. Beyond just checking for errors, peer review also strengthens research. Reviewers often suggest improvements, ask important questions, or recommend additional analysis, which helps make the final study clearer and more reliable. This process builds trust because it shows that scientific findings aren’t accepted blindly—they’re tested and challenged by the scientific community. Of course, peer review isn’t perfect. It can sometimes be slow or influenced by human bias. But overall, it plays a crucial role in maintaining credibility, encouraging collaboration, and ensuring that scientific knowledge develops based on careful evaluation rather than unverified claims.

TCR: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Nowacka: Biases can never be completely eliminated in peer review because reviewers are human and bring their own experiences, perspectives, and preferences. However, there are several ways to minimize their impact. One important approach is using blind or double-blind review processes, where reviewers don’t know the authors’ identities and sometimes authors don’t know the reviewers either. This helps reduce bias related to reputation, institution, or background. Another key strategy is focusing strictly on objective criteria. During a review, I would concentrate on evaluating the research question, methodology, data quality, and how well the conclusions are supported by evidence, rather than personal opinions about the topic or writing style. Following clear review guidelines or checklists also helps maintain consistency and fairness. It’s also important to stay self-aware. Reviewers should actively question their own assumptions and be open to research that challenges their views. When possible, having multiple reviewers evaluate the same work adds balance, since different perspectives can help offset individual biases.

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

Dr. Nowacka: The responsibilities of being a scientist or doctor can be demanding, so time management is very important when taking on peer review. I try to treat peer review as part of my professional responsibility to support the scientific and medical community, not just as an extra task. Because of that, I only accept review requests when I’m confident I can complete them carefully and on time. To manage my workload, I usually set aside dedicated time blocks specifically for reviewing. Breaking the review into smaller steps, like first reading the paper for general understanding and then going back to evaluate methods and results more critically, helps make the process more efficient and manageable. I also prioritize organization. Keeping track of deadlines and setting realistic goals ensures that peer review doesn’t interfere with my primary responsibilities toward patients, research, or teaching. At the same time, I see peer review as beneficial for my own development. I believe that being selective, organized, and viewing peer review as a professional contribution helps balance it with other demanding responsibilities.

(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)

Saori Furuta

Dr. Furuta is a native of Japan. She obtained her B.S. in Biochemistry at University of California, Riverside; M.S. in Chemistry & Biochemistry at California State University, Los Angeles, with honor, and Ph.D. in Biological Sciences at University of California, Irvine. She then received her postdoctoral training by Mina Bissell in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She joined the faculty of the Department of Cancer Biology at University of Toledo as an Assistant Professor in November 2015 and was promoted to a tenured Associate Professor in 2021. Her lab relocated to MetroHealth/Case Western Reserve University in October 2022. Her research interest is to understand the interplay among metabolism, immunity and microbiome for progression and prevention of cancer. Especially, her current research is to investigate whether reprogramming arginine metabolism improves the immunogenicity of breast tissue microenvironment, as well as the whole body, to help suppress breast cancer growth. Visit Dr. Furuta’s homepage, ResearchGate, ORCID and LinkedIn for more information.

TCR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system? What can be done to improve it?

Dr. Furuta: As a reviewer, I have frequently faced the following difficulties. First, rash review. Sometimes, I was asked to finish review within a week or two after an invitation. That kind of rash request would impact the quality of review, since qualified reviewers may not be available for such a rash review; and there is not enough time to thoroughly evaluate the manuscript. Second is the lack of recognition to reviewers and transparency of reviewing process. Despite the tremendous amounts of time and efforts reviewers would have to invest on papers, their efforts are not properly recognized. Publishing reviewers’ comments along with papers may resolve this issue and improve the transparency of reviewing process.

TCR: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Furuta: Double blind review system could be applied so that authors’ names/institutions and reviewers’ names are anonymous during review. In addition, reviewers’ comments could be posted in a dashboard so that authors and other reviewers could see the comments. Lastly, when the manuscript is published, the reviewers’ comments should also be published. Such transparency of reviewing process would help minimize biases during review.

TCR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)? To what extent would a COI influence a research?

Dr. Furuta: Yes, it is essential for authors to disclose COI to attest to that the authors’ data interpretation and conclusions are not biased based on personal benefits. Otherwise, COI could potentially impact the integrity and credibility of the manuscript.

(by Lynette Wan, Brad Li)

Krzysztof Kowalski

Dr. Krzysztof Kowalski is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Vertebrate Zoology and Ecology, Faculty of Biological and Veterinary Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland. He earned his PhD in biology in 2018 with a dissertation on the toxicity and ecological functions of shrew and toad venoms. His research focuses on the biochemistry and toxicity of animal venoms and toxins, the costs of venom and poison production, and the dynamics of toxin depletion and replenishment. He also investigates the evolution of animal venoms and their roles in predation and antipredator defense. His current project, funded by the National Science Centre in Poland, explores energy trade‑offs between poison production and somatic maintenance in poisonous animals. Learn more about him here.

In Dr. Kowalski’s opinion, peer review serves as a fundamental quality-control mechanism in science, ensuring that published research is valid, accurate, and reliable. Independent experts evaluate manuscripts for their scientific significance, methodological rigor, and factual correctness, helping authors refine and strengthen their work prior to publication. In this way, peer review enhances the quality of scientific communication, prevents the dissemination of flawed or misleading research, and safeguards the integrity of the field. It also benefits reviewers themselves by expanding their knowledge, inspiring new ideas, and fostering potential collaborations.

According to Dr. Kowalski, an objective review is a critical, evidence‑based assessment centered on observable facts, data, results, and logically supported conclusions, rather than personal feelings or subjective opinions. While perfect objectivity is rare due to differing expert perspectives, several practices help minimize bias. First, he politely declines review invitations if he has current or recent collaborations with any of the authors. During the review, he focuses on methodology, data quality, and whether conclusions are fully supported by results. He grounds his critique in concrete examples and literature‑based evidence rather than personal preference, maintaining a respectful tone, and avoiding emotional or hyperbolic language.

“Scientific work entails intense demands, substantial responsibility, and considerable personal commitment. Before accepting a review invitation, I check my schedule to confirm I can complete it on time. I only accept requests when I am certain I can dedicate the necessary care and attention. To manage my workflow efficiently, I divide the review into structured sessions: I first read the abstract, introduction, results, and discussion to grasp the core arguments, then conduct a full, detailed evaluation of methods, figures, tables, and references. I take notes on major and minor concerns throughout, draft my report one week before the deadline, and re‑read the entire manuscript before submission to verify that my points are accurate and not already addressed. Finally, I review my comments for clarity, balance, and appropriate tone,” says Dr. Kowalski.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)