In 2025, mHealth 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.
Justin Kramer, Wake Forest University, USA
Catharina Margaretha van Leersum, Saint Louis University, USA
Grzegorz Tatoń, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Chung-Kwang Chou, Independent Consultant, USA
Friederike Zunke, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany
Justin Kramer
Dr. Justin Kramer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine (NC). He is a sociologist by training, earning his PhD from Temple University (PA) and having completed his postdoctoral training in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A&M University (TX). His research interests focus on the use of digital health interventions in clinical settings, specifically how they might be leveraged to improve care delivery, patient engagement, and clinical workflow efficiencies. Most recently, he collaborated on a research study which developed and pilot-tested a patient-facing app to better assist both patients and care teams in navigating Hospital at Home admission processes. Within the digital health space, Dr. Kramer is also interested in exploring the capacity of mHealth to improve patient health outcomes and potentially mitigate longstanding health disparities which impact many chronic conditions (e.g., hypertension). Learn more about him here.
Dr. Kramer emphasizes that peer review is a crucial element in science, influencing all stages of the research process. Before research begins, it is essential for study protocols and data collection tools to gain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. This safeguards the safety, protection, and fair treatment of all participants. Post-study, peer review via journal submissions acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring that published research accurately reports findings. Peer reviewers’ key task, in his opinion, is to carefully examine a study’s research design. They must verify that the methodologies are suitable for achieving research goals and that findings are clearly and unbiasedly presented. This not only serves as a quality-control measure but also offers feedback to authors on unclear or unsupported aspects. In essence, peer review upholds high standards for research dissemination and new knowledge creation.
“Peer review is both rewarding and necessary. It plays a vital role in enhancing the quality of published research and providing useful feedback to improve less polished manuscripts. Contributing to academic conferences or journal reviews is seen as a meaningful way to promote more efficient review processes. Despite the time it takes, more researchers participating in reviews can lead to timelier evaluations,” says Dr. Kramer.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Catharina Margaretha van Leersum
Dr. Catharina Margaretha van Leersum, from the Faculty of Humanities at the Open University of the Netherlands, is an expert in human-centered explainable AI with a particular focus on its application in elderly care. Her passion lies in researching at the intersection of medical technology and science and technology studies. She aims to enhance the understanding of AI in society, especially how stakeholders can responsibly integrate AI innovations and incorporate new forms of health data into their daily lives and caregiving. Dr. van Leersum endeavors to achieve this goal while adhering to the principles of open science and involving diverse target groups in research and its dissemination. Insights from stakeholders in society and their real-life use of technologies are crucial for her research. She values collaboration and mutual learning between researchers and non-researchers. To this end, she applies co-creation methods and sets an example for other researchers on how to collaborate with groups that are typically not engaged in research. This approach not only enriches her research but also promotes a more inclusive and practical understanding of AI in the context of elderly care and broader societal applications. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. van Leersum emphasizes that reviewers should remember their own experiences as authors. She recalls the frustration of receiving reviews from those who seemingly have not read the entire paper and request details already provided. Since authors invest significant time in crafting their work, reviewers are obliged to reciprocate by spending sufficient time and taking the paper seriously. A well-thought-out review, where the reviewer steps into the author's shoes, can reduce the author's sense of defeat. To achieve this, she thoroughly reads papers to confirm if information is truly missing and to understand the paper's flow. She also makes an effort to be specific, indicating the relevant sections or pages for her comments. Additionally, she offers examples to help authors make adjustments and revisions, striving to be clear, precise, and constructive in her reviews.
Acknowledging that bias is inevitable in peer review, Dr. Leersum doesn't believe it's always harmful. She agrees that reviewers should not emphasize our own work in a review, or actually a reviewer should only talk about their own work when completely relevant, but having a certain view on a topic could also assist the authors when this is not incorporated in their paper. She views the review process as a starting point for a debate with the authors. In this context, reviewers can pose questions from their perspective, not to push the authors in a biased direction but to foster a collaborative exchange. Both authors and reviewers may have biases, and through communication, they can learn from each other. Dr. Leersum believes it's acceptable for authors to reject a comment as long as they clearly explain and justify their stance.
Despite the heavy workload of a scientist and doctor, Dr. van Leersum values her profession highly, considering the research opportunities and daily learning experiences invaluable. She says, “The research I can conduct and the things I learn every day are more than worth it. There is always something new and exciting and related to this, doing peer reviews is an opportunity to learn and get engaged in the field. It is often very difficult to find time to thoroughly read papers and that is what you have to do as a reviewer. Thus, if I get an invitation with an appealing title and abstract, I get excited and am willing to allocate time. Sometimes this is time besides all other tasks, sometimes there is a bit more space and it is part of my research hours. Overall, most of the time doing peer reviews is a time well spent in which you can learn from other researchers because as one of the first you can read about new research, and you get the opportunity to assist and ask questions to improve the distribution of relevant outcomes.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Grzegorz Tatoń
Grzegorz Tatoń is a physics graduate, having earned his MSc and PhD in Physics from the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland. Specializing in medical and computer physics, he also engages in medical biology. Since 1998, he has been a researcher and academic teacher at the Jagiellonian University Medical College, currently serving as an assistant professor and head of the Department of Biophysics. He is a member of the committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences for cooperation with the International Union of Radio Science (URSI) and the Vice-Chair of the K Committee on Electromagnetics in Biology and Medicine. His main areas of interest include imaging diagnostics with a focus on digital image analysis and 3D imaging, studies of physiological and pathological mineralization processes in humans, and the effects of nonionizing electromagnetic waves in the radiofrequency range on humans.
Dr. Tatoń indicates that peer review plays a crucial role in the scientific community. It acts as a gatekeeper, eliminating papers with improper research methodology or ethical issues. In an era where information spreads rapidly, it prevents the dissemination of unjustified scientific works. For example, in the area of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and human health, peer review helps to avoid the inappropriate interpretation of research by non-scientific journalists. Reviewers also place papers within a broader scientific context, selecting those that expand and complement human knowledge. Additionally, a well-crafted review allows authors to view their work from a different perspective, enhancing the quality of the manuscript.
To Dr. Tatoń, one significant limitation of the peer-review process is the shortage of time among scientists due to their numerous responsibilities. This makes it challenging for editors to find reviewers, resulting in long waiting times for authors. He has experienced lengthy delays in having his work evaluated, with editors often citing the inability to obtain reviews. One potential solution could be to move away from a non-profit review system, which might make it easier to attract reviewers. Another issue is related to interdisciplinary work. As someone who publishes at the intersection of IT technology, physics, and medicine, he feels that his works are sometimes not properly understood by reviewers specializing in narrow fields. However, it remains unclear how to address this problem, especially considering the time constraints already faced in the review process.
“By reviewing works in the area that interests me, I broaden my knowledge of what is important and current in this area. This can also be beneficial in the sense that it is an inspiration for ideas for new scientific projects. It is also important that my university has recently taken into account the review of scientific papers in the periodic evaluation of the activity of its researchers,” says Dr. Tatoń.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Chung-Kwang Chou
Chung-Kwang Chou is a globally recognized authority in electromagnetic field (EMF) safety and bioelectromagnetics. Holding BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Electrical Engineering from National Taiwan University, Washington University, and the University of Washington, respectively, he has had a distinguished career spanning academia, research, and industry. He worked at the University of Washington, City of Hope National Medical Center, and Motorola Solutions (where he retired in 2013) and now serves as an Independent Consultant on EMF safety. His research focuses on biological effects of electromagnetic energy, RF dosimetry, cancer treatment technologies (e.g., hyperthermia, electrochemical therapy), MRI safety, and international EMF exposure standards for organizations like IEEE and IEC. A recipient of the Bioelectromagnetics Society’s d’Arsonval Medal (2006), IEEE Standards Association Lifetime Achievement Award (2020), and the first Honorary Member of the BioEM Society (2023), he is celebrated for shaping global standards and advancing scientific understanding in his field. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Before accepting a review request, Dr. Chou prioritizes expertise alignment, carefully reading the abstract to ensure the topic matches his domain knowledge. During the review process, his approach is rooted in scientific rigor:
- Line-by-line analysis: he dissects each sentence to assess logical coherence and scientific accuracy, ensuring claims are supported by evidence.
- Structured feedback: he begins with specific critiques (e.g., methodological flaws, data interpretation errors) and concludes with general comments on the manuscript’s overall validity and contribution.
- Constructive intent: his feedback focuses on improving the work, highlighting both strengths and areas for revision to help authors refine their research.
Dr. Chou acknowledges that diverse reviewer backgrounds naturally lead to varied perspectives, but this minimizes bias through knowledge-based objectivity, commitment to convergence, and impartiality. In his view, the peer-review process thrives when reviewers embrace open-mindedness and a shared commitment to advancing evidence-based knowledge, allowing time and collective inquiry to overcome individual biases.
“Science seeks truth, making peer review essential. I prioritize reviewing manuscripts and enjoy learning from new research. I always make time for this task unless I am very busy,” says Dr. Chou.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Friederike Zunke
Friederike Zunke, PhD, is a trailblazing neuroscientist leading the charge in translational neurosciences at the University Hospital Erlangen and Friedrich-Alexander-Universität (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg. As Professor of Translational Neurosciences and deputy head of Molecular Neurology, her research delves into the molecular mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly protein degradation pathways and lysosomal dysfunction in brain cells. Focused on Parkinson’s disease, her lab employs biochemical, cellular, and structural approaches to uncover disease mechanisms, such as the interaction between beta-glucocerebrosidase (GCase) and LIMP-2, and develops therapies targeting alpha-synuclein aggregation. With career spanning research at the University of Kiel and Northwestern University, she embodies a commitment to rigorous science and collaborative innovation. Learn more about her here.
mHealth: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Zunke: The existing peer-review system faces several notable limitations. One significant issue is reviewer burden and exploitation, as a small fraction of researchers bear responsibility for most reviews, often without any form of compensation. This leads to overburdened reviewers and can result in declines in both the quality and timeliness of reviews. Another challenge is the increasing difficulty in reviewer selection: as the volume of submissions grows and interdisciplinary research expands, it becomes harder to find qualified and willing reviewers. Bias is also a persistent problem in the peer-review process, as reviewers may be influenced by conscious or unconscious preferences related to the authors’ identity, institutional affiliation, or research approach, which can compromise the fairness and objectivity of their evaluations. Additionally, the system tends to exhibit conservatism, often resisting novel or unconventional ideas in favor of established paradigms, thereby hindering innovation within the scientific community.
To improve the peer-review system, it is valuable to explore alternative models, such as open peer review or post-publication review, which can increase transparency and accountability. Recognizing and compensating peer reviewers is also critical, as this can help alleviate the concentration of workload among a small group and incentivize high-quality participation. Additionally, clearly defining and communicating evaluation criteria and goals—providing reviewers with explicit guidance—can ensure greater consistency in assessments. Finally, fostering diversity among reviewers and editorial boards is essential for reducing systemic biases and promoting inclusivity in science.
mHealth: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Zunke: When reviewing papers, it is essential for reviewers to remain impartial and objective, ensuring that their assessments are unbiased and based solely on the scientific content and merit of the manuscript, regardless of the authors’ identity or institutional affiliation. Reviewers must also treat all information contained in the manuscript as strictly confidential, refraining from sharing or using any unpublished data or ideas for personal gain. Additionally, any potential conflicts of interest-whether financial, professional, or personal-should be promptly disclosed to maintain transparency and uphold the integrity of the review process. Finally, reviewers should provide constructive feedback that is clear, specific, and actionable, with the intention of helping authors improve their work.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
