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, Open Universiteit, the Netherlands
Grzegorz Tatoń, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Chung-Kwang Chou, Independent Consultant, USA
Friederike Zunke, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany
Renata Lopes Pacheco, Food and Drug Administration, USA
Ilang M. Guiroy, Stanford University, USA
Gabriel Thierry, University Hospital of Liège, Belgium
Yunqian Cheng, University of California, USA
Chia Hsuan Tsai, California State University, USA
Irene Tung, California State University, USA
David Haynes, University of Iowa, USA
David Shilane, Columbia University, USA
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)
Renata Lopes Pacheco
Renata Lopes Pacheco is a physiotherapist specializing in oncology, certified by the Brazilian Association of Physiotherapy in Oncology (ABFO) and the Federal Council of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy (COFFITO). With over 20 years of experience, she has specializations in Pain, Oncological Palliative Care, and Ergonomics. With a Master's degree in Public Health and Cancer Control from the National Cancer Institute (INCA), she works as a partner-owner of Ergon R&A, providing ergonomics services for GE Aerospace and oncological physiotherapy at the Oncological Therapy Center of Petrópolis. She was a founding partner of ABFO in 2008 and is currently the administrative director (management 2021-2025). She is also a member of the Technical Chamber of Physiotherapy in Oncology of Regional Council of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy of the 2nd Region (CREFITO-2) and the Municipal Health Council of Petrópolis. Representative of CREFITO-2 in the municipality since 2020, she has outstanding performance in oncological physiotherapy, chronic pain, palliative care and ergonomics. Connect with her on Instagram or LinkedIn.
mHealth: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Pacheco: Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. It serves as a critical filter that helps ensure that published studies are methodologically sound, accurate, and contribute meaningfully to the field. Through peer review, experts in the same area assess the validity, originality, and significance of a study, identifying potential flaws, biases, or areas for improvement before publication. In an era of rapid information exchange and the growing volume of scientific publications, peer review remains a cornerstone of evidence-based practice. It upholds trust in research and ensures that healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public rely on studies that have been rigorously evaluated by experts.
mHealth: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Pacheco: While peer review is fundamental for ensuring the quality and reliability of scientific research, it is not without limitations. One of the main challenges is the time-consuming nature of the process, which can delay the dissemination of important findings. Additionally, reviewer availability can be an issue, as peer review is often voluntary, leading to an uneven distribution of workload among experts. Another concern is potential bias, whether conscious or unconscious, which may affect the evaluation of certain studies, especially when dealing with controversial or innovative topics. From my personal experience, my recent peer-review process was smooth and well-structured, demonstrating that when journals provide clear guidelines and efficient communication, the system works effectively.
mHealth: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers?
Dr. Pacheco: Peer review is an essential pillar of the scientific process, ensuring rigor, quality, and credibility in publications. I know that this work often occurs behind the scenes, without much recognition, but each contribution we make strengthens science and positively impacts clinical practice and the lives of patients. To my fellow reviewers, I encourage you to remain committed to this mission, as our role is fundamental in building solid and reliable knowledge.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ilang M. Guiroy
Dr. Ilang M. Guiroy, a board-certified psychiatrist specializing in child, adolescent, adult, and perinatal mental health, brings a unique clinical lens to scientific inquiry. As a NIMH T32 and Sorensen Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford, her research focuses on developing innovative digital interventions, such as therapist-led text message group therapy (TMGT), and exploring AI applications in mental health. With training spanning Wellesley College, Albany Medical College, and Stanford, her work is deeply rooted in the goal of translating research into tangible improvements in patient care.
To Dr. Guiroy, peer review is a mindful practice centered on the core purpose of scientific publication: to communicate actionable knowledge that enhances understanding of the world and improves lives. Guided by her clinical commitment to patients, she approaches reviews through four interconnected questions:
- Is it good science? Does the study meet its stated objective? She considers the problem the article aims to address and the study’s relevancy to that problem. Is this research valid? Do the methods measure what they intend to measure and is that information pertinent to the problem at hand? Is this study rigorous? If yes, let’s emphasize in what way. If not, let’s revise. Does it make sense? Does it align with what we already know? Researchers can get so tangled in the details, a peer reviewer can have a fresh point of view to notice what does and does not make sense. Good science is also ethicaland extends new knowledge. She takes a moment to evaluate her own strengths and limitations as an expert in evaluating this research.
- Does it communicate clearly? The purpose of publishing one’s findings is to share them with others. Science is not a solo sport. Researchers are each working on different parts of the same problem. Though science writing is difficult, clarity of communication is critical. She looks for ways to improve organization and ease of reading. Though grammar is surprisingly subjective, the writing must be grammatical. At the same time, each writer has their own style. She takes some deep breaths and forces herself to remember, just because she might do it differently does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.
- How can the reader apply this? Most of the scientists read these articles so they can then use this knowledge. One example is in patient care. She thinks about bias and limitations, especially generalizability to the target population. She thinks about how a reader might interpret or misinterpret, especially on a quick flyover read.
- Are one’s expectations and critiques realistic and constructive? Science is hard. It can be simple and satisfying to tear something down. But this is real life—science is imperfect. Clever use of resources and methods can work around limitations. The job as peer reviewer is to help improve the manuscript. She strives to be kind and respectful, recognizing that manuscripts often require time, sacrifice, and grit. Being too harsh can make authors defensive. Being uncritical means not fulfilling a crucial role in scientific discovery. So, it should be pragmatic, but also real. She tries to be specific in her feedback. She makes it clear if a comment is a gentle suggestion or a definitive recommendation. She provides examples if relevant. Few things are worse than getting feedback and having no idea what the feedback refers to.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Gabriel Thierry
Dr. Gabriel Thierry is an anaesthesiologist and clinical researcher at the University Hospital of Liège (CHU Liège), Belgium, serving as Attending Anaesthesiologist (Chef de clinique) in the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. He is currently pursuing a PhD in medical sciences focused on optimizing perioperative management in liver surgery. His core research interests include enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), perioperative nutrition, glucose homeostasis during liver resection, and transplant anaesthesia. He has published in reputable journals such as Surgical Endoscopy, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, and World Journal of Surgery, and acts as a reviewer for several international journals. A member of the Liver Intensive Care Group of Europe (LICAGE) and Eurotransplant working groups, his ongoing projects address hyperglycaemia during the Pringle manoeuvre, the oncological safety of intraoperative autotransfusion, and early morbidity prediction after liver transplantation. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Thierry reckons that peer review is essential to guarantee scientific integrity and progress. Beyond detecting flaws, it improves manuscripts through constructive feedback—ensuring data transparency, rigorous methods, and conclusions aligned with results. For authors, it is a dialogue that strengthens final publications; for the scientific community, it safeguards trust in medical literature—especially critical when research directly impacts patient care.
Dr. Thierry emphasizes that peer review is essential to guarantee scientific integrity and progress. Beyond detecting flaws, it improves manuscripts through constructive feedback—ensuring data transparency, rigorous methods, and conclusions aligned with results. For authors, it is a dialogue that strengthens final publications; for the scientific community, it safeguards trust in medical literature—especially critical when research directly impacts patient care.
According to Dr. Thierry, reviewers must prioritize objectivity, fairness, and respect. They should assess methodology, clarity, and clinical relevance without bias, focusing on helping authors improve rather than criticizing unnecessarily. Confidentiality is non-negotiable, and comments should be precise, actionable, and evidence-based. Additionally, reviewers must acknowledge their own limitations and avoid evaluating areas outside their expertise.
“Balancing clinical duties, research, and personal life is indeed challenging. I dedicate specific time slots to peer review, often early mornings or evenings, when I can focus without clinical interruptions. I view reviewing not as an additional burden but as part of my scientific responsibility and continuous learning. Reviewing allows me to stay updated, to critically evaluate new methodologies, and to reflect on my own research. In return, it enriches both my practice and my academic work,” says Dr. Thierry.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yunqian Cheng
Yunqian Cheng is a fourth-year Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research focuses on 3D computer vision, scene understanding, and indoor localization, with applications in assistive technologies for blind and visually impaired individuals. Recently, his work has centered on harnessing vision foundation models to localize users in complex indoor environments using floor plans and sparse camera inputs. He also explores egocentric devices—such as Meta Aria glasses—to enable hands-free, real-time localization. Learn more about him here.
mHealth: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Cheng: A core bottleneck of the current peer-review system is the scarcity of qualified reviewers. This shortage often prevents papers from being matched with experts possessing the most relevant expertise, resulting in inconsistent review quality and uneven workload distribution across reviewers. Expanding the reviewer pool would allow each reviewer to handle fewer submissions, enhancing both the depth of reviews and turnaround efficiency. Introducing a transparent reviewer contribution framework—where researchers’ reviewing activities are visible and recognized (analogous to citation metrics)—could incentivize broader participation. This would also underscore that peer review is a critical academic contribution, rather than an auxiliary task.
mHealth: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Cheng: Reviewers should first assess and disclose their level of expertise relative to the paper’s topic, ensuring alignment between their background and the research’s focus. Additionally, reviewers could receive a concise, AI-generated prompt highlighting common biases or field-specific misunderstandings that tend to arise when evaluating similar work. This pre-review reflection step encourages reviewers to confront their implicit assumptions, fostering a more open, balanced, and objective evaluation of the research.
mHealth: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Cheng: Yes, disclosing COI—whether financial, personal, or professional—is essential for maintaining research integrity. Even unintended conflicts can subtly shape research decisions, such as how results are interpreted, which data are emphasized, or which methodologies are prioritized. Transparent COI disclosure enables reviewers and readers to assess the work’s credibility with full context, preserving trust in the scientific process. A COI does not inherently invalidate research, but acknowledging it allows the academic community to interpret findings critically and safeguards the transparency of the publication process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Chia Hsuan Tsai
Dr. Chia Hsuan Tsai is a computer science educator and researcher who integrates AI with assistive technology to improve access for people with disabilities. She teaches in the Computer Science departments at California State University, Fullerton, and Irvine Valley College. After several years in Silicon Valley, her recent work has focused on SafeReturn—an NIH-funded indoor wayfinding/backtracking system that fuses inertial and magnetic sensing with learning-based localization. Her selected publications include articles in ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, and she has presented at conferences such as IPIN and IEEE PerCom Workshops. In 2024, she was selected as a Fellow in Bakersfield College’s Faculty Diversification Fellowship, in recognition of her work in inclusive teaching and representation in higher education. Previously a Staff Design Engineer at Marvell Technology, she worked on multiple ASIC developments, including flash-storage controllers and ECC decoder architectures. She holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from UC Santa Cruz and a master’s degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Cornell University. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
Dr. Tsai reckons that peer review is the research community’s quality check. It brings in specialists—methods, statistics, clinical practice, HCI, and orientation-and-mobility—to look at a paper from different angles. That mix of perspectives catches errors, challenges weak claims, suggests better analyses, and points to missed prior work. In applied areas like assistive technology and mHealth, these matter because it protects end users by insisting on rigorous methods, transparent reporting, and reproducible results. Review also speeds progress: constructive feedback clarifies the problem, widens study design, and pushes for real-world testing. Above all, it builds trust among readers, clinicians, and funders know that independent experts have tested the work.
In Dr. Tsai’s opinion, there are limitations in the peer-review system. Reviews are often focused on within one specialty, so important viewpoints from related fields (e.g., mHealth, HCI, statistics, clinicians, end user-related articles) are missed. That can overlook practicality and real-world risks. Timelines are also slow because there are not enough reviewers and revisions can drift. To improve the system, four key steps would be effective:
- Invite at least one adjacent-field reviewer for applied papers, ensuring cross-disciplinary scrutiny that aligns with how complex technologies are used in real life.
- Adopt a short, structured checklist covering methods, statistics, usability, ethics, and reproducibility to keep reviews focused and consistent.
- Set clear deadlines and limit revision rounds to prevent unnecessary delays.
- Provide reviewers with visible credit, such as ORCID integration, official letters, or certificates, to incentivize participation and recognize their contributions.
“Reviewing is one of the fastest ways to grow: every paper you read widens your perspective beyond your own niche, introduces new methods, and sharpens your judgment. Your comments do not just polish manuscripts; they also add the key points that move technology forward responsibly. If you can, review a bit more this year: be kind, be specific, and offer actionable suggestions. You will contribute your expertise, earn visible credit, and help the community and its users,” says Dr. Tsai.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Irene Tung
Dr. Irene Tung is a clinical psychologist and Assistant Professor of Psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, where she directs the Promoting Early Resilience in Children’s Mental Health (PERCH) Lab. She earned her PhD in Clinical Psychology from UCLA and completed her clinical internship and postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Her research integrates mobile health (mHealth) technology with traditional laboratory methods to examine how early stress exposure shapes emotional reactivity and mental health outcomes. With over 50 peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals including Psychological Bulletin, Pediatrics, and Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, her work is funded by prestigious organizations such as the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Her current projects leverage mHealth approaches to explore the prenatal period as a critical window for fostering resilience in children. Beyond research, she is deeply committed to mentoring students and advocating for equitable training pathways in psychological science—with a focus on supporting first-generation college students and marginalized groups in academia. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Tung emphasizes that a competent peer reviewer needs strong expertise in the manuscript’s subject area while remaining aware of knowledge gaps—staying current with the literature or quickly familiarizing themselves with new subtopics. Effective reviewing requires a solid grasp of the scientific method, a genuine intent to improve colleagues’ work, and a focus on elevating scientific quality rather than just finding faults. She stresses the importance of constructive, respectful feedback: balancing criticism with recognition of strengths and offering actionable suggestions. Ultimately, impactful review balances rigor with collaboration to advance high-quality, credible science.
According to Dr. Tung, peer review is a vital contribution to the integrity and inclusivity of psychological science. She views it as an opportunity to help refine research before it reaches the public, ensuring that scientific findings are communicated accurately and ethically—especially in fast-evolving, high-stakes areas like mHealth and child mental health. As an advocate for diverse perspectives in academia, she also sees reviewing as a way to foster more inclusive and rigorous scholarship. On a personal level, she finds the work intellectually stimulating: it allows her to engage with emerging research trends, stay abreast of innovations in mHealth and developmental psychology, and play an active role in shaping cutting-edge work in her field.
“My research leverages mHealth technology to investigate stress resilience and mental health, particularly during pregnancy and early childhood. I’m drawn to mHealth’s potential to transform how we address mental health challenges by offering scalable solutions to pressing public health problems. I’m particularly excited about reaching underserved populations and gathering real-time data in people’s natural environments to better understand how resilience unfolds in daily life. By reviewing for mHealth, I want to help ensure that the science guiding these innovations is rigorous, ethical, and impactful. I see mHealth as a major player in the future of health interventions, and I hope to use my expertise to help shape the research that will define this field,” says Dr. Tung.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
David Haynes
Dr. Haynes received his PhD in Geography from the University of Iowa. He completed a postdoc with the Program in Health Disparities at the University of Minnesota. After his postdoc, he became an Assistant Professor at the Institute for Health Informatics. He has two foci within his research agenda. The first focus applies spatial analysis methods to understand how the lack of access to care perpetuates health disparities. His expertise in GIScience and geospatial computation is used to understand spatial-temporal patterns of population health. He uses big data platforms to develop scalable workflows that analyze and communicate health data to broader communities. The second area of his research focuses on the development and implementation of health information technology to mitigate health disparities. He develops and implements health information technology to mitigate these disparities. He uses a community-based participatory approach in his design process to create technology that addresses community needs. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Haynes thinks that peer review is vital to improving all science, forcing researchers to consider alternative opinions and enhancing work rigor—critical in today’s anti-science climate. He believes that effective reviewers must be thoughtful—acknowledging the limitations of the research while evaluating whether the authors followed standard practices, the reasons for any deviations, and the impact of those deviations on overall quality.
To encourage behind-the-scenes reviewers, Dr. Haynes says the top reason to participate is empathy—everyone knows the impact of a bad review. He advocates that all researchers do a few reviews yearly, as it offers insights into peers’ work and advances collective science.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
David Shilane
David Shilane is a Lecturer of Applied Analytics at Columbia University, where he teaches courses in applied machine learning, research methods, and data science consulting. His research interests span health outcomes research and economics, applied machine learning, statistical software, data science consulting, and education. Additionally, as a consultant, he has frequently served as the first data scientist for companies, start-ups, and non-profit organizations.
David reckons that peer review and science are inseparable—one cannot exist without the other. He frames scientific understanding not as a set of unchangeable facts, but as an ongoing discussion aimed at expanding global knowledge, which must withstand scrutiny, questioning, feedback, persuasion, independent verification, and reproducibility. Peer review serves as a critical safeguard to ensure research quality before publication, with reviewers also providing feedback to enhance the work’s rigor. Beyond quality control, peer review has a symbolic purpose: it allows scientific research to be questioned and criticized, sending a signal to society that scientists welcome scrutiny of their arguments. It is a way to invite others into the ongoing scientific discussion, demonstrating openness in sharing knowledge and including diverse perspectives.
According to David, impactful peer review focuses on quality assurance and effective feedback, and a constructive review advances these goals: it highlights the research’s strengths and weaknesses, offers detailed revision suggestions, and explains how changes will improve the study. Ideally, review teams bring complementary skills to provide authors with diverse expertise. In contrast, destructive reviews often have a dismissive tone, demand impossible revisions or an entirely different study, feel unpleasable, uncover new issues in later review rounds, or even require citations to the reviewer’s own work—an unethical act of self-dealing rather than objective feedback. He stresses that reviews should center on quality assurance and feedback; constructive reviews deliver clear benefits, while destructive ones serve no meaningful purpose.
In David’s opinion, the anonymity and non-profitability of peer review are part of its appeal, rooted in his belief that helping others is key to personal success—an ethos that also drives his teaching and consulting. He views peer review as an act of “paying it forward,” as he has benefited greatly from the generosity of teachers, collaborators, and peer reviewers who offered their time and expertise. Additionally, reviewing diverse studies has opened new directions for his own research, leading to recent publications and valuable collaborations. He does not see peer review as merely a professional duty, but as a unique opportunity for personal and professional learning and development.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
