In 2026, AOB 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.
Samantha Phou, Phoenix Children’s in Phoenix, USA
Michele Samaja, University of Milan, Italy
Susan Guy, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, UK
Samantha Phou
Dr. Samantha Phou currently serves as the Medical Director of the Blood Bank at Phoenix Children’s in Phoenix, AZ, USA and practices transfusion medicine and apheresis. She is an Assistant Professor at both the University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix and Creighton University School of Medicine. She is board certified in anatomic and clinical pathology and blood banking/transfusion medicine. Her clinical and scholarly interests include transfusion safety, pediatric transfusion practices, and therapeutic apheresis.
AOB: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Phou: Peer review is an essential and foundational component of the scientific process and in evaluating the quality and validity of scholarly work. Through expert assessment, peer review helps ensure that research methods are sound, conclusions are appropriately supported by data, and that findings can have significance and real world implications. It also gives constructive feedback to authors allowing them to strengthen and improve their work. In short, peer review is essential to maintaining scientific integrity and continued advancement in science.
AOB: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Phou: An objective review is one that focuses on the scientific merit of the work and does not allow other factors such as who the authors are/what institution they come from or personal biases affect the review. To ensure objectivity, I rely on established journal guidelines, assess the manuscript against current standards in the field, and base my comments primarily on data, methodology, and the appropriateness and validity of any conclusions drawn. I do my best to remain mindful of potential biases, and strive to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback that is intended to improve the quality and clarity of the work rather than to advocate for any particular outcome.
AOB: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Phou: Authors should always disclose potential COIs. A COI, whether consciously or not, can influence and affect research at all stages from study design to data interpretation to establishing conclusions. Transparency regarding any financial, professional, or personal relationships allows readers to appropriately evaluate the objectivity and credibility of the research. Failure to disclose conflicts can undermine the integrity of the research and erode confidence in the scientific literature. Disclosure does not imply misconduct, but rather, it provides context that helps maintain trust in the scientific process.
(by Ziv Zhang, Brad Li)
Michele Samaja
Michele Samaja is a retired Full Professor of Biochemistry at the School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan. A former Fogarty Fellow at the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda), he has authored 195 peer-reviewed publications with an h-index above 40. He received the Milano Medicina Prize (1984) for studies on blood respiratory function and the 3rd prize at the XIII International Congress of Clinical Chemistry (1987). He has served as a reviewer for leading biomedical journals and funding agencies, Editorial Board member of International Journal of Molecular Sciences and Bioscience, Associate Editor for Frontiers in Pharmacology, and Guest Editor for several journals. He held key academic roles at the University of Milan, including PhD Coordinator and President for teaching quality evaluation. His research focuses on hypoxia, cardioprotection, and hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Samaja reckons that in a rapidly changing world, a healthy peer-review system is critical as a stabilizing force, balancing freedom to explore innovative ideas with rigorous, impartial evaluation. It should elevate young researchers on merit, not overshadow them with established voices, and account for inequalities faced by researchers from less-privileged settings to avoid overlooking valuable contributions. It must encourage unconventional thinking while upholding methodological rigor and scientific integrity, preventing misleading research that fuels pseudo-science. Ultimately, it should be a constructive, inclusive pillar of science—more than just a gatekeeping mechanism.
According to Dr. Samaja, beyond scientific integrity, reviewers have a dual, often conflicting role: judge and mentor. As judges, they must objectively assess a manuscript’s worth with clear criteria and courage. As mentors—especially for early-career researchers—they should guide and refine work to meet rigorous standards. This tension can lead to injustices, such as rejecting papers that only need guidance. Reviewers must remain mindful of this duality, exercising each role thoughtfully to balance quality safeguards with supporting growth.
“Peer review is demanding and often unrecognized, yet indispensable to scientific progress, ensuring quality and consistency. While experienced scientists should take primary responsibility for their broader perspective, involving early-career researchers is beneficial—reviewing sharpens their analytical skills, exposes them to diverse methodologies, and teaches them what makes research robust. In short, peer review is both a service to the community and a powerful learning tool for the next generation,” says Dr. Samaja.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Susan Guy
Susan Guy is a highly experienced Specialist Biomedical Scientist with over 25 years in haemostasis, working at the Sheffield Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre within Royal Hallamshire Hospital in the UK. She holds an MSc in Pathological Sciences and specializes in the diagnosis and monitoring of bleeding and thrombotic disorders. Her work focuses on specialist haemostasis laboratory testing, including evaluating new analytical methods. She is particularly known for her research on direct thrombin inhibitors such as argatroban, where she demonstrated limitations of Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT) in accurate patient monitoring of argatroban. Susan has also published on factor assay methodologies, including investigations into non-parallelism and calibration approaches, as well as the laboratory monitoring of recombinant porcine Factor VIII in acquired haemophilia. Currently Susan is a member of the writing group on ‘the monitoring of bivalirudin and argatroban’ for the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH).
AOB: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Guy: When reviewing papers, you must remember this is someone’s research that they have invested hours in to get it into a manuscript format. It may well be their first experience of writing a manuscript and it may not be written in their native language, so the reviewer needs to be constructive, not critical. The reviewer should assess the scientific robustness of the manuscript and support the authors in improving clarity, coherence, and scholarly impact. Reviewers should be assessing the integrity of the methods and appropriateness of the results comparing them with other existing literature. Where appropriate, the manuscript should discuss guidelines within the field of research and whether their findings support these guidelines. In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), reviewers need to be mindful of the journals policies on the uses of AI as part of the manuscript construction. Another consideration in the modern AI era is whether this is novel work, or whether it is replication of another manuscript. Overall, reviewers should be mindful of the tone of their peer review guiding the author on how to improve alongside guiding the Editor on the appropriateness to publish the manuscript.
AOB: Data sharing is prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?
Dr. Guy: For some journals data sharing is required to check on the integrity of the results shown. The advantage of data sharing is proving that the data is reproducible, unbiased and the findings have been scrutinized correctly by the author. However, it can lead to more work for the author, for example having to de-identify patient data. Crucially I feel it is appropriate for the author to have the option to share on request the data as this is less time-consuming and prevents misuse, however I am aware that as requires the author to make sure the data is not lost several years down the line when a request comes in to view it.
AOB: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Guy: My first publication came back accepted from peer review with no comments, which was more than likely down to the reviewers not having specific enough knowledge on the area to comment on rather than the quality of the manuscript. I feel some input from the reviewer is more beneficial than none. The role of the reviewer is to mentor the author.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
