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

Sakara Hutspardol, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH), Canada

Wujie Zhang, Milwaukee School of Engineering, USA

Hyungsuk Kim, Seoul National University Hospital, Korea

Molly R. Sherwood, Allo Hope Foundation, USA

Noah J. Sirkin, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, USA

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)

Sakara Hutspardol

Sakara Hutspardol is a hematopathologist and Medical Director of Transfusion Medicine at Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCH), Canada. She oversees transfusion services across 11 hospitals, covering a population of over 1.2 million people. The facilities range from small units to large hospitals with more than 1,000 inpatient beds, delivering comprehensive care including cancer treatment, cardiac and transplant surgery, and trauma services. Her research focuses on optimal blood utilization, blood inventory management, and rapid blood supply strategies for prehospital and trauma patients.

Dr. Hutspardol indicates that engaging with peers and undergoing rigorous peer review bring diverse viewpoints and practical clinical insights, which strengthen both manuscripts and future research directions. A peer-review panel consisting of field experts works independently and collaboratively to ensure research findings are properly analyzed and accurately interpreted prior to publication.

According to Dr. Hutspardol, personal preferences and inherent biases are unavoidable among reviewers. She suggests engaging more than two reviewers to gather multiple perspectives and balance subjective inclinations. She also believes reviewers should consider authors’ career stages and experience levels to ensure fair and equal publishing opportunities. In her view, the peer-review process should help improve academic presentation skills and support continuous growth in future research.

Dr. Hutspardol highlights the necessity of full Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure, including industry trial sponsorship and any consultant roles authors or co-authors hold with relevant vendors. Even in industry-sponsored studies, testing methods and reagents described in the manuscript may reveal underlying biases, which should be clearly stated within COI declarations. Undisclosed or underreported conflicts may subtly influence the selection of testing methodologies and shape research design in future studies.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Wujie Zhang

Dr. Wujie Zhang is a Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. His research scope covers biomaterials, tissue engineering, drug delivery systems, cancer therapy and blood substitutes, with a core emphasis on the development of biomimetic oxygen therapeutics. He holds multiple editorial roles as Co-Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor for various scientific journals, and has reviewed manuscripts for over 85 peer-reviewed publications across the discipline.

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

Dr. Zhang: A healthy peer-review ecosystem features transparency, impartiality and constructiveness. It delivers objective, evidence-based comments for authors and eliminates biases stemming from institutional backgrounds, seniority and other non-academic factors. All reviewers and editors need to remain accountable and professional during the whole procedure. Additionally, efficient turnaround times are indispensable. Timely reviews and editorial decisions accelerate the dissemination of scientific findings and show due respect to authors’ efforts and academic development.

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

Dr. Zhang: Reviewers are required to uphold fairness, objectivity and research ethics while enforcing rigorous scientific standards. They must verify the rationality of experimental methodologies, the reproducibility of research procedures and whether conclusions are sufficiently backed by raw data. For review articles, evaluations should focus on critical analysis rather than simple literature summary, highlighting existing bottlenecks and promising future directions. Reviewers ought to offer targeted, actionable advice to resolve identified flaws. Meanwhile, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest avoidance and full respect for authors’ intellectual property serve as basic guidelines for all reviewers.

AOB: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?

Dr. Zhang: Personally, I view reviewing as both a service to the scientific community and an opportunity for professional growth. Reviewing allows me to stay current with emerging research, learn new approaches and methodologies, and sharpen my critical thinking skills. In addition, my own manuscripts benefit from the time and expertise of volunteer reviewers, and I believe it is important to contribute in return. Beyond reciprocity, I am motivated by the desire to help maintain scientific integrity and rigor, ensuring that published research is accurate, reliable, and capable of advancing knowledge in meaningful ways.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hyungsuk Kim

Hyungsuk Kim, MD, PhD, is a clinical pathologist subspecializing in transfusion medicine at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea. He heads the hospital’s Transfusion Management Unit and engages extensively in domestic and global initiatives covering transfusion safety, hemovigilance, external quality assessment (EQA), and blood bank accreditation. His research portfolio spans transfusion adverse reactions, hemovigilance frameworks, immunohematology laboratory testing, EQA standardization, and quality optimization for transfusion practice. He was a core contributor to the design and operation of Korea’s national hemovigilance system and has built proficiency testing schemes via the Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service. His recent research targets elevated transfusion safety standards, laboratory quality control, and unified immunohematology operational protocols. Learn more about him here.

Dr. Kim believes that peer review ensures the quality and credibility of academic publications. A constructive review delivers tangible support to refine manuscripts, no matter the final editorial decision—acceptance, revision or rejection. Constructive reviewers fairly acknowledge both the merits and flaws of research, deliver specific, evidence-backed feedback, and propose actionable revisions to strengthen clarity and methodological rigor. By contrast, a destructive review dwells solely on negative criticism, relies on ambiguous, dismissive remarks, or rejects submissions without solid scientific reasoning. Peer review is not a fault-finding exercise; it is a collaborative academic process designed to drive collective scientific progress.

Reviewers must uphold objectivity and impartiality throughout evaluations. Dr. Kim constantly reminds himself that the role of a reviewer is not to benchmark the study against his own preferred research designs, but to assess the clinical and scientific value of the research question, the validity of methodologies, and whether data sufficiently validate stated conclusions. Every scholar carries unique academic experiences and subjective leanings, which must be set aside to avoid skewed judgment. Reviewers ought to refrain from demanding redundant supplementary experiments or imposing personal research philosophies when existing data adequately answers the core research question. Keeping this balanced mindset is critical to eliminating bias and ensuring equitable assessment for all submissions.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Kim thinks that compliance with discipline-specific reporting guidelines should be strongly advocated for all authors. While these frameworks cannot compensate for flawed study design, they boost the comprehensiveness, transparency and uniformity of scientific reporting. Guideline-aligned manuscripts simplify evaluation by minimizing missing critical methodological and analytical details. Full standardized disclosure enables efficient appraisal of study validity, recognition of hidden bias, and proper verification of conclusion reliability. Beyond easing peer review, these guidelines strengthen research reproducibility and support accurate interpretation for all readers. Transparent, standardized reporting elevates the overall trustworthiness and practical value of published research for the entire scientific community.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Molly R. Sherwood

Molly R. Sherwood serves as Director of Research at the Allo Hope Foundation, a global nonprofit organization committed to elevating clinical care and supporting families affected by red cell alloimmunization and hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN). She received her education at Wake Forest University, majoring in sociology and evolutionary genetics. Before joining the foundation, she worked as a life sciences research consultant, offering professional services regarding clinical affairs, regulatory strategies and scientific publications. Following her personal diagnosis of red cell alloimmunization, she joined Allo Hope Foundation to oversee strategic partnerships and lead research and publishing programs. Her current priorities include establishing unified international care standards for HDFN, optimizing diagnostic workflows, clarifying the actual morbidity and mortality of this rare disease, and launching the world’s first dedicated patient registry for HDFN. Learn more about her here.

Molly thinks that a healthy peer-review system integrates diverse stakeholders to deliver comprehensive, collaborative feedback for manuscript refinement. Rather than focusing merely on theoretical quality, peer review helps authors broaden their research perspectives by taking global cultural differences and varied medical systems into account. Reviewers should evaluate research based on its practical value: how it improves patient care, how it can be adapted across different healthcare settings, and what follow-up studies can further validate its findings. An ideal peer-review ecosystem gathers global collective wisdom to challenge conventional theories and facilitate the translation of scientific findings into actionable clinical solutions.

According to Molly, reviewers should recognize that research methodologies need to be tailored to specific patient populations and clinical scenarios. This principle is especially critical for rare disease research, as many valuable studies are rejected for failing to meet universal, idealized experimental benchmarks. Excessively rigid evaluation criteria lead to insufficient rare-disease data, leaving patients underserved and clinicians without effective guidance. Instead of judging manuscripts by ideal research standards, reviewers should assess their practical contributions based on current disciplinary gaps. It is essential to abandon inherent prejudices, embrace innovative study designs and flexible recruitment strategies, and value insights from all types of stakeholders.

“I continuously see gaps between lived disease realities and published awareness. Contributing to thoughtful, robust research publication is our duty in an effort to connect patient experience and global clinical knowledge. In my work at a nonprofit organization, we only make progress by adopting the mentality of doing what is needed to improve care, regardless of incentive, recognition, or resources,” says Molly.

(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)

Noah J. Sirkin

Noah J. Sirkin is a fourth-year medical student at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine with an interest in vascular and general surgery. He is involved in clinical research with the vascular surgery service at Northwell Health's North Shore University Hospital and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, working alongside the program's leadership on clinical outcomes research. His interests include vascular and wound care surgery, perioperative medicine, and the integration of osteopathic principles into surgical practice. His ongoing research encompasses systematic reviews for the updated American Venous Forum guidelines on venous leg ulcers, studies on lumbar puncture success, inpatient insulin management, osteopathic manipulative treatment in vascular surgery, and the relationship between housing instability and diabetic foot disease. Several of these projects involve anticoagulation and hemostasis, leading to his interest in reviewing for Annals of Blood. Learn more about him here.

For Sirkin, peer review is the stage at which “a manuscript stops being one group's account of their work and becomes something the wider field can rely on.” Because authors are naturally close to their own work, limitations may be unintentionally overlooked or conclusions inadvertently overstated. An independent reviewer brings a fresh perspective, assessing whether the study's methods truly support its claims. This responsibility is particularly important in clinical research, where published findings may directly influence patient care. While peer review cannot make a manuscript perfect, it helps identify overlooked errors, strengthens scientific arguments, and provides readers with greater confidence in the published evidence.

A healthy peer-review system is characterized by timely, specific, and constructive feedback that enables authors to improve their work. Rather than offering vague criticism, reviewers should provide clear comments linked to particular aspects of a manuscript and explain the reasoning behind their suggestions. Sirkin also emphasizes the importance of evaluating studies on the basis of scientific quality rather than personal agreement with the findings. In addition, he highlights the value of involving early-career reviewers, allowing the next generation of researchers to develop this important professional skill, while recognizing the essential role of editors in maintaining fairness, managing conflicts of interest, and ensuring a respectful review process.

Objectivity, in Sirkin's view, begins with evaluating a manuscript on its own merits rather than through the lens of personal preferences. He notes, “Two questions arise that are easy to blur: ‘Is this valid?’ and ‘Is this how I would have done it?’ Only the first belongs in the review.” To maintain objectivity, he reads each manuscript in full before reaching conclusions, supports every critique with specific evidence, and compares key claims against the published literature rather than relying solely on memory. He also considers that strengths deserve the same careful consideration as weaknesses and considers transparency about conflicts of interest or limitations in expertise essential to preserving the integrity of peer review.

(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)