In 2025, APM 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.
Tomoo Sato, Kobe City College of Nursing, Japan
Wen Yang Goh, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
Tomoo Sato
Dr. Tomoo Sato, currently an assistant professor at Kobe City College of Nursing, brings a wealth of experience to his role. After 15 years of clinical practice as a nurse in intensive care units, including at Kyoto University Hospital, he has spent the past three years in academia. His research delves into the intersection of critical care and palliative approaches, with a particular focus on dyspnea management in lung transplant recipients. He has conducted pioneering studies on fan therapy for dyspnea in post-lung transplant ICU patients and evaluated dyspnea assessment practices. His collaborative research extends to areas such as the nursing assessment of discomfort in mechanically ventilated patients, the implementation of ICU diaries, and non-pharmacological interventions for critical care symptoms. He has made significant contributions to the evidence base for palliative symptom management through publications in notable journals like Critical Care Medicine, Transplantation Proceedings, and Cureus. Currently, he is working on developing nurse-driven protocols for early symptom identification and intervention in critically ill patients. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Sato emphasizes the crucial role of peer review in elevating the academic and scientific caliber of research papers. He views it as an essential quality control mechanism that validates research methodology, verifies conclusions, and ensures that published work adheres to high standards of scientific rigor.
As a reviewer, Dr. Sato focuses on two key aspects. First, he meticulously examines whether the research methodology effectively achieves the intended outcomes. Leveraging his clinical experience, he considers how the study's interventions and data collection methods would operate in real-world healthcare settings. While he acknowledges that bias is hard to eliminate entirely, he assesses whether authors have appropriately addressed study limitations and avoided presenting misleading interpretations. Second, he makes an effort to understand the unique characteristics and focus of the journal to which the paper is submitted. This enables him to provide editors with useful insights for publication decisions and offer suggestions that are in line with the journal's requirements, assisting authors in improving their manuscripts.
Despite peer review being anonymous and unpaid, Dr. Sato is motivated by a sense of gratitude and a desire to contribute. Throughout his career, his own papers have benefited from the expertise of anonymous reviewers who offered their time and knowledge without compensation. He sees peer review as an opportunity to give back and make a small but meaningful contribution to the advancement of medical and nursing knowledge.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Wen Yang Goh
Dr. Goh Wen Yang serves as a Consultant in Geriatrics Medicine and Palliative Medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital and The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education (PalC) in Singapore. His clinical acumen and research interests seamlessly integrate geriatric and palliative care, centering on elderly patients with intricate palliative needs, such as those with advanced dementia and end-stage organ diseases. As the lead in geriatric oncology, he specializes in optimizing care for older adults undergoing curative cancer treatment and is currently overseeing a randomized controlled trial in this domain. Additionally, he is spearheading the establishment of an acute palliative care unit, with research focused on acute interventions while upholding holistic patient care. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
According to Dr. Goh, a robust peer-review system should be anchored in transparency, fairness, and constructive feedback. It encompasses several vital components. Reviewers must possess in-depth expertise in the relevant subject matter and remain objective by setting aside personal biases and potential conflicts of interest. The review process should strike a balance between timeliness and thoroughness, offering authors comprehensive, constructive critiques that not only pinpoint limitations but also propose specific improvements. A thriving system should facilitate dialogue between reviewers and authors, fostering a collaborative atmosphere that elevates the overall quality of research.
When evaluating manuscripts, Dr. Goh, along with other reviewers, approaches the task with an open mind and several crucial factors in mind. Above all, maintaining objectivity and fairness is paramount, regardless of whether the research findings align with their own perspectives or prior work. Reviewers are responsible for assessing the scientific rigor of the methodology, the validity of conclusions drawn from the data, and the study's overall contribution to the field. Providing constructive, detailed feedback to assist authors in enhancing their work is essential. Reviewers should consider both technical aspects, such as study design, statistical analysis, and methodology, as well as broader implications, including relevance, novelty, and potential impact. They must also be aware of their own limitations and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Finally, maintaining confidentiality and handling unpublished research with discretion is a non-negotiable ethical obligation.
Despite the often anonymous and unpaid nature of peer review, Dr. Goh is driven by multiple compelling motivations. First and foremost, he views peer review as a fundamental duty to advance medical knowledge and uphold the integrity of scientific literature in his field. As a clinician-researcher in geriatrics and palliative care, he understands that high-quality research directly translates into improved patient care and clinical outcomes. Peer review also presents valuable opportunities for professional growth. It keeps him abreast of the latest advancements in his discipline, sharpens his critical appraisal skills, and offers insights into diverse research methodologies. Reviewing others' work frequently sparks new perspectives and ideas that enrich his own research and clinical practice.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
