In 2026, ABS 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.
Emily Lin, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
Jad M. Abdelsattar, University of Arizona College of Medicine, USA
Emily Lin
Emily Lin, MD, MS, FASA, is an Associate Attending Anesthesiologist in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and an Assistant Professor of Clinical Anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, NY. She completed her residency through the Tri‑Institutional Program (Weill Cornell, MSKCC, and Hospital for Special Surgery) and a fellowship in regional anesthesiology at NYSORA. Her clinical and scholarly interests focus on regional anesthesia and acute pain management, with particular emphasis on enhanced recovery in breast, plastic, orthopedic, and ambulatory surgery. She has contributed to institutional initiatives to reduce opioid use, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and hospital length of stay, including the development of inpatient and ambulatory regional nerve catheter programs for adult and pediatric patients. She is actively engaged in education and mentorship, lectures nationally and internationally, and serves as Associate Editor for the Regional Anesthesia section of OpenAnesthesia.
ABS: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Lin: The peer‑review system is essential to scientific progress but is not without limitations. Challenges include reviewer bias, variability in expertise, lack of formal training, and the significant time burden on clinicians, which can compromise both the timeliness and depth of reviews. Additional concerns include inconsistent feedback across reviewers and limited recognition for high‑quality reviewing. Potential improvements include structured reviewer training, clearer evaluation guidelines, improved matching of manuscripts to reviewer expertise, and greater process transparency. Meaningful recognition for reviewers, combined with stronger editorial oversight or consensus review for conflicting evaluations, can also promote fairness and enhance overall quality.
ABS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Lin: Reviewers should approach each manuscript with objectivity, fairness, and respect for the authors’ efforts. The primary goal is to evaluate scientific rigor, methodology, clarity, and clinical or scholarly relevance—not to rewrite the paper or impose personal preferences. It is critical to provide constructive, specific feedback that helps authors strengthen their work. Reviewers should also remain mindful of potential conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, review only within their area of expertise, and submit evaluations in a timely manner. Ultimately, the aim is to offer thoughtful guidance that improves the work while supporting authors and the broader scientific community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jad M. Abdelsattar
Dr. Jad M. Abdelsattar is a fellowship-trained breast surgical oncologist and oncoplastic surgeon, and an Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. His clinical practice is centered on multidisciplinary breast cancer care, encompassing both benign and malignant breast disease, with a special interest in oncoplastic techniques. His most recent research focuses on outcomes research in precision oncology and especially using clinical artificial intelligence and digital pathology to translate validated predictive models in breast cancer into clinically actionable decision tools that could be safely incorporated into practice. He remains deeply committed to surgical education, simulation, and diversifying the surgical workforce, building on his authorship of Mayo Clinic General Surgery (Oxford University Press, 2020). His broader academic interests center on innovation and emerging technologies, with a consistent focus on how systems, not just individual tools, determine adoption into clinical workflows. Connect with him on LinkedIn or X.
In Dr. Abdelsattar’s opinion, a healthy system balances rigor, transparency and honesty—acting as a filter, not a “truth stamp.” It ensures methodological soundness, data-contextualized conclusions, and field advancement. It addresses reviewer overload via better matching, clear expectations, and strong editorial oversight, while protecting human judgment amid AI integration. It prioritizes equity, diverse perspectives, and avoids “scientific monoculture.”
According to Dr. Abdelsattar, reviewers should focus on novelty/meaning, not perfection. Comments must be constructive, specific, and respectful, with consistent reasoning and transparency. Be mindful of system variability, avoid premature AI-related assumptions, and prioritize critical thinking over efficiency, while respecting diverse backgrounds.
“It is true that peer review is mostly invisible work, but it plays a central role in how scientific knowledge gets filtered, interpreted, and eventually deployed. This work is noble, and serves a higher purpose in academic surgery: maintaining standards, refining arguments, and ensuring that published work meets a threshold of credibility and relevance. For those who put in the time to review thoughtfully, the impact goes beyond any single paper. Reviewing sharpens one’s own understanding of what constitutes meaningful research. What distinguishes statistical significance from clinical importance? What makes a study not just valid, but useful? In that sense, peer review becomes both a contribution to the field and a form of ongoing academic and professional development. The process will continue to evolve, particularly with the integration of new technologies, but the need for careful, independent, and context-aware judgment will remain constant. I strongly believe that those who approach peer review with that mindset are making a substantive contribution to the integrity of our scientific output,” says Dr. Abdelsattar.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
