In 2025, ACTR 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.

Else Marit Inderberg, Oslo University Hospital, Norway

Robert Wesolowski, The Ohio State University, USA

Hany Ghazal, University Sadat City, Egypt

Else Marit Inderberg

Else Marit Inderberg is Unit Leader at the Translational Research Unit, Department for Cellular therapy, Oslo University Hospital. The unit performs immunomonitoring in clinical trials and development of cellular therapy. Her main research focus is on T-cell function and immunotherapy development including TCR-and CAR-based therapies, cancer vaccines and the identification of predictive biomarkers of therapy response. She has broad oncology-related clinical trial experience and holds an MSc equivalent degree in Immunology from France and a PhD in tumour immunology from the University of Oslo, Norway. She has co-authored numerous peer-reviewed publications, holds several patents, and is co-founder of two separate spin-off companies. Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Dr. Inderberg reckons that peer review evaluates the scientific quality of a manuscript and helps validate research and aid the editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. It is important to have peers identify strengths and weaknesses and provide constructive comments for authors to improve their work.

In Dr. Inderberg’s opinion, a good reviewing process requires the reviewer to commit a substantial amount of time and energy without considering it as a career advancement. The peer-review system depends on the availability of good citizens whose judgment and ethics can be trusted to work, but due to the lack of any rewards and the significant workload, it can be hard to find qualified reviewers. Reviewers may be reluctant to judge their peers’ writing, especially if they are not well-established and confident writers themselves. Good reviewing guidelines from the journal and a double-blind reviewing process can help promote fairness and reduce bias in the review process.

“Being a reviewer means you can enjoy having access to new and interesting developments in your field. In addition, reviewing the work of others can be just as beneficial as receiving peer feedback yourself. Commenting on peers’ writing can help young researchers better understand the task, reflect on their own errors, and provide ideas to improve their own manuscripts,” says Dr. Inderberg.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Robert Wesolowski

Dr. Robert Wesolowski is a Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine and Director of the Cancer Phase 1 Disease Research Group at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCC) in Columbus, Ohio. He earned his medical degree from the State University of New York Downstate Health Sciences University in 2004, completed his Internal Medicine residency and Hematology/Medical Oncology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in 2010, and joined OSUCCC thereafter. Specializing in breast cancer and early-stage clinical trials, he has co-authored over 120 peer-reviewed research and review articles.

Dr. Wesolowski emphasizes that peer review is essential for the critical appraisal of medical research, ensuring data quality and appropriate interpretation of results—including authors’ acknowledgment of their work’s strengths and limitations. It prevents the dissemination of inconsistent, low-quality data and incorrect conclusions, safeguarding the integrity of scientific knowledge.

According to Dr. Wesolowski, a proficient reviewer carefully evaluates a manuscript’s strengths and limitations, challenging conclusions when necessary. They verify that figures and references support the manuscript’s claims and check for conflicts of interest related to authors or the research. If conflicts exist, the reviewer should decline the assignment and recommend an unbiased alternative, upholding ethical review standards.

“Being a peer reviewer is a privilege because of the trust from the journal, the research community and the general public rely on the expertise and dedication of peer reviewers to ensure that only high-quality research results with proper conclusions are published,” says Dr. Wesolowski.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Hany Ghazal

Dr. Hany Ghazal is a bioinformaticist and AI researcher specializing in translational and computational biomedical research. His work integrates bioinformatics, structural proteomics and AI—especially large language models—into drug discovery and clinical research pipelines, with a focus on AI-driven drug design, protein–ligand interaction analysis and computational methods for rigorous, efficient clinical research. As a peer reviewer, he emphasizes methodological robustness, reproducibility and transparent reporting, viewing peer review as a critical safeguard for clinical trials research quality and delivering objective, constructive, clinically relevant evaluations. Connect with him on LinkedIn.

ACTR: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?

Dr. Ghazal: The peer-review system has no substantive limitations, upholding high standards in reviewer selection, editorial oversight and methodological scrutiny—vital for clinical trials research. For ongoing refinement, it could add structured review guidance tailored to specific study designs (RCTs, adaptive trials, real-world evidence studies). Recognizing reviewer contributions and adopting targeted transparency practices can further boost consistency, efficiency and engagement, while preserving the review process’s rigor.

ACTR: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?

Dr. Ghazal: I use a structured, criteria-driven approach prioritizing study design, statistical validity, ethical compliance and clinical relevance. I consciously separate scientific content from author identity, institutional affiliation or perceived impact. When evaluating findings that diverge from mainstream clinical views, I assess them solely on methodological soundness and interpretive clarity. Adhering to predefined criteria and maintaining an evidence-focused, constructive perspective ensures fairness, consistency and objectivity throughout the review.

ACTR: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?

Dr. Ghazal: Full COI disclosure is fundamental to clinical research transparency and credibility. A disclosed COI does not inherently invalidate a study, but inadequate disclosure erodes trust in findings. A COI’s potential influence hinges on study design robustness, reporting transparency and safeguards like independent analyses. Clear disclosure equips reviewers and readers to properly interpret results, and ultimately reinforces the integrity of the entire scientific process.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)