In 2025, AOE 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.

Matthew D. Stachler, Inova Schar Cancer Institute, USA

Jun Kanamori, Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR, Japan

Yehonatan Nevo, Sheba Medical Center, Israel

Naoki Hashimoto, Sanda City Hospital, Japan

Matthew D. Stachler

Dr. Matthew D. Stachler is a Molecular Pathologist at the University of California San Francisco focused on personalized medicine in cancer diagnostics and treatment clinically. On the research side, his lab works to understand the process of premalignant progression to invasive cancer, specifically focusing on cancers (esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma) and pre-malignant conditions (columnar and intestinal metaplasia or Barrett’s esophagus) of the upper gastrointestinal tract as a model system. Despite the understanding these cancers arise from a metaplastic field, they still do an extremely poor job of identifying patients early before advanced disease develops. They have taken the approach to first understand the factors important in human tissues through advanced ‘omics’ and digital imaging and then use this understanding to build model systems and functional studies. It is their goal to use the knowledge and understanding gained in these studies to develop novel biomarkers, screening strategies, and treatments to identify and treat people early before advanced disease develops. Learn more about Dr. Stachler here.

Dr. Stachler reckons that a healthy peer-review system involves the reviewers being fair but critical of the science and working with the authors to improve the manuscript for publication.

Dr. Stachler points out that it is important to recognize any potential biases and work with the editors to determine if reviewing the manuscript is still appropriate. Second, during the review, it is important to stick to the science and experiments being performed. Finally, whenever a review seems to be overly critical or supportive, it is important to take a step back and make sure all of the comments are well justified.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Stachler highlights that it is always important for authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest (COI). This allows readers to judge on their own what influence they may have on the studies. Also, disclosing any COI early allows the authors to appear upfront and not like they are potentially hiding any influence. A COI can influence research in a variety of ways from subtle ways in which results are interpreted to more major issues such as pressure to falsify a study.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Jun Kanamori

Dr. Jun Kanamori is an esophageal surgeon at the Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR (Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research), specializing in minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic-assisted surgery, and innovative esophageal cancer treatments. With extensive clinical experience, his research aims to advance surgical techniques—recent projects include developing robotic methods to reduce postoperative complications like recurrent nerve palsy and anastomotic leakage, while exploring robotic surgery’s educational benefits. He publishes in peer-reviewed journals and engages in international collaborations to share expertise.

Dr. Kanamori reckons that peer review serves as a critical checkpoint, ensuring research quality, validity, and credibility before findings join the scientific record. It upholds standards by vetting methodology and conclusions, fostering trust in the field.

To minimize bias, Dr. Kanamori focuses solely on scientific merit, methodology, and data interpretation—setting aside personal beliefs or affiliations. He emphasizes rigorous evaluation through repeated review and reflection, prioritizing objectivity to validate research fairly.

“Contributing to scientific integrity, staying current in my field, and supporting fellow researchers motivates me to conduct peer review. It is also a way of giving back to the community that reviews my own work,” says Dr. Kanamori.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Yehonatan Nevo

Dr. Yehonatan Nevo is a senior upper gastrointestinal surgeon at Sheba Medical Center, Israel. He completed fellowships in thoracic and upper GI surgery at McGill University. His clinical and academic focus lies in esophageal and gastric malignancies and benign conditions, with a special interest in minimally invasive techniques and enhanced recovery protocols. He has published over 20 peer-reviewed articles and contributed to surgical textbooks on esophagectomy and upper GI malignancies. Recognized for his academic work, he received the ACS Excellence in Research Award and serves on the ISDE Education Committee. He is actively engaged in medical education, lecturing at nursing and medical institutions.

Dr. Nevo emphasizes that a healthy peer-review system ensures fairness, scientific rigor, and ethical integrity. It depends on expert, unbiased reviewers who deliver constructive, respectful, and timely feedback. Transparency is key, with clear editorial oversight and decisions based solely on scientific merit. Strict adherence to confidentiality and ethical conduct, along with proper management of potential conflicts of interest, is essential. Ultimately, peer review should function as a collaborative quality-control tool, supporting authors and driving progress in the scientific field.

In Dr. Nevo’s opinion, reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific literature. They must approach manuscripts with objectivity, fairness, and professionalism, focusing on assessing scientific merit, clarity, originality, and relevance—rather than personal preferences or affiliations. Feedback should be constructive, specific, and respectful, aiming to strengthen the work regardless of whether acceptance or rejection is recommended. Vague or overly critical comments should be avoided. Reviewers must strictly maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, and respect journal timelines. Above all, they should act as collaborators in advancing high-quality, ethically sound research, not as gatekeepers.

“The Annals of Esophagus aligns with my clinical and academic interests. The journal maintains high editorial standards and contributes meaningfully to advancing evidence-based practice. Participating in the peer-review process allows me to support the scientific community, stay current in the field, and help ensure the publication of rigorous, impactful research,” says Dr. Nevo.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)

Naoki Hashimoto

Naoki Hashimoto graduated from Kobe University in 1975 and earned his PhD from Hyogo Medical College in 1984, holding a medical degree in Japan. Over the past 20 years, his research has focused on the study of "Reflux of duodenal contents induces esophageal carcinogenesis" through experimental and clinical studies. He specializes in biomedical imaging, surgical treatment, and chemoradiotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer, with academic honors including awards from the European Conference on General Thoracic Surgery (2012) and OESO (2013, 2015). His career emphasizes innovative, translational, and long-term research. 

Dr. Hashimoto regards peer review as a critical process where one to four expert referees assess a paper’s suitability for publication based on its importance, novelty, and reliability. Though editors make final decisions, they rely on specialists’ deeper expertise, making peer review the key hurdle in publishing.

From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Hashimoto thinks that submissions often require supplementary documents—conflict of interest statements, cover letters outlining the manuscript, and sometimes reviewer recommendations or exclusion lists for competitors. Web-based submissions are common, with guidelines detailing these requirements.

“Peer review is performed by reviewers, who are also researchers, just like the submitter. It is expected that by having several reviewers check a paper, it produces a paper that will stimulate discussion throughout the entire academic society and the entire field, and will have the effect of raising the level of young researchers and education in the field. In addition, by carefully examining the content, it will ensure the social and academic credibility of the academic society and the field,” says Dr. Hashimoto.

(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)