In 2025, JHMHP 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.
Buddy Marterre, Wake Forest University, USA
Tatsuya Fukami, Shimane University Hospital, Japan
Emily H Belarmino, University of Vermont, USA
Safa Mousavi, Valley Fever Institute, USA
Michael S. Leeman, Southeastern Louisiana University, USA
Buddy Marterre
Buddy Marterre, MD, MDiv, is an Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and General Surgery at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, USA. He is board certified in both surgery and hospice and palliative medicine. He obtained a Masters of Divinity in his 50s, cultivating his passion for integrating spirituality into healthcare and gaining skills for whole person healing. He enjoys guiding the loved ones of seriously ill and injured patients through the frightening environment of the intensive care unit (ICU), ministering to their psychosociospiritual distress while honoring their beloved’s personhood, values, and dignity. His research focuses on: (1) development and evaluation of experiential advanced communication skills curricula for surgeons; (2) developing and evaluating triggers for expert palliative medicine involvement in patients who have incurred severe traumatic brain injuries; and (3) investigating the impact that innovative expert spiritual care has on family members whose loved ones are critically ill in an ICU.
Dr. Marterre indicates that the peer-review process plays a key role in guarding the quality of written medical information prior to its dissemination to interested readers. As an author of peer-reviewed medical articles, he knew firsthand how easily his own tunnel vision can lead him to overlook other viewpoints and limitations to the designs or conclusions of studies or essays that he is responsible for. He is extremely grateful for the reviews he has received, even those that offer constructive critiques to his writing style and article organization. With every article published, he has found that having a few objective reviewers lend their time, consideration and expertise to his work has been indispensable and greatly enhanced the final product.
Although biases are inevitable in peer review, Dr. Marterre always tries his best to remain objective in the reviews. While he may not agree with an author’s conclusions, if the study design and execution is rigorous and the conclusions are logical and internally consistent, he “shelves” his personal biases and recognizes the value of the work and/or ideas. He frequently finds that authors have inadequately considered other published research, ethics or viewpoints, which dovetail with their premises. In those cases, he provides the authors with additional resources and points out the importance of dialoging with those other studies or essays.
“Medical research and policy making takes a village! Being a peer reviewer is my way of ‘giving back’ to the reviewers of articles I have submitted for publication. Not only that, but I have found that reviewing other’s manuscripts helps me to ‘gel’ my own thoughts about subjects that I am personally interested in, and makes me a better writer. Thus, the rewards of reviewing others’ work are not only for the medical community at large and the journal publishing the work, it is also personal! This makes it well worth ‘my’ time,” says Dr. Marterre.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tatsuya Fukami
Tatsuya Fukami serves as a Professor within the Department of Medical Safety Management at Shimane University Hospital. His areas of specialization encompass patient safety, psychological safety, and healthcare management. Boasting a wealth of experience in obstetrics and gynecology, he has assumed pivotal leadership positions. These include serving as the Deputy Director of Nagoya University Hospital’s Patient Safety Promotion Department and the Risk Manager at Iizuka Hospital. Dr. Fukami has been actively engaged in substantial research in the field of medical safety. His research portfolio includes incident report analysis, the design of team training programs aimed at enhancing patient safety, and the formulation of risk management strategies. Among his recent undertakings are the development of an innovative severity scoring system for incident reports, the evaluation of medical malpractice costs, and the implementation of interventions to prevent patient misidentification. Additionally, he has delved into strategies to support trainee doctors and enhance transparency within healthcare organizations. By actively participating in medical accident investigations and collaborating with national institutions, Dr. Fukami remains committed to driving improvements in medical safety and ensuring high-quality assurance in clinical practice.
JHMHP: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Fukami: A healthy peer-review system is one that ensures fairness, rigor, and transparency in evaluating scientific work. It should be conducted by experts in the field who provide constructive and unbiased feedback. The review process must focus on improving the quality of research rather than personal criticism or gatekeeping. Timeliness is also essential; delays in peer review can slow down scientific progress and discourage researchers. Ethical standards must be upheld to prevent conflicts of interest, plagiarism, or favoritism. Additionally, openness to academic debate is crucial, allowing authors to respond to reviewer concerns in a meaningful way. Acknowledging the efforts of peer reviewers, whether through professional recognition or incentives, further strengthens the system and encourages high-quality reviews.
JHMHP: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable, what motivates you to do so?
Dr. Fukami: Despite the lack of financial compensation, peer reviewing is a valuable contribution to the scientific community. A principal motivation lies in the dedication to upholding the integrity and quality of research. When I review manuscripts, my aim is to confirm that the studies set for publication are trustworthy, methodologically robust, and make substantial contributions to the relevant field. The peer-review process also offers a platform for continuous learning. Assessing the work of others exposes me to novel ideas and emerging trends. There is an element of reciprocity at play as well. As an author, I have reaped the benefits of the peer-review process, and contributing as a reviewer is my way of paying it forward. Moreover, participating in peer review sharpens my analytical skills and helps in building my reputation within the academic community. This, in turn, can lead to potential collaborations and new professional opportunities. Ultimately, the sense of satisfaction derived from contributing to the progress of knowledge serves as a powerful intrinsic motivator.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Emily H Belarmino
Dr. Emily Belarmino is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences and the Director of the undergraduate Food Systems program at the University of Vermont. Her work explores the links between diets, the environment, and human health. Her current research focuses on food and nutrition security among at-risk populations and sustainable diets. She holds an undergraduate degree in environmental studies from Mount Holyoke College and master’s degrees in public health and agriculture, food, and environment from Tufts University. She has a PhD in public health and policy from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She completed post-doctoral training in community nutrition at Cornell University working on projects related to rural health and local food systems in the United States. Learn more about Dr. Belarmino here.
Dr. Belarmino thinks that high-quality peer review is essential to the rigor and credibility of published research. Among other things, referees are tasked with identifying technically valid research and findings that are novel and likely to be of significant interest. A healthy peer-review process encourages referees to provide thorough and constructive feedback to authors and for authors to use that feedback to strengthen their manuscript. It also encourages everyone involved to act promptly to ensure important findings reach target audiences without delay. Such a system requires respect and trust among authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff, and a shared commitment to advancing scientific discourse.
In Dr. Belarmino’s view, peer review is a human-centered process. Reviewers should always keep in mind the humanity of everyone involved, including the authors. This means not only identifying areas of a manuscript that need improvement but also acknowledging its positive aspects. From his experience as an author, the most beneficial reviews are those that point out a manuscript's strengths and offer specific, actionable suggestions to enhance its clarity and focus. When taking on the role of a reviewer, he strives to be both kind and firm, and views from the author's perspective. This approach helps ensure that the feedback is constructive and respectful, fostering a positive environment for improving research quality.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Safa Mousavi
Safa Mousavi, MD, MPH, obtained her medical degree from Ardabil University of Medical Sciences in Iran and has nearly eight years of experience working as a primary care physician, dedicated to serving underserved communities. In addition to providing comprehensive healthcare for patients of all age groups, she managed healthcare centers for approximately three years in a rural area of her home country. During that time, she oversaw the delivery of primary care services and the implementation of community-based health programs. To enhance her public health expertise, she completed a Master of Public Health at California State University, Fresno, with a focus on epidemiology, biostatistics, and health policy. Currently, she is pursuing a second master’s degree in Healthcare Administration at California State University, Bakersfield. Her research interests center on reducing health disparities through the prevention, early detection, and management of chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, infectious diseases, dementia, and cancer. Presently, she is engaged in research on Coccidioidomycosis, also known as Valley Fever, along with its complications, particularly coccidioidal meningitis, at the Valley Fever Institute at Kern Medical.
JHMHP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Mousavi: The current peer-review system, while essential for maintaining scientific integrity, has several limitations. These include reviewer bias (based on author identity, institutional affiliation, or topic), lack of transparency, inconsistent review quality, and delays in the publication process. Moreover, the voluntary nature of peer reviewing can result in reviewer fatigue and uneven commitment, which may compromise the thoroughness and consistency of evaluations. To improve the system, double-blind or open peer-review models may reduce bias. Additionally, providing structured training for reviewers, implementing standardized evaluation criteria, and formal recognition can improve review quality and participation.
JHMHP: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Mousavi: An objective review is one that evaluates a manuscript solely based on its scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field, regardless of the author's identity, affiliation, or nationality. To ensure objectivity in my reviews, I focus strictly on the content, assess whether the conclusions are supported by the data, and refer to current literature for context. I avoid personal opinions, remain aware of potential biases, and declare any conflicts of interest. When possible, I follow structured review guidelines provided by the journal to maintain consistency and fairness.
JHMHP: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Mousavi: Yes, it is essential for authors to disclose any potential COI. COIs, whether financial, personal, or professional, can consciously or unconsciously influence study design, data interpretation, or reporting of results. Undisclosed COIs may compromise the credibility of the research and erode public trust in scientific findings. Transparency about COIs allows editors, reviewers, and readers to assess the research more critically and ensures ethical standards are upheld. While having a COI does not automatically invalidate a study, proper disclosure is necessary to contextualize findings and maintain scientific integrity.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Michael S. Leeman
Dr. Michael S. Leeman is an Associate Professor in the Graduate Counseling Program at Southeastern Louisiana University, where he teaches CACREP-accredited courses in clinical mental health counseling. His instruction emphasizes ethical, evidence-based practice, trauma-informed care, and the cultivation of counselor self-awareness and resilience. As a Licensed Professional Counselor-Supervisor (LPC-S) and National Certified Counselor (NCC), he specializes in psychological trauma and faith-based counseling. With specialized training in trauma-informed care, his clinical background spans work with children, adolescents, couples, and families across private practice, community clinics, nonprofit agencies, schools, and hospital settings. His areas of expertise include psychological trauma, posttraumatic growth, and ethical practice in clinical supervision. He has presented nationally and internationally on trauma-informed care, disenfranchised grief, counselor self-care, and ethical supervision. His research explores how coping strategies and individual lifestyle factors influence psychological recovery and growth following trauma, and he has authored multiple peer-reviewed publications in national and international journals. Learn more about him here.
JHMHP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Leeman: In helping professions like clinical mental health and medicine, research directly informs diagnosis and treatment—methodological flaws can therefore lead to ineffective or even harmful practices. Peer review serves as a critical quality control mechanism: experts evaluate a study’s methodology, data analysis, and conclusions to ensure methods are appropriate and rigorously executed, findings are data-supported, and biases or confounding factors are acknowledged. Given that research in these fields often involves vulnerable populations, peer reviewers also scrutinize ethical considerations—including informed consent, confidentiality, adherence to clinical guidelines, and sensitive handling of topics like suicide, trauma, and psychosis. This process upholds professional accountability, encouraging transparency in result reporting, conflict of interest disclosure, and careful interpretation of findings. Peer review also fosters collaboration through constructive feedback, with reviewers suggesting revisions that strengthen a manuscript’s clarity, structure, and impact. These inputs lead to more robust conclusions, better framing of clinical implications, and increased relevance for practitioners and policymakers.
JHMHP: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Leeman: One common method for reducing bias is through the use of blinded review processes. In a single-blind review, reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know who is reviewing their work. In a double-blind review, both identities are concealed. Double-blind review, in particular, can help reduce conscious and unconscious biases related to institutional affiliation, author gender, nationality, or reputation. Diversity and training among reviewers also play a significant role in minimizing bias. Journals can intentionally recruit reviewers from varied backgrounds in terms of gender, ethnicity, geography, and academic or professional discipline. Reviewers with lived experience or those familiar with different cultural frameworks can enrich the review process and counteract dominant narratives. Additionally, using structured and transparent review criteria can improve consistency and reduce subjective judgments. Standardized review forms or scoring rubrics help reviewers focus on key aspects of a manuscript, such as scientific rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to the field, rather than personal preferences or familiarity. These tools create a more objective framework for evaluating submissions. Editorial oversight is also vital. Editors act as gatekeepers and can identify reviews that are unduly harsh, dismissive, or based on questionable reasoning.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
