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
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)
