In 2025, CCTS 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.
Matteo Laspro, New York University, USA
Marisa Hernandez-Morgan, University of California, USA
Mark A Sonnick, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, USA
Matteo Laspro
Matteo Laspro is a fourth-year medical student at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, applying for a Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Residency. As a medical student, he was inducted to the honor society alpha omega alpha. He holds a bachelor of arts from the University of Chicago (2021) on Comparative Literature, Romance Languages, and Biological Sciences. He currently works as a research fellow for the Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, focusing on surgical education innovation, pediatric craniofacial surgery, and the bioethics of vascularized composite allotransplantation. His most recent project includes assisting in the development of a virtual reality platform to teach cleft lip and palate reconstructive techniques, aiming at providing a sustainable, transcontinental, and low-cost teaching modality to low-and-middle income countries. Follow Matteo on Google Scholar or PubMed.
CCTS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Matteo: Peer review is crucial for the scientific process. While bias is inheritably inevitable, reviewers should attempt to approach manuscripts as a blank canvas and focus on the primary communicative point it attempts to make. If affiliations cloud a reviewer’s mind, they should politely decline the revision. Similarly, expertise on a topic is needed when reviewing a piece and, when lacking, a reviewer should have the self-humility to admit improperness and allow others more competent to review. All suggestions should be supported by current literature. Finally, reviewers must understand the centrality of the review process – that is of constructive feedback. Reviewers should propose actionable changes that can overall improve the strength of an argument rather than for self-motivation.
CCTS: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Matteo: Firstly, given the internationalism of scientific production, individuals may bear in mind that researchers may come with different knowledges on scientific principles and writing abilities. Thus, reviewers must bear in mind that potentially an argument is not made across not due to methodological flaws, but rather poor mastery of the English language. Hence, papers should not be rejected if language is an issue. Reviewers themselves should ask themselves when reading articles what are the research questions in hand, what are the hypotheses drawn, how are those inquiries answered, and what are the conclusions drawn. If reviewers can create a linear narrative connecting all these questions with no interruptions, the manuscript is worth at least a revision.
CCTS: Can you share with us an interesting story during a review?
Matteo: When given the opportunity to review a novel virtual reality model for cardiothoracic surgery, I was reticent on whether I would be suitable given my area of expertise. However, as I read the manuscript, I reckoned that my outsider perspective would indeed strengthen the article as I could assess deficiencies that others in the thoracic field may not. The process overall enlightened me that proper review can come even from individuals with adjacent specializations. As someone connected with the surgical education, Global Health spheres, I believed that my contributions brought a freshened perspective to the piece.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Marisa Hernandez-Morgan
Marisa Hernandez-Morgan earned her undergraduate degree in Biochemistry from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). She attended medical school also at UCLA, earning an MD as well as a master’s in public policy. She completed residency training in anesthesiology at UCSF Medical Center before completing fellowships in both Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine. She is now an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine at UCLA, and practices both in the operating room and the ICU. Her research interests include health disparities after cardiac surgery and mechanical circulatory support, whereas her academic interests include medical education and point of care ultrasound.
CCTS: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Hernandez-Morgan: Peer review is vital to the process of scientific inquiry and investigation. Peer reviewers not only help highlight important areas for improvement and clarification in the scientific work of others, they also help to identify work that is not suitable for publication. A reviewer adds a different perspective and gives investigators additional things to consider about their work. Peer review strengths research by ensuring the work done by other scientists is as strong as it can be.
CCTS: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Hernandez-Morgan: A reviewer should be curious, as well as respectful and thoughtful. It is important for reviewers to recognize that their job is to provide constructive feedback for investigators to improve their work. Reviewers should be open-minded and fair with a goal to provide useful critique and commentary.
CCTS: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Hernandez-Morgan: It is important for authors to disclose COIs so that readers can understand and consider bias that might be present in the work. Disclosure of conflicts helps ensure transparency so that the integrity of the research can be maintained. COIs can potentially lead to manipulations of data, results or conclusions, whether intentional or unintentional.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mark A Sonnick
Dr. Mark A. Sonnick is a transplant pulmonologist at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. He earned his medical degree from Weill Medical College of Cornell University here in New York, which was followed by Medicine residency at Weill Cornell Medical Center and a Pulmonary and Critical Care fellowship at Columbia University Irving Medical Center that included specialized training in lung transplantation. His research focuses on the US lung allocation system, with a particular emphasis on allocation for patients suffering from pulmonary arterial hypertension and related diseases.
Dr. Sonnick reckons that peer review improves the quality of the published literature by challenging authors on their assumptions and personal biases and improving the clarity of their communication. For every article he has submitted, the comments from the reviewers make the arguments of the paper stronger and clearer. Reviewers are a vital source of feedback on how well one is communicating his/her arguments to people who were not involved in the research. Sometimes, reviewers make comments that an author might disagree with, which can also be helpful in strengthening the arguments of the manuscript.
Regarding the limitations of the existing peer-review system, Dr. Sonnick acknowledges that it can sometimes seem highly subjective from an author's perspective. As a reviewer, he recognizes the obligation to rely on the existing literature as much as possible when providing feedback to authors. This is to avoid having comments that are solely based on personal opinions. To contribute to a better peer-review process, he makes an effort to avoid nit-picking and instead focuses on providing substantive and meaningful feedback to the authors. This approach helps to ensure that the peer-review process is more productive and useful for both the authors and the advancement of scientific knowledge in the field.
“It can feel like a thankless job sometimes, but reviewers are a vital quality-assurance tool in the scientific literature. I have gained a lot from reviewers over the years and it is an honor to give back to the community by serving as a reviewer for others’ papers,” says Dr. Sonnick.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
