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

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)