In 2025, JNI 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.
Ehsan Dowlati, Washington Hospital Center, USA
Lukasz Przepiorka, University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, USA
Shimpei Tsuboki, Kumamoto University, Japan
Ehsan Dowlati
Dr. Ehsan Dowlati is an assistant professor of neurosurgery at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. His academic journey includes a BS in Neuroscience and MS in Biotechnology from Johns Hopkins University, followed by medical school at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine—where he earned Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) induction and Academic Distinction in Research. He completed neurosurgical residency at Georgetown University, plus fellowships in endovascular neurosurgery (University of Michigan) and open vascular/skull base surgery (Northwell Health). With over 80 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and the 2023 Amy and Ed Knight Research Award in Neurosurgery, his work focuses on neurosurgical outcomes, clinical trials, cerebrovascular neurosurgery, and neurocritical care. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Dowlati identifies a few major flaws in peer review: limited transparency, potential bias, inconsistent review quality, and underappreciated reviewers (overburdened, unpaid, and unrecognized). While double-blinded review reduces bias, he advocates for standardized processes, mandated data sharing, and author adherence to guidelines like STROBE to boost objectivity. Incentives—such as academic credit—could address reviewer burnout and elevate review quality.
According to Dr. Dowlati, reviewers should evaluate the quality of data, methodology, and reasoning without being influenced by other reviewers or the reputation or institution of the authors. Using a structured framework is the best approach allowing one to be consistent in evaluating criteria such as originality, methods, results, and clarity. Additionally, he aims to base critiques on specific examples from the manuscript. Finally, an objective review maintains a professional and constructive tone.
Dr. Dowlati stresses that Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure is vital for scientific integrity and transparency, fostering trust by allowing readers to assess potential bias. While a COI does not invalidate research, undisclosed conflicts can compromise objectivity, interpretation, and public confidence—making transparency non-negotiable.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lukasz Przepiorka
Dr. Lukasz Przepiorka is an endovascular research fellow at University at Buffalo Neurosurgery (UBNS), focusing on improving clinical outcomes in cerebrovascular pathologies. He joined UBNS in February 2025 after completing four years of neurosurgery residency at the Medical University of Warsaw in Poland, where he also initiated his PhD. His doctoral thesis is based on a randomized controlled trial evaluating perioperative strategies in neurosurgical patients. He has authored multiple peer-reviewed publications, which have been independently cited in systematic reviews and clinical studies. He has presented his work at leading international conferences, with academic interests centered on advancing surgical techniques to enhance patient care in neurovascular and skull base procedures. Connect with him on X @luke_przepiorka.
Dr. Przepiorka thinks the peer-review system is essential as it identifies imperfections in a manuscript that can be corrected before publication, provides authors with alternative perspectives on their research, and recognizes studies with significant methodological flaws that may need to be restarted before being considered for publication. Ultimately, these efforts assist editors in selecting manuscripts for scientific journals.
Dr. Przepiorka points out that the existing peer-review system is primarily limited by the availability and capacity of reviewers. Many reviewers face time constraints, making thorough analysis difficult. Additionally, finding willing reviewers is often challenging, as it is typically a voluntary contribution from busy academics who engage in it for idealistic reasons to support scientific progress. A potential improvement could be offering professional recognition or rewards for completing peer reviews timely.
“I believe that the rewards of peer reviewing accumulate over time. It is an honorable and highly respectable contribution to the scientific community. Reviewers play a vital role in shaping the quality and integrity of published research, often without recognition, and their dedication deserves the utmost appreciation,” says Dr. Przepiorka.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Shimpei Tsuboki
Dr. Shimpei Tsuboki is a neurosurgeon specializing in neuroendovascular therapy at Kumamoto University, Japan. He graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, Kumamoto University in 2015 and holds multiple medical specialties, including Board Certification in Neurosurgery from the Japanese Neurosurgical Society and Board Certification as an Instructor of the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. He served as Chief Physician at Kameda Medical Center from 2023 to 2025. His research interests include delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, and he is also engaged in studies focusing on detailed imaging-based assessment of neurovascular anatomy, with a particular emphasis on transradial neurointervention.
Dr. Tsuboki reckons that a constructive review is essential to the advancement of science, whereas a destructive review hinders scientific progress but provides little value to authors.
In Dr. Tsuboki’s opinion, peer review is a process that refines research through constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers. Beyond simple evaluation, it broadens perspectives, suggests improvements, and helps advance science.
“As an international open-access journal, JNI plays an important role in sharing neurointerventional knowledge and advancing clinical practice, which is why I value contributing as a reviewer,” says Dr. Tsuboki.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
