In 2026, 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.
Maoki Matsubara, New Tokyo Hospital, Japan
Ignacio Mesina-Estarrón, Rady Children's Health Orange County, USA
Yoshinobu Horio, Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital, Japan
Maoki Matsubara
Dr. Maoki Matsubara is a staff member in the Department of Neurosurgery at Shin-Tokyo Hospital in Matsudo City, Chiba Prefecture. He graduated from Nippon Medical School in 2018 and has since been involved in surgery, research, and the education of residents at Shin-Tokyo Hospital. His primary research area focuses on cerebrovascular disorders, although he also conducts some clinical research on neurological trauma. He is involved in approximately 200 surgeries annually as a lead surgeon and plans to intensify his research efforts in the field of stroke prevention in the future.
To Dr. Matsubara, reviewers should always bear in mind the potential contribution of the work to medicine and to the progress of society. They should maintain a perspective on how new discoveries and insights can provide benefits. Also, they must conduct a fair review of the paper. Even in case reports or small studies, there may be valuable findings that could lead to subsequent larger studies; therefore, thorough examination and careful reading are necessary. He believes that the process of peer review, regardless of the journal, contributes to the advancement of medicine. “Let’s work together to be of help, even if just little by little,” he says.
Speaking of data sharing in scientific writing, Dr. Matsubara says that while it poses ethical challenges, difficulties with informed consent, and issues related to data handling, he believes that if we can address these problems, it is essential for the advancement of medical research. He points out that each physician can only see a limited number of patients, and disparities among researchers due to differences in facilities at research institutions also exist. Therefore, he thinks data sharing should progress further.
(by Naomi Hu, Brad Li)
Ignacio Mesina-Estarrón
Dr. Ignacio Mesina-Estarrón, MD, MMSc, is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Neurosurgery at Rady Children's Health Orange County, where he leads and designs clinical studies focusing on neurosurgical conditions affecting children and adolescents. His research interests center on developing analytical frameworks for questions that are often approached descriptively and building robust data structures capable of supporting clinical decision-making with the same level of rigor expected in clinical judgment. Through his work, he aims to advance evidence-based research and improve the methodological foundations of pediatric neurosurgery.
According to Dr. Mesina-Estarrón, peer review is fundamental because science is built on trust. He considers that trust between researchers and readers can only be maintained when everyone adheres to the same scientific standards. While large language models are rapidly transforming nearly every stage of the research process, he argues that this evolution makes human judgment more valuable rather than less. peer review should remain a process in which reviewers engage thoughtfully with a manuscript, critically evaluate its strengths and limitations, challenge assumptions, and contribute insights that strengthen the work. Preserving this uniquely human element is essential to maintaining the integrity of scientific research.
Discussing what constitutes a healthy peer-review system, Dr. Mesina-Estarrón emphasizes that the process should recognize the incentives that motivate researchers while fostering efficiency and constructive dialogue. He believes editors play an important role in encouraging reviewers to provide thoughtful, substantive feedback rather than dismissive criticism. In his own practice, he aims to deliver detailed reviews that help authors improve their work whenever the underlying science is sound. Whether a manuscript is ultimately published in its original journal or refined for publication elsewhere, he believes the review process should help valuable scientific knowledge reach the community in its strongest possible form rather than serve as a punitive exercise.
Reflecting on the concept of objectivity in peer review, Dr. Mesina-Estarrón acknowledges that complete objectivity is difficult to achieve, as every reviewer inevitably brings personal experience and perspectives to the evaluation process. He notes that studies challenging established ideas or employing fewer familiar methodologies may sometimes encounter resistance simply because they fall outside a reviewer's frame of reference. Rather than striving for an unattainable ideal of complete objectivity, he advocates for approaching manuscripts with generosity of interpretation while maintaining rigorous scientific standards. In his opinion, such a balanced approach better supports fairness, innovation, and meaningful scientific progress.
(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)
Yoshinobu Horio
Dr. Yoshinobu Horio, M.D., Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurosurgery at Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital, Japan. A board-certified neurosurgeon and neuroendovascular specialist, his clinical and research interests focus on cerebrovascular diseases and neuroendovascular therapy. His recent research includes mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, endovascular treatment of cerebrovascular diseases, and middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma. Inspired by clinical questions and technical challenges encountered in daily practice, he aims to generate practical evidence that improves patient care and advances neuroendovascular treatment. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Horio, peer review is essential because researchers inevitably have limitations in their perspective within their own research groups. Evaluation by experts from different backgrounds can provide new insights, identify issues that authors may have overlooked, and ultimately improve the quality of a manuscript. He also points out that the value of peer review extends beyond publication decisions. He adds, “I regard peer review not only as a system for maintaining the quality of scientific research, but also as an important opportunity for researchers to learn and grow.”
According to Dr. Horio, a healthy peer-review system should seek to recognize the value and potential of a manuscript while helping it become stronger through constructive feedback. Rather than simply identifying weaknesses or looking for reasons to reject a submission, reviewers should provide practical suggestions that improve the scientific quality and impact of the work. At the same time, serious scientific or ethical concerns must be addressed when necessary. Authors, reviewers, and editors ultimately share the same goal—the advancement of science and medicine—and that a healthy peer-review system is built on respect, genuine care, and a shared commitment to scientific progress.
Balancing clinical practice, education, research, and family life leaves limited time for peer review, yet Dr. Horio makes a conscious effort to accept review invitations whenever possible. He intentionally incorporates peer review into his routine, recognizing it as an important professional responsibility. He says, “Time is not something that simply becomes available; it is something we have to make.” For him, making time for peer review is part of fulfilling his responsibility as a researcher.
(by Alan Liu, Brad Li)
