In 2026, ALES 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.
Mohammed Misbahuddin-Leis, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Mohammed Misbahuddin-Leis
Dr. Mohammed Misbahuddin-Leis is a German board-certified radiologist specializing in diagnostic and interventional radiology. He currently works as a specialist in interventional radiology and interventional oncology at Sana Klinikum Hof, affiliated with Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany. He is also a doctoral candidate (PhD) at Heidelberg University, where he serves as a clinician scientist. Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis has clinical experience across Germany, Austria, and India. His research interests include interventional radiology, minimally invasive treatment of biliary diseases, and simulation-based training. He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts and is involved in research projects utilizing 3D printing to develop training models for interventional radiology. He is fluent in English, German, Urdu, and Hindi. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
ALES: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis: The peer-review system has several notable limitations. A major challenge is that reviewers are often overwhelmed by clinical, teaching, and research responsibilities, leading to prolonged delays in the review process. Another key limitation is variability in review quality: some reviews are detailed and constructive, while others are brief, unclear, and fail to guide authors on how to improve their work. Bias—whether conscious or unconscious—can also influence decisions, particularly regarding authors’ institutions, countries, or research topics. Additionally, reviewers typically receive little recognition for their efforts, which can diminish their motivation.
To improve the system, clearer instructions and expectations for reviewers are essential. Journals should provide structured review forms to guide reviewers and enhance consistency in evaluations. Recognizing reviewers through certificates, public acknowledgments, or academic credit may also boost engagement. Editors play a pivotal role: they should ensure reviews are fair, balanced, and constructive. Training programs for early-career reviewers can further elevate review quality. Increased transparency—such as open or partially open peer review—may also enhance accountability and trust in the process.
ALES: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis: Reviewers should always approach manuscripts with fairness, objectivity, and respect. The primary goal of peer review is to enhance research quality and help authors present their work more clearly and rigorously. Reviewers should focus on scientific accuracy, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and clinical relevance—rather than personal opinions or preferences. Comments should be constructive and specific, clearly outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and refrain from using any information for personal gain. Any potential conflicts of interest should be declared, and reviewers should decline the assignment if they feel unable to provide an unbiased assessment. It is also critical that reviewers accept only those manuscripts aligned with their area of expertise. Polite and respectful language should always be used, even when recommending major revisions or rejection.
ALES: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Dr. Misbahuddin-Leis: One memorable experience involved reviewing a case report that initially had significant weaknesses in structure and clarity. While the topic was clinically relevant and interesting, the manuscript required substantial improvement. Instead of recommending immediate rejection, I provided detailed, constructive feedback focusing on methodology, imaging findings, and the discussion section, outlining specific steps the authors could take to strengthen their work. The authors carefully addressed every comment and revised the manuscript thoroughly. The final version demonstrated marked improvement in clarity, structure, and scientific rigor, and it was later accepted for publication. This experience underscores the vital role of peer review—not just as a gatekeeping process, but as a guiding tool that helps authors refine their work and ensures high-quality research reaches the scientific community.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
