The Biomedicines journal (ISSN 2227-9059) is proud to present the winner of the Biomedicines 2025 Outstanding Reviewer Award—Dr. Yasushige Shingu!

Dr. Yasushige Shingu has worked as a cardiovascular surgeon for about 20 years, and for the past five years, he has mainly been engaged in fundamental research related to cardiac surgery. Research in the field of cardiac surgery tends to focus heavily on device development, with most studies led by companies. However, considering the increasing aging population and the growing number of high-risk surgeries, he believes that fundamental research on myocardial protection and mechanical support for the left ventricle is of great importance, and he is actively pursuing work in these areas.

Please see below an interview with Dr. Yasushige Shingu:

1. Could you share with us your feelings about winning the award? What does this award mean to your academic career?
This is my first experience receiving such an award, and I am deeply honored. Being recognized for the voluntary peer review of academic papers is incredibly encouraging. I believe it holds significant meaning in terms of social contribution and will also positively impact my future career development.

2. What role do you think reviewers play in the process of paper publication?
Many journals allow reviewers to choose between “accept” or “reject”, but I believe it is inappropriate for reviewers to make such decisions. Reviewers should only assess whether the conclusions align with the study’s objectives and results and whether the methodology is sound. It is also inappropriate to evaluate based on personal preferences or biases. Ideally, a double-blind review process would be best to ensure impartiality.

3. How do you balance the comprehensiveness and efficiency of a review? Can you share some specific methods or principles for reviewing?
Technically, I place a self-made review template on my main computer and display the PDF of the manuscript on a large side monitor to the right. I then write major and minor comments on the draft sheet as I read through the manuscript sequentially. This process streamlines the workflow. I try to eliminate personal opinions as much as possible and keep the feedback as objective as I can.

4. In your opinion, which key qualities should an excellent manuscript have? What advice can you share that will help authors improve the quality of their papers?
It is very helpful when each figure is explained sequentially in the Results Section, followed by a summary. The Discussion Section often ends up being a repetition of the results, which can be dull. Narrowing the focus and presenting multiple viewpoints can make the discussion more educational and engaging for readers.

5. How do you hope to see journals and publishers further support reviewers’ review work?
I believe MDPI is already a well-organized publisher. As I mentioned earlier, decisions on acceptance or rejection should be made by the editors, not the reviewers. Therefore, a slightly different system, such as a rating scale, might be more appropriate.