In 2026, JPHE 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.
Angie Garcia, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, USA
Angie Garcia
Dr. Angie Garcia, MD, PhD is a healthcare education researcher whose work focuses on clinical education, faculty development, and curriculum development across undergraduate and graduate medical education. Her research explores the evolving role of AI in clinical education, professionalism, and the development of empathy and humanistic practice in clinical care. She is involved in a range of educational research and programmatic projects, and she contributes to institutional committees that support medical education, learner development, and continuous improvement. Across these efforts, she brings together clinical expertise, a strong foundation in medical education research, and a commitment to preparing compassionate, reflective, and highly skilled healthcare professionals.
JPHE: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Garcia: Peer review is one of the main ways science maintains rigor and credibility. It gives qualified experts the opportunity to evaluate a study before publication, checking whether the question is meaningful, the methods are appropriate, the analysis is sound, and the conclusions are justified by the evidence. A good peer review can identify weaknesses that may not be obvious to the authors and can also sharpen the presentation and interpretation of the findings. In that sense, peer review serves as a quality control process, but also as an important part of scholarly dialogue.
JPHE: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Garcia: A strong reviewer should have subject matter expertise, but expertise alone is not enough. The best reviewers are thorough, fair, and intellectually honest. They can assess a manuscript critically while still being constructive and respectful. They understand the difference between substantive concerns and minor preferences, and they focus their comments on what will genuinely improve the work. Good reviewers are also reliable, organized, and able to manage deadlines, since the review process depends on both quality and timeliness.
JPHE: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Garcia: I would say thank you. The time and attention reviewers give to manuscripts help strengthen the scientific record and support the integrity of the field. It is careful, demanding work, and it makes a real difference. I have a great respect for people who take that responsibility because their efforts help ensure that science moves forward in a thoughtful and credible way.
(by Lareina Lim, Masaki Lo)
