In 2025, FOMM 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.
Florian Dudde, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
Ilena S. Yim, University of British Columbia, Canada
Michael D. Turner, Icahn School of Medicine, USA
Philip A. Van Damme, Witten/Herdecke Universities, Germany
Takashi Kamio, Nippon Dental University, Japan
Florian Dudde
Dr. Florian Dudde is a resident in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Hamburg and a research associate at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). His research focuses on craniofacial trauma surgery, reconstructive microvascular surgery, odontogenic infections, and metabolic bone disorders—particularly hypophosphatasia and its oral manifestations. He has authored several peer-reviewed publications, including studies on facial fracture epidemiology before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Further works explore the etiology of trauma-related dental injuries. Actively engaged in teaching and academic mentoring, he aspires to a university career integrating clinical excellence, research, and education in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
In Dr. Dudde’s opinion, a healthy peer-review system ensures scientific rigor, fairness, and transparency while maintaining respectful, constructive communication between authors and reviewers. It should be objective, timely, and free from bias, focusing on research quality and reproducibility rather than authors’ or institutions’ prestige. Constructive feedback that enhances the clarity, methodology, and result interpretation is central to this process. Moreover, a balanced peer-review culture values both critical evaluation and supportive mentorship, fostering scientific progress instead of gatekeeping. Ultimately, it strengthens trust in published science through integrity, accountability, and collaboration.
According to Dr. Dudde, an objective review evaluates a manuscript solely based on its scientific quality, methodological soundness, and presentation clarity—uninfluenced by personal opinions, institutional affiliations, or authors’ reputations. To ensure objectivity, he focuses on evidence-based assessment, referencing the manuscript’s data, study design, and conclusions directly. He avoids speculative judgments and adopts a structured approach, assessing aspects like originality, methodology, statistical validity, and field relevance. Additionally, he remains mindful of potential conflicts of interest and recuse himself if any exist. His goal is to provide balanced, constructive, and fair feedback that helps authors strengthen their work while upholding the scientific record’s integrity.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ilena S. Yim
Ilena Yim is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of British Columbia and BC Cancer Research Institute. She graduated with a Bachelor of Dental Science in Dental Hygiene, and Master of Science in Craniofacial Science at the University of British Columbia. Her research area and publications focus on the prevention of oral cancer through early detection of oral lesions that are at risk of becoming cancer. Her current projects explore the temporal trends and patterns in oral pre-cancer and cancer.
FOMM: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Ilena: A healthy peer-review system should be one where reviewers have background and experience in the research field of the manuscript they are reviewing. In this way, they can eliminate bias and provide appropriate critique to ensure that the manuscript can contribute to the research community.
FOMM: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Ilena: While the reviewer should provide objective and constructive feedback, it is important to keep in mind that the manuscript being reviewed is the authors’ months and years long of research and thus each manuscript does have value.
FOMM: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Ilena: Being able to peer-review various manuscripts is like having an opportunity to preview new research and ideas that are of importance. And I believe being able to review and critique different manuscripts will naturally improve the reviewers’ ability in critical writing and research as well.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Michael D. Turner
Dr. Michael D. Turner, DDS, MD, MSc, FACS, serves as Chief of the Division of Maxillofacial Surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital and Associate Professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. A board-certified oral and maxillofacial surgeon and Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, he specializes in facial trauma, salivary gland disorders, and orthognathic surgery. He has an extensive publication record in journals and textbooks, with his recent research focusing on patient-specific reconstruction techniques and evolving trends in facial trauma care. As a sought-after national and international lecturer, he is also active in the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), where he shapes the future of the field through education, research, and clinical leadership.
FOMM: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Turner: The peer-review system plays an important role in upholding the quality and credibility of scientific research, but it has many flaws. Reviews are shaped by personal biases, whether related to an author’s reputation, institution, or even the reviewer’s own perspectives, which compromise objectivity. Researchers from institutions with less resources or non-English-speaking backgrounds may also find themselves at a disadvantage. Finally, the system tends to reward novelty over reproducibility, which means that verifying data accuracy sometimes takes a back seat to publishing something new.
FOMM: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Turner: Bias is a natural human tendency, and completely eliminating it from the peer-review process is impossible, but it can be minimized with awareness and systems. When reviewing, I make a conscious effort to focus strictly on the quality of the research itself: the methodology, clarity, and scientific contribution, rather than who conducted it or where it was done. I avoid looking up the authors or their affiliations if they’re not already revealed, to prevent reputation or institutional bias from influencing my review. I also take time between reading and commenting to reflect, ensuring my feedback is thoughtful and objective rather than reactive. Ultimately, I try to approach each review as a constructive critique with the intent to improve the science and the manuscript, not judging the authors.
FOMM: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Turner: Yes, it’s absolutely important for authors to disclose any potential COI. Transparency is essential to maintaining trust in scientific research, and disclosure allows readers and reviewers to interpret findings with the right context. A COI doesn’t automatically mean the research is biased or invalid, but hiding one can raise serious ethical concerns and damage credibility. COIs, whether financial, professional, or personal, can influence how data are interpreted, which results are emphasized, or even how conclusions are framed. By openly declaring these connections, authors give reviewers and readers the chance to assess the work more fairly. In short, full disclosure doesn’t weaken a study, it just strengthens its integrity and reinforces the honesty that credible science depends on.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Philip A. Van Damme
Philip A. Van Damme, DMD, MD, PhD, MSc, is a highly trained Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon with educational backgrounds from Utrecht, Nijmegen, and Witten/Herdecke Universities. He practices the full breadth of the specialty across university hospitals, general hospitals, and private clinics, with specialized focus areas including tissue expansion, cleft lip-palate-alveolus surgery, periorbital surgery, traumatology, facial reconstruction, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, Noma management, infectious disease treatment, and facial aesthetics. He holds significant academic editorial roles, serving as Section Editor for the Journal of Cranio-MaxilloFacial Surgery (Research, Development and New Horizons section) and acting as a peer reviewer for a range of other professional journals.
Dr. Van Damme believes that peer review plays an indispensable role in scientific publishing, functioning as a critical safeguard to verify the ethics, honesty, reproducibility, and reliability of both research procedures and resultant findings. He stresses that a rigorous review must ensure that manuscript discussions are relevant to the study data, and that conclusions are drawn strictly from the presented results and contextualized against existing literature. In essence, he frames peer review as a foundational, truly scientific approach to evaluating scholarly work.
In Dr. Van Damme’s view, an optimal peer-review system is rooted in anonymous, independent expert evaluation—where reviewers remain unaware of the authors’ identities and affiliated institutions. He underscores that reviewers must possess genuine, in-depth knowledge of the study’s field and the relevant literature to deliver credible assessments. Against the backdrop of AI becoming fully integrated into medical publishing, he highlights that this rigorous peer-review framework has never been more critical. It serves as a vital tool to distinguish between verifiable scientific truth and misinformation, and to uphold the line between genuine research and academic fraud.
“Coming at age and being semi-retired from clinical practice, it is easier to allocate more time for reading and writing,” says Dr. Van Damme.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Takashi Kamio
Dr. Takashi Kamio is a lecturer in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology at Nippon Dental University. He earned his DDS in 1999 and his Ph.D. in 2003, both from Tokyo Dental College. His research focuses on oral and maxillofacial imaging, particularly advanced three-dimensional technologies. His current projects center on three-dimensional medical image engineering and 3D-printed medical models, which have significant clinical applications in surgical planning and medical education. He has extensive experience conducting peer reviews for multiple journals, including Frontiers of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine (FOMM). He is dedicated to advancing the field of oral and maxillofacial radiology by promoting rigorous scientific peer review and collaborative research. Learn more about him here.
In Dr. Kamio’s opinion, quality reviewers must have scientific integrity and evaluate research objectively and impartially. They need extensive field knowledge and must stay current with cutting-edge research to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a study's methodology. Essential qualities include meticulous attention to detail, the ability to provide constructive feedback, adherence to ethical standards (such as maintaining confidentiality and avoiding conflicts), and clear communication. Ultimately, quality reviewers protect scientific integrity while respecting intellectual contributions.
Despite being anonymous and unpaid, Dr. Kamio finds peer review to be deeply rewarding. It is a professional responsibility that ensures scientific rigor. He thinks that reviewing keeps him up to date on cutting-edge research and enables him to assist authors in improving their work. Peer review is reciprocal; he also benefits from his colleagues' feedback on his research. As a non-native English speaker, he sometimes worries that his review comments may not convey the intended nuance or constructive spirit. Nevertheless, the intellectual engagement and the opportunity to influence the direction of his field provide intrinsic motivation beyond compensation.
“FOMM is an international journal attracting high-quality submissions from diverse regions and dental/maxillofacial specialties. Its focus on both traditional and innovative approaches to oral and maxillofacial medicine aligns perfectly with my research interests, especially advanced imaging techniques and three-dimensional analysis. It serves as an excellent platform for disseminating cutting-edge research to a global community of clinicians and researchers. Its reputation and international influence make it ideal for advancing oral and maxillofacial sciences,” says Dr. Kamio.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
