In 2017, we began recognizing reviewers who have distinguished themselves by consistently providing insightful, detailed, and valuable input to our authors and our editorial team. We continue the tradition this year by inducting seven remarkable reviewers into the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame. The editors thank and congratulate these reviewers, all of whom shared why they participate in the peer review process below:

Swapnil Hiremath, MD @hswapnil.medsky.social
University of Ottawa
Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada

“The main reason I review is that I am grateful to all the wise and wonderful people who have reviewed papers I have authored over the years. As others have said before me – one should aim to review (at least) three papers for every paper they write. It is also an enriching and learning opportunity. You get to learn about new science, studies, results, therapeutics as they are happening, sometimes before they make it to the public domain. Most importantly, I make a point of reading my fellow reviewers’ and editorial comments. You get to learn from them since often they will pick up things you miss in your critical appraisal, or they may have a different perspective on the science. I started off being more of the classic ‘Reviewer 2’ showing off my nit-picking abilities, but with time and experience, realized it is more useful to give kind and constructive feedback to the authors in a palatable style. The next time you get a review invitation, click ‘Accept’ and in time you may get your own ‘Hall of Fame’ status!”

Michelle O’Shaughnessy, MD
University of Galway

“Peer review is essential to ensuring that published manuscripts are valid, balanced, and relevant. Selflessly, participating in peer review enables me to contribute to medical advancement and serve the international scientific community. Selfishly, I personally gain from participating in peer review: it acts as a vehicle for me to apply and therefore maintain my critical appraisal skills, and it exposes me to cutting-edge research questions and methodologies within my field. My main advice to new reviewers is to learn from an experienced mentor, be methodical and consistent in your approach, and offer suggestions for improvement rather than simply critiquing.“

Nicholas Selby, MD
University of Nottingham
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton

“The peer review process is fundamental to the dissemination of robust and trustworthy research. By participating in peer review for high-quality journals such as AJKD, I feel like I am contributing to the process of maintaining scientific rigor in the face of a proliferation of medical journals, and in a world in which misinformation is rife and increasingly difficult to identify. On a personal level, I gain from reading and devoting time to thinking about the latest research in my field of interest. And as an active researcher, I see the process of peer review from both sides. I want my research to be evaluated in a balanced and objective way, and how can I expect this if I don’t perform this for others?”

J. Pedro Teixeira, MD
@NephCrit_NM | @nephcrit.bsky.social
University of New Mexico

“In an era of rampant disinformation online and in social media, well-executed peer review is more important than ever. In addition, if done well the process benefits both the reviewer and the authors. On one hand, I have learned so much about my own field of critical care nephrology—from the foundational research to cutting-edge advancements—by investing time in carrying out thoughtful peer reviews.  Though it’s often hard work, I am a better researcher, teacher, and doctor for it.  On the other hand, I always strive in my reviews to be detailed, precise, and comprehensive in my criticism while always being constructive, with the ultimate goal of improving the manuscript. I recommend that early career peer reviewers aim to write reviews that they themselves would appreciate receiving in response to their own manuscript submissions.”

Karen Woo, MD @karenwoomd.bsky.social
University of California, Los Angeles

“Peer review makes all of our work better. It’s a privilege to review my colleagues’ research, be one of the first to learn about their cutting edge investigations, and ask really accomplished smart people questions about what they did and what they found.”

Amy A. Yau, MD
@amyaimei | @amyaimei.bsky.social
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

“I participate in peer review because if we want to continue to have high-quality journal articles, then we need to invest the time into providing high-quality peer review. I appreciate my time as an AJKD Editorial Intern teaching me that finding good peer reviewers is not an easy task. For new reviewers, it’s OK to be critical; you are helping the authors make their manuscript into the best possible final product!”

Carmine Zoccali, MD @carminezoccali
IPNET (associazione IPertensione, NEfrologia,  Trapianto renale), Reggio Calabria, Italy
Renal Research Institute, New York, United States
Institute of Biology and Molecular Genetics (BIOGEM), Ariano Irpino, Italy

“Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific progress, ensuring that research is rigorously evaluated for accuracy, validity, and originality before publication. By participating in the peer review process, I contribute to maintaining high standards in my field, fostering a culture of constructive feedback and continuous improvement. For new reviewers, my advice is to approach each manuscript with an open mind, provide clear and respectful feedback, and remember that your role is to help both authors and the scientific community advance knowledge. Strive for fairness, confidentiality, and thoroughness in every review.”

Congratulations again to these reviewers! The full list of reviewers in the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame is available here.

2025 AJKD Top Reviewers

In addition to these reviewers, the editors wish to highlight and thank the following reviewers who are recognized as AJKD Top Reviewers in 2025. Over the last year, each AJKD Top Reviewer provided 3 or more helpful reviews that helped us sort through and determine which articles ultimately make it to publication.

• Michael Allon
• Sunil Badve
• Marisa Battistella
• Sunil Bhandari
• Edwina Brown
• Bernard Canaud
• Cynthia Delgado
• Samira Farouk
• John Gill
• L. Parker Gregg
• Yoshio Hall
• Peter Harris
• Caroline Hsu
• Francesca Mallamaci
• Daniel Murphy
• Devika Nair
• Keith Norris
• Biff Palmer
• Andrew Rule
• Judy Savige
• Ankur Shah
• Silvi Shah
• Meghan Sise
• Maarten Taal
• Marcello Tonelli
• Howard Trachtman
• Delphine Tuot
• Sri Lekha Tummalapalli
• Daniel Weiner
• Scott Wenderfer
• Scott Westphal
• James Wetmore
• Jay Wish
• Bessie Young