2026 Inductees to the AJKD Reviewer Hall of Fame

Posted on October 22, 2026 by AJKDblog in MISC // 0 Comments

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 six 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:

Emmanuel Adomako, MD
@EAAdomako.bsky.social | @EAAdomako
University of Kansas Medical Center

“I see reviewing manuscripts as a privilege and an opportunity to contribute to advances in science and medicine. What I learned as an AJKD Editorial Intern, through my interactions with peers and editors, has fundamentally shaped my reviews. My advice for new reviewers is to first appreciate the field and the manuscript, then consider how best to present the manuscript to answer the field’s questions.“

Alexandra Bicki, MD, MPH
University of California, San Francisco

“Science has always been a team sport—and being on a team means being a good teammate! I have benefited tremendously from my own mentors’ constructive feedback, so serving as a peer reviewer is a way I can ‘pay it forward.’ For new reviewers, I suggest not just critiquing the work, but also offering concrete suggestions to help make it better—communicating our findings clearly is, ultimately, what will advance the field for the benefit of our patients.”

S. Vanita Jassal, MD
@vatuhn
University Health Network, University of Toronto

“Peer review is key to maintaining the quality and integrity of medical research. Reviewers provide an independent perspective, helping authors identify potential blind spots, challenge assumptions, and clarify findings before wider dissemination. I participate because I find peer review rewarding and intellectually stimulating; it challenges my own thinking and provides an opportunity for continued learning. When mentoring new reviewers, I encourage them to distinguish between flaws that undermine the validity of findings, limitations that cannot reasonably be remedied but should be acknowledged, and issues that can be addressed through revision. Above all, I emphasize the importance of being kind and constructive. Peer review should be rigorous in its assessment, but respectful in its delivery.”

Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

“Peer review is an essential process for maintaining the quality, rigor, and integrity of scientific research. I participate in this process because I learn a lot from reading and evaluating others’ work, and I feel it is a way to contribute to the scientific community. My advice to new reviewers is to write the review you would want to receive. Be respectful, specific and clear in your comments, and explain why you think something is a strength or weakness of the manuscript. The goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work.”

Rachel Shulman, MD
@shulman_rachel
University of Pennsylvania

“I am probably not the first contributor to AJKD to think of peer review as a task growing out of the oldest and arguably noblest tradition of medicine–the professional path that takes one from being a student–a blank slate of anxious good intentions–to being the teacher and advisor of others. (Not incidentally, I started on my own path to peer reviewing at AJKD as an anxious AJKD Editorial Intern). The challenges posed by this task of professional growth are only made tougher because medicine is a rapidly progressing field in which one is constantly thrust back into the student role. When I prepare a critical response to the work of my colleagues, I am very much aware that the qualities of a valuable reviewer are precisely those I once observed in the teachers I cherished as a novice–a passion for precise thinking, an unwillingness to stray from material fact, a capacity to extract meaning from complexity, and perhaps above all, the intellectual modesty to forego the temptation to score points off the students one is meant to enlighten. For those who are on the other end of peer review– invariably experts in their fields who are now asked to submit to the salutary rigor of professional criticism–it is the measure of the successful peer reviewer that they will feel they have been treated as respected partners in a collaborative enterprise that will make the work better.”

Tariq Shafi, MD
@drtariqshafi.bsky.social
Baylor Scott & White Health

“I participate in peer review because I believe it is fundamental to advancing high-quality, clinically meaningful science. It is also an opportunity to give back to the scientific community, recognizing how much I have benefited over the years from the thoughtful critiques and insights of reviewers of my own work. I view peer review not simply as a process of identifying weaknesses, but as an opportunity to help authors strengthen their research, sometimes by offering fresh perspectives or suggesting analyses they may not have considered. Ultimately, the goal is to help good science reach the scientific community and receive the recognition it deserves.

My advice to new reviewers is twofold: First, focus on the important scientific and clinical issues rather than getting lost in minutiae. Second, write every review as though it were not anonymous and you were delivering your feedback directly to the authors, face-to-face. Constructive criticism should be rigorous, fair, and respectful.”

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

2026 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 2026. 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.