Reviewing the high-quality papers that are submitted to the CAR Journal (CARJ) requires a dedicated academic team focused on maintaining high standards for excellence.
The CARJ is pleased to congratulate the recipients of the 2026 Outstanding Reviewer Awards.
Editor-in-Chief Dr. Michael Patlas says the recipients are a distinguished group of radiologists and imaging scientists who provide high-quality reviews in a timely fashion.
“Their work allows the CARJ to maintain its competitive edge with ultra-fast turnaround and acceptance times of exceptional scientific and educational manuscripts.”
Dr. Bo Gong, one of the Outstanding Reviewers for 2026, says it is a true honour to be recognized.
“Canadian radiology is a relatively small and close-knit community, and it is a privilege to contribute to the research and scholarship that support this important community. Peer review is often work that happens quietly behind the scenes, so I am very grateful that this contribution is being acknowledged.”
He says that being a reviewer is an opportunity to contribute to the quality of literature circulating the radiology community and is very much a learning process.
“Reviewing allows me to stay engaged with new ideas and developments, which is particularly valuable in fast-moving areas such as radiology AI,” he noted. “I see peer review as a collegial process – helping authors strengthen their work while ensuring that what ultimately reaches readers is rigorous, clear, and clinically meaningful.”
Dr. Gong says it takes curiosity, attention to detail, and a willingness to take the time required to understand a manuscript fairly.
“I think a good review should be fair and constructive – acknowledging what a study does well while being clear about where it can be strengthened. I also want to thank the journal and its editorial team for creating an inviting and supportive experience for reviewers. That makes the time and effort involved in reviewing much more rewarding and is greatly appreciated.”
The work of these reviewers is not done yet. Dr. Patlas projects 2026 to be a record year for the CARJ in terms of submissions, having received 248 submissions as of the middle of August.
Congratulations to all the Outstanding Reviewers and thank you for your dedication.
| Mostafa Alabousi | Paul Babyn | Jacky Chow | Linda Chu |
| Francois Cornelis | Renato Cuocolo | Birgit Ertl-Wagner | Bo Gong |
| Kate Hanneman | Iain Kirkpatrick | Matthew McInnes | Mariano Scaglione |
| David Volders |
Breast MRI Analysis Selected as Best Paper
Out of the hundreds of submissions made to the CARJ each year, the editorial team selects a stand-out publication for recognition as the Editor’s Award for Best Paper.
This year, the CARJ Editorial Board has selected Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis as the winning paper.
According to the paper, while preoperative breast MRI can detect additional cancers that are occulted on mammography and ultrasound, debate still exists as to whether these detections impact clinical outcomes.
“The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on whether additional information on disease extent obtained with preoperative breast MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer affects surgical management, rates of recurrence, survival, re-excision, and early detection of bilateral cancer,” the study outlined.
The authors analyzed clinical trials in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to compare outcomes in cases with preoperative MRI and cases without.
“Use of MRI resulted in decreased rates of reoperations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.85), re-excisions (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89), and recurrence (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.90),” the study found. “Increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancers led to a reduction in metachronous contralateral breast cancer (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.85). Hazard ratios for recurrence-free and overall survival were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.53 to 1.12) and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.74 to 1.07).”
Congratulations to all authors involved in this insightful project.
| Derek Muradali | Andrea Eisen | Glenn G. Fletcher | Samantha Fienberg |
| Ralph George | Claire Holloway | Supriya Kulkarni | Jean M. Seely |