May-June 2018 Reviewer of the Issue - Sherri M. Donat Sherri M. Donat June 2018 Sherri M. Donat, MD, FACS is an Urologic Oncologist who specializes in medical and surgical treatment of genitourinary cancers. Dr. Donat completed her undergraduate studies and Medical degree at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. She completed her General surgery and Urology residency at the University of Oklahoma and then her fellowship training in urologic oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Following completion of her fellowship training she was on staff at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston Texas where she served as an Assistant Professor of Urology for three years treating all types of genitourinary cancers. Dr. Donat then moved back to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 1996 where she remains today as an Attending Surgeon in Urology and as a Professor of Urology at New York Hospital Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. Dr. Donat has focused both her research and institutional activities on the improvement of perioperative care and outcomes for patients undergoing major GU oncologic surgeries. The centerpiece of her career at MSKCC has been the establishment of evidence based patient care pathways (ERAS) for the five major surgical procedures performed by the Urology Service at MSKCC in 1996 including radical prostatectomy, radical and partial nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, and retroperitoneal node dissection, which are continually updated as new evidentiary data is published or if we determine changes need to be implemented based on automated quarterly morbidity/mortality reports. For the past several years, her academic research efforts have been centered on raising awareness of the need and benefits of accurate adverse event reporting to establish an international standard for reporting surgical morbidity in urologic oncology. In collaboration with our European colleagues her proposed reporting surgical complications methodology for urologic procedures has been accepted internationally and culminated in the establishment of surgical reporting guidelines by the European Urologic Association (Eur Urol. 2012 Feb;61(2):341-9), for which she served as an external advisor, as well as the establishment of guidelines for authors reporting surgical experiences in the major urologic peer review journals including J Urol, Urology, British J Urol and European Urology for which she also serves as a reviewer. In addition, she served as an advisor to the the international minimally invasive society, for the creation of the international database for open and robotic radical cystectomy that has facilitated the comparison of surgical series and outcomes. She has written 97 peer reveiw publication, multiple chapters, as well as serving as a course director and session moderator at the AUA national meeting, abstract reveiwer for the AUA and EUA meetings, as well as making multiple presentations at national and international forums. In addition, on a national level, she has been appointed to leadership roles in the American Urological Association (AUA) serving as a member of the AUA Quality Assurance and Patient Safety Committee and the AUA data committee, and as the Chair of AUA national guideline committee for follow-up of Renal Neoplasm’s, all of which are centered around establishing guidelines, quality measures, and methodologies for accurate data collection and measurement related to improving quality of patient care on a national level. She has also played an integral role in national and international activities, including the Progress Review Group for Bladder and Renal Cancer at the NCI/NIH, the Society of International Urology Guidelines Panel Bladder Preservation Committee, and contributes time and expertise to the Austrian American Foundation/ESU Master class and EUA in an effort to improve the quality of surgical care globally. Careful and fair-minded evaluation of scientific articles is an important scholarly contribution and a gratifying duty in academics. Peer review is a vital process for any journal and enables publication of innovative research that meets the highest standards of quality. Dr. Cheh was chosen by editorial board of The Urology Journal for his valuable and timely review of manuscript”.