1. Could you give us a brief introduction of yourself to the readers?
To be honest, I believe I have a complex and multifaceted personality. Regarding my research activity, I usually define myself as a sedimentologist and a quaternary geologist, with experience in coastal marine and continental paleoenvironments, and solid competence in stratigraphy and geological mapping. I entered the world of research late, as an adult, and this was one of the main obstacles to the possibility of an academic career. Despite this, I was lucky enough to meet people, within my university who believed in my qualities and who supported me as much as they could. I collaborated with research projects at the Earth Sciences Department (now the Department of Physics and Geology) at the University of Perugia (Italy) as a Research Assistant/Research Fellow (between 2003 and 2015), and I am still collaborating as an expert on the subject of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (from 2018 onwards). From 2019, my main job is as a tenured natural science teacher in a high school. I actually never stopped being an independent researcher, although my current work commitments do not leave me much time for study and research. On the other hand, having no time constraints, I can more easily indulge my interests and passions. During the last two decades, I have continued collaborating with Italian and foreign experts and researchers in several fields within geosciences, being involved in multifaceted research projects, leading to the publication of scientific journals, and the presentation of results in congresses and workshops. To be involved as a reviewer with MDPI has been a way to stay up to date with the advances in various fields within Earth Sciences.

3. What are your opinions about the scientific publication market and what do you think about the open access model?
I believe that the editorial offer in the scientific field is really wide and varied today. This guarantees the maximum possibility for researchers to publish the results of their work and the maximum diffusion of new ideas. Likewise, this allows for a remote dialogue within the scientific community. Open access is just an editorial choice and offers the possibility to further disseminate the results of research. This is what matters beyond the used media without sacrificing the quality of the product and its scientific merit.

4. Have you ever encountered any difficulties when you conduct research? How did you overcome them?
One of the main problems for researchers, at least in my experience, is the chronic lack of funding, especially for basic research, which risks clipping the wings of many bright minds. Laboratory analyses are often expensive, as well as long or far-field campaigns. Over the years, I have seen that it is possible to overcome the problem through a network of collaborations between experts in different fields, which still allows research to be conducted and the results to be published. According to my experience, I believe almost nothing is impossible with the right approach.

5. What qualities do you think young scientists need? What qualities do you think reviewers need?
I have always believed that dogmas cannot and should not exist in any scientific field. There are data, evidence, and theories that interpret them: this data-interpretation dichotomy should always remain clear and distinct. A good theory interprets a substantial amount of the collected data; new data will allow to confirm, modify, or reject the theory. This is the basis for scientific progress, and this is what I have always tried to convey to students at any level. Good scientific work does not find all the answers, but one that asks new questions. This is a phrase that I often heard pronounced in my formative years. Thus, I believe the main qualities scientists need are curiosity, passion for their field of research, and a rigorous methodological approach, the will to collaborate and discuss with other researchers also helps. Moreover, the honesty and humility to recognize one's limits and those of science, without forcing data into prepackaged models, is also relevant. Likewise, intellectual honesty is the main quality required of a reviewer. I mean, the ability to read and evaluate someone else’s work without preconceptions, proposing constructive comments, underlining any errors made and any critical issues. While respecting what is in any case the result of a research work, the reviewer should insinuate doubts, propose reflections, and sometimes direct on the best path while remembering the role of referee.