Interview with Dr. Muthuraj Arunpandian—Catalysts 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award Winner
Name: Dr. Muthuraj Arunpandian
Affiliation: School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Republic of Korea
Research interests: nanoparticles, material characterization, nanomaterials, nanomaterials synthesis, materials, nanostructured materials, X-ray diffraction, material characteristics, SEM analysis, materials processing
The following is a short interview with Dr. Muthuraj Arunpandian:
1. Could you give a brief introduction to yourself to the readers? Could you introduce your current research direction and provide an update on your progress?
Dr. Muthuraj Arunpandian. I was born in Sivakasi, Tamilnadu, India, in 1993, and I still live in the same town. Presently, I'm an active nanomaterials researcher at the School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, South Korea. In 2023, I became an International Research Professor at the School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, South Korea. I completed my bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Sri Kaliswari College, Sivakasi, Tamilnadu, India, and completed my Doctorate from Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, Tamilnadu, India. My study focuses on developing high-performance electrocatalysts and photocatalysts for environmental applications. I have strong academic and research achievements. My research interest includes photocatalysis and HER/OER electrocatalysis.
In my research career, I have more opportunities to pursue my interests and goals. Throughout my academic career, I have continued to collaborate with researchers in other fields and participated in complex research projects, which has led to the publication of scientific publications and the presentation of results at conferences and workshops. Being a reviewer for MDPI has allowed me to stay well-informed about the advancements in numerous domains of environmental applications.
2. Could you share with us your emotions upon winning this award?
I’m truly honored and grateful to receive this award. It’s a meaningful recognition of my commitment and effort as a prospective reviewer for the journal. This moment holds great significance for me, and I look forward to continuing my growth and contributing even more in the future.
3. What factors motivate you to be a reviewer for Catalysts?
I am inspired to serve as a reviewer for Catalysts because it allows me to help develop high-quality, impactful catalysis research. Reviewing allows me to remain on top of current scientific breakthroughs, improve my critical thinking, and engage in intellectual discourse with other researchers. I'm also motivated by a strong sense of academic responsibility to assist in maintaining high standards, provide constructive comments to authors, and contribute to the integrity and advancement of the scientific community. Catalysts, as a recognized journal with an emphasis on cutting-edge topics, complements my research interests and commitment to supporting scientific achievement.
4. What are your tips for preparing a high-quality review report?
Yes, once you accept the manuscript for the review process, you should follow some guidelines. Mainly, you should maintain the review work confidentially. That means not discussing the manuscript with others or not sharing the results with anyone. Spend more time reading the manuscript to find the critical thinking and give a thoughtful review report. To check the following aspects of the manuscript: Is the design sound without fatal flaws? Are the methods and the statistical tests appropriate and up-to-date? Is the manuscript text writing clear and concise? Have the authors provided the limitations of the work? Do the title and the abstract convey the research content, findings, and significance? The reviewer should confirm whether the research work meets the prospects. Mainly, point out the positive and negative aspects of the manuscript and provide specific suggestions and comments for manuscript improvement.
5. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
Absolutely! In the peer review process, authors often face a variety of challenges when preparing and submitting their manuscripts. These challenges can arise at different stages of the research and writing process. Some manuscripts lack a clear, focused research question or objective. This makes it difficult for reviewers to understand the purpose of the study or how it contributes to the field. Some manuscripts fail to present original findings or do not make a meaningful contribution to the field. Authors sometimes fail to provide an up-to-date literature review. Mainly, they include insufficient detail in describing the methodology and a lack of clarity in the experimental design. Manuscripts are poorly organized, difficult to follow, or unclear. This can be due to poor writing and, sometimes, conclusions that aren’t supported by the data. Sometimes, the authors fail to address reviewer feedback adequately, by neglecting comments. Many authors struggle with the technical requirements of journal submissions, including formatting the manuscript correctly, preparing figures and tables according to the journal’s guidelines, or submitting the appropriate files. In the reference section, the authors also forget to format the references according to the journal’s requirements. Plagiarism is a serious issue for article publishing. Authors should always properly attribute sources and follow ethical guidelines for publishing.
6. We hope that the Outstanding Reviewer Award will open new opportunities for you. How does an award like this one help to support the career of a researcher such as yourself?
Yes, I strongly agree with this statement. This award will be a new open door for my future research career. It helps to create a strong academic reputation. This award will stand out on my CV and academic profile, it will strengthen grants and fellowship applications, and it will also improve my collaborative network. Mainly, it will increase the visibility in my research community.
7. Has being a reviewer affected how you prepare your manuscripts?
Serving as a reviewer has greatly influenced how I approach writing and preparing my manuscripts. Reviewing others' work has helped me understand what makes a manuscript strong, clear, and compelling to a reader. I've become more concerned with the clarity of my research question, the logical flow of reasoning, and the accuracy of data presentation and analysis. It has also increased my awareness of potential reviewer problems, such as missing references, methodological clarity, or limitations. As a result, I want to address these issues proactively. Overall, reviewing has enhanced both my critical thinking and attention to detail, resulting in higher-quality contributions.
8. What qualities do you think young scientists need?
Young scientists face a range of challenges and opportunities in their careers. To navigate these effectively, specific qualities are critical to their success, growth, and impact in the area. A solid research strategy is dependent on your field and objectives. In my opinion, the most important requirements for young scientists are critical thinking, planning, and designing their research work with a focus on future perspectives, ethical integrity, collaboration with other scientific groups, excellent communication skills, and passion. It is motivating for scientists to work long hours and solve tough issues.
9. As the winner of this award, is there something you want to express or someone you wish to thank most?
As the winner of this award, I feel deeply honored and incredibly grateful. First and foremost, I want to thank my colleagues and mentors whose guidance and support have been invaluable throughout this journey. I also extend my heartfelt appreciation to my family and friends for their unwavering encouragement. This achievement wouldn’t have been possible without their belief in me. I’m excited to continue learning, growing, and contributing more to the field.