Nanomaterials | Interview with Editor-in-Chief of Nanomaterials—Prof. Dr. Eugenia (Éva) Valsami-Jones

We spoke with Prof. Dr. Eugenia (Éva) Valsami-Jones, who was recently appointed Editor-in-Chief of Nanomaterials (ISSN: 2079-4991), to learn more about her research, her decision to become Editor-in-Chief, and her experience with MDPI.

Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones received her PhD in geochemistry in 1990 and worked as an environmental mineralogist between 1996 and 2011. From there, she began teaching at the University of Birmingham as Professor of environmental nanoscience, where she was then appointed Chair of Environmental Nanoscience and Director of the Facility for Environmental Nanoscience Analysis and Characterisation (FENAC).

Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones’ research has focused on the understanding of reactivity at the nanoscale, specifically the interactions of nanoparticles with pollutants, biota, and biomineralization processes. Her work has explored how nanomaterials could be applied in various ways to help solve both health and environmental issues. For the former, Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones has studied how nanomaterials could be used for drug delivery, both providing a shield for drugs and promoting efficient delivery. For the latter, Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones and her team have looked at the potential of the two-dimensional materials MXenes, as well as metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), at removing pollutants from the environment.

Further to this, Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones has pioneered novel methods for labeling nanomaterials, including using traceable stable isotopes.

In January of 2025, MDPI announced Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones as Editor-in-Chief of Nanomaterials.

The following is a short Q&A with Prof. Dr. Eugenia (Éva) Valsami-Jones, who shared her vision for the journal with us, as well as her views on the research area and open access publishing:

1. What made you want to become Editor-in-Chief of Nanomaterials?

I got to know Nanomaterials as an author first and had a pretty good experience publishing papers with them. Of course, not everything I submitted to the journal has been accepted! A few rejections are only healthy and right.

Some publishers can be extremely slow, and it’s frustrating. Sometimes it takes 6 months to get a paper back, by which point the science is out of date. Nanomaterials provided me with detailed reviews, and the process was fast enough to allow me to see that there was a benefit in publishing or becoming an author who regularly publishes with them.

At some point I stepped into the editorial department and was interviewed to see if I wanted to remain as an editor. During this interview it was mentioned that there was an Editor-in-Chief position coming up.

I think about publishing a lot as a scientist; it is essential to allow us to communicate our science. If it isn’t done right, it can harm the community and even the public who might be interested in the papers we publish. I wanted to become an Editor-in-Chief so that I could help support researchers and steer the field in the right direction.

2. How did the editorial department help with your transition to becoming Editor-in-Chief?

I can’t praise them enough; they have been so kind and patient with me. I had a 6–12-month transition period into the role, which, although insightful, hadn’t fully prepared me for the range and diversity of tasks that were at hand. Having such a supportive team that is patient with delays has been extremely helpful.

3. How do you, as Editor-in-Chief, make sure you are acting in the author’s best interest?

I act in the author’s best interest in two ways. I ensure that any decision I make as an Editor-in-Chief is in line with COPE and MDPI’s publication ethics guidelines, and I am never afraid to reject a paper. A colleague of mine once regretted publishing a paper due to the heavy criticism it received after it was published. This emphasized to me the importance of a rigorous review process. I am eager to uphold a great level of rigor and ensure only the best research is published.

4. What role do you play as Editor-in-Chief in maintaining and promoting research integrity?

Absolutely, a critical role. I am fully aware of the conditions papers must meet in order to uphold research integrity.

It is my duty as the Editor-in-Chief to make sure that any given paper is suitable for the journal, and I’m slowly feeling more confident about my abilities.

I’m currently involved in a number of papers that need to be reviewed for ethical reasons, and as much as I want to do this as fast as possible for everyone’s interest, I know I must scrutinize all the information that has been criticized until I’m confident I’ve given the right answer.

5. You currently have a Special Issue open with us about women in nanomaterials as part of the celebrations for 15 years of the journal. Could you tell us about your experience in running this Special Issue so far?

Interestingly, we have had input from both female and male colleagues in this Special Issue. It’s great that they see this as a chance to support the activity rather than feeling like it’s not their place to get involved.

Women are well represented in my team, not because I chose to actively promote them, but because I work well with them and there are lots of talented women out there. Oftentimes, women are less vocal about their capabilities, so I’m hoping this Special Issue encourages them to promote their work with more confidence.

STEM subjects are so male-dominated that we do need to try and level the playing field a little bit.

6. How does MDPI ensure that authors are put first during the submission and reviewing process?

As an author I have certain expectations from a journal, and I feel like these expectations are met by MDPI.  I had recently submitted a paper to a different journal and didn’t get confirmation that they’d received my paper for two weeks, which was very disappointing.

At MDPI, on the other hand, the journal and Editorial Office respond so quickly and politely, which is exactly what authors want. It is very personal, and the people I receive emails from are clearly “people’s people”; their responses are not stock MDPI replies, and they all have their own individual responses. There’s a clear effort to make the authors feel looked after from the word go.

7. How does MDPI ensure manuscripts get visibility once they are published?

Open access is the obvious first step to ensuring papers are accessible to everyone. A second is grouping papers and giving them a platform, like with Special Issues. Sometimes you read a specific paper and then see that it is part of a Special Issue, which results in you finding another paper that you want to read that you wouldn’t have thought about otherwise.

8. What benefits do you think you have received from being an Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board Member at MDPI?

It’s given me the opportunity to think deeply about publishing and how I could contribute to making it better for everyone.  I also love that I am able to jump from one research field to another. Having a broader oversight of papers in the wider field of nanomaterials, far beyond my own area of expertise, is very exciting. I get to read nanomaterial-related papers grounded on topics such as fundamental physics, engineering, medicine, and other things I couldn’t pretend to know but would love to learn more about. Reading these papers has opened my horizons and somewhat influenced the direction of my research.

We thank Prof. Dr. Valsami-Jones for meeting with us to discuss her current research and her role as Editor-in-Chief. We wish her every success in her research and her work with Nanomaterials.