We are thrilled to share the updated Exceptional Reviewers List for 2025. This program was designed to recognize and honor scholars who have delivered consistently exceptional review reports to our journal. Committed to fostering rigorous research and promoting knowledge exchange, Energies (ISSN: 1996-1073) recognizes the significant role our reviewers play in maintaining the quality and integrity of the articles we publish. According to surveys conducted in 2024, 92% of our authors rate the peer-review process as being good or excellent, thanks to our pool of excellent reviewers.

We spoke with Dr. Federico Minelli, one of the Exceptional Reviewers for 2025, to hear about his scientific research experience.

Name: Dr. Federico Minelli
Affiliation: Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Piazzale V. Tecchio, 80, 80125 Naples, Italy

1. Could you give a brief introduction of yourself to the readers?
My name is Federico Minelli, and I conduct research in applied thermodynamics and heat transfer for buildings. My research includes robust energy optimization of building HVAC systems, smart building systems, energy efficiency, and the integration of renewable energy systems in buildings. I collaborate with researchers across Europe, North America, Africa, and Asia.

2. How was your experience of reviewing for Energies?
The reviewing system is very straightforward and efficient. The platform is intuitive to use and actually is probably one of my favorite platforms among those I have used as a reviewer. Communicating with the editorial team is easy and the editorial office responds promptly to requests, which supports rigorous, timely reviews and predictable timelines for both reviewers and authors.

3. Do you have any suggestions for improving our review process?
Tangible reviewer recognition (e.g., discounts or other benefits) can help sustain high-quality reviews. Considering the increasing use of AI-assisted technologies, a systematic editorial check of references and other sensitive elements of manuscripts could enhance reliability without slowing the process. At the moment, uncontrolled use of AI is my main concern. For example, it is often difficult for reviewers to verify the coherence of all the references, so introducing an editorial step in which an assistant editor performs this task would help.

4. What motivated you to participate actively in the peer review process, and what do you find most rewarding about it?
I treat reviewing as a collaboration. I help authors strengthen their work and provide constructive feedback to support improvements. In turn, it helps me stay up to date on current and emerging research trends. It also informs my editorial actions and responsibilities.

5. How do you manage your time and balance your responsibilities as a researcher and a reviewer?
I find both research and reviewing to be rewarding, focused activities. I usually schedule dedicated time slots in the early and late hours of the workday to review papers and stay updated on recent publications. I also read during my morning commute. I typically plan one-hour sessions for reviewing, to maintain focus. For each review, I perform two passes (overview first, then technical details).

6. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are starting to participate in peer reviews?
My first suggestion to scholars in their early career or doctoral stages is to discuss their review with supervisors before submitting it. At the beginning, consider co-reviewing with them. Also, read papers at several levels: first for overall consistency, then for details. Provide actionable suggestions rather than general impressions and state a clear recommendation with reasons. Don’t skip reading sections that are sometimes taken for granted, such as methods or equations. Since technical correctness is primarily assessed by reviewers, give methods and equations careful attention.

7. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with the advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
I am not against the use of AI, but authors who use it should always provide a clear declaration. AI can improve how we manage scientific research, write papers, and communicate scientific results. However, it is our responsibility to ensure the human component remains central. Scientific judgment should remain human, and AI use should be thoroughly disclosed. It is also an important editorial responsibility to perform in-depth checks. Ensuring that reviewers are human and not AI agents is paramount for the trustworthiness of the process. Implementing measures that discourage verbatim pasting into the review system from external sources could help. However, targeted editorial checks of review reports can also raise quality without intrusive measures.