Join us as we talk to our Metabolites Exceptional Reviewer 2025, Dr. Simona Pichini, to discuss her scholarly insights and journey as a reviewer for Metabolites (ISSN: 2218-1989).

Name: Dr. Simona Pichini
Affiliation: National Centre on Addiction and Doping, National Institute of Health, 00161 Rome, Italy
Interests: clinical pharmacotoxicology; forensic pharmacotoxicology; psychoactive substances; doping agents

The following is an interview with Dr. Simona Pichini:

Can you briefly introduce yourself and the main content of your current research?
I am an Italian pharmacotoxicologist currently working at the Italian National Institute of Health. I serve as the Director of the National Centre on Addiction and Doping. My expertise lies in the pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics of classical drugs of abuse, new psychoactive substances, and doping agents in both conventional and non-conventional biological matrices.
I hold a master’s degree in pharmaceutical chemistry and technology (Sapienza University, Rome, November 1986, cum laude), a master’s degree in pharmacy (Sapienza University, Rome, July 1987, cum laude), and a PhD in Clinical Pharmacology (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, February 2005, cum laude).
I have authored over 400 scientific publications, including journal articles, book chapters, and technical reports (H-index: 55). I serve as the technical-scientific advisor for Italian free telephone helplines on alcohol, drugs of abuse, tobacco, doping, and gambling.
The centre I direct operates as the Italian National Early Warning System on New Psychoactive Substances and serves as a scientific expert center for the European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA). I am a member of the Editorial Boards of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. Since 2024, I have served as Secretary of TIAFT, and in 2010 I was awarded the “Award of Excellence in Forensic Toxicology,” the first time this honor was awarded to a woman by TIAFT.

When and how did you first become aware of the Metabolites journal? What attracts you most about this journal?
I have been aware of MDPI journals, including Metabolites, for many years and have collaborated with the publisher in different roles, such as author, reviewer, and Guest Editor. My research background in pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the study of psychoactive substances and doping agents fits well with the scope of several MDPI journals.
I chose Metabolites in particular for research focused on metabolite analysis of psychoactive substances. What attracts me most to the journal is its impact factor, high visibility, and the rapid review and publication process. As a researcher, timely publication and journal metrics are extremely important, since scientific evaluation is often strongly linked to publication output and journal impact.

What are the key factors and aspects that you consider most when reviewing a manuscript?
When reviewing a manuscript, I primarily focus on the scientific rationale, clarity of the objectives, and soundness of the study design. I carefully evaluate whether the methods are appropriate and rigorous, especially in areas related to pharmacology and metabolite analysis. I also consider the originality and relevance of the results, as well as the coherence between results, discussion, and conclusions. Finally, I pay attention to clarity of presentation, being particularly supportive of non-native English-speaking authors, with the aim of providing constructive feedback that helps improve high-potential studies.

Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
Based on my reviewing experience, the most common problems I encounter are a lack of clear scientific rationale and poorly defined study objectives. Authors often present interesting data but fail to clearly explain why the study was conducted or what specific question it addresses. I also frequently see methodological weaknesses or insufficient detail, particularly in analytical and pharmacokinetic studies, which affects reproducibility.
Another recurring issue is overinterpretation of results, with conclusions that go beyond what the data can support. In addition, manuscripts may suffer from structural and language clarity problems, especially for non-native English speakers. These issues rarely reflect poor science, but they can significantly reduce the impact of otherwise valuable research if not properly addressed.

Do you have anything to say/share with early career researchers?
I would encourage early career researchers to focus on building strong scientific foundations, starting from clear research questions and solid study design. I have already emphasized during this interview how important it is to view peer review as a learning opportunity rather than a judgment, and I strongly believe that constructive revisions are often what transform a good idea into a strong publication.
I would also advise them to seek mentorship, collaborate actively, and not be discouraged by critical feedback. Revisions, rejections, and reviewer comments are all part of academic growth. Finally, investing time in clarity of writing and transparency of methods is essential, as good science deserves to be communicated clearly and effectively.

Have you encountered manuscripts with overinterpreted conclusions? How would you advise authors to balance data and conclusions logically?
Yes, I frequently encounter manuscripts with overinterpreted conclusions, and this is an issue I have already touched on earlier in the interview. I would advise authors to ensure that their conclusions are strictly supported by the data presented, without extending claims beyond the study design or results. A logical balance can be achieved by clearly distinguishing between what the data demonstrates and what remains speculative, and by openly discussing limitations. This approach strengthens scientific credibility and ultimately improves the quality of the manuscript.

Integrated multi-omics studies (e.g., metabolomics with microbiome or proteomics) are becoming increasingly popular. What additional aspects should reviewers focus on when evaluating such interdisciplinary manuscripts?
When reviewing integrated multi-omics studies, I pay particular attention to the biological coherence between the different omics layers and whether their integration is driven by a clear scientific question rather than by data availability alone. Reviewers should assess the quality and robustness of each individual dataset, as well as the appropriateness and transparency of the data integration and statistical approaches.
It is also important to evaluate whether the conclusions truly reflect the added value of integration, rather than restating findings from single-omics analyses. Clear explanation of limitations and interdisciplinary clarity are essential to ensure that complex results remain scientifically sound and interpretable.

How do you think authors should approach AI tools when preparing manuscripts?
I believe authors should approach AI tools as supportive resources rather than substitutes for scientific thinking. As I have already mentioned earlier in this interview, AI can be very helpful for improving language clarity, structure, and readability, especially for non-native English speakers.
However, authors remain fully responsible for the scientific content, data interpretation, and ethical integrity of their work. AI tools should be used transparently and appropriately, ensuring that conclusions, analyses, and originality are driven by the researchers themselves and not generated without critical oversight.

Metabolites encourages data sharing and reproducibility in the manuscripts. What advice would you give to authors on this?
I would advise authors to view data sharing and reproducibility not as formal requirements, but as essential components of good scientific practice. Clear and detailed descriptions of methods, transparent reporting of data processing, and proper annotation of datasets are crucial to allow others to reproduce and build upon the work.
Whenever possible, authors should make raw and processed data accessible in recognized repositories and clearly explain how the data can be reused. This approach strengthens the credibility of the study and increases its long-term scientific value, which ultimately benefits both the authors and the research community.

For non-native English authors, how do you provide constructive yet respectful suggestions on language issues?
When working with non-native English authors, I am always very careful to separate scientific quality from language issues, as I have already emphasized earlier in this interview. I provide constructive and respectful suggestions, focusing on clarity and readability rather than criticizing the authors’ writing skills.
I try to highlight that language problems do not reflect poor science and encourage the use of professional editing services or AI-based language tools when appropriate. My goal is to support authors in improving communication while ensuring that their scientific message is presented clearly and accurately.

Your work bridges critical scientific research and directly influences public health policy (such as the control of tobacco, alcohol, and doping agents). From your experience, how can scientific evidence be more effectively translated into public health practice? Furthermore, what key considerations should scientists bear in mind when communicating scientific uncertainties to assist policymakers?
From my experience, the most effective way to translate scientific evidence into public health practice is to ensure that research findings are communicated clearly, accurately, and in a policy-relevant format.
I have seen that policymakers benefit most when data are presented alongside practical recommendations and potential impacts, rather than just technical details. It is also crucial to establish ongoing dialogue between scientists and decision-makers, so research informs policy in real time, for example in areas like alcohol monitoring, new psychoactive substances, or doping control.
When communicating scientific uncertainties, I make sure to distinguish between what is well-established and what remains unknown, providing context for the limitations without overstating the certainty of the findings. Being transparent about uncertainties helps policymakers make informed decisions while maintaining credibility and trust in the scientific process. I always emphasize that clear, balanced communication is essential for translating evidence into effective public health actions.

Are there additional ways journals like Metabolites could better support reviewers and authors beyond the current system?
I think journals could further enhance engagement by offering more structured mentorship programs, recognition for reviewing efforts, and flexible deadlines. Small measures, like reviewer vouchers, APC discounts, or acknowledgment of contributions in webinars or Special Issues, can make a meaningful difference. Supporting early-career researchers in navigating peer review and editorial processes is also key, as it strengthens both the quality of submissions and the overall scientific community.

To ensure your insights are presented in the best possible way, the Editorial Office will review the interview content. The final selection and editing of answers are intended to create a cohesive and impactful presentation for our readers. We sincerely thank you for sharing your expertise with the Metabolites community.