1. How would you describe your overall experience reviewing for this journal?
Very positive. Overall, I can say that I've always had a good experience reviewing for MDPI journals. Communication is clear and polite, and whenever I've needed to interact with the Editors, I've always received prompt and constructive responses. The platform is easily accessible, clear, and simple to use. Regarding the journal Water, in particular, I have only been receiving review requests for a relatively short time (since 2024), but the interactions have always been positive. The quality of the manuscripts I receive is usually good, or at least worthy of evaluation, a sign that excellent editorial work is underway, capable of performing high-quality pre-checks. Furthermore, the fact that Water recently included me in the list of Exceptional Reviewers for 2025 was obviously a great honor and represents a meaningful recognition of my commitment as a reviewer. For this reason, Water now holds a special place for me! 

2. How frequently do you review manuscripts?
I generally review about three or four manuscripts a month, depending on my work schedule. However, I try not to have more than two manuscripts in the queue at a time, as I am very committed to completing revisions within the established deadlines. I believe that peer review is extremely important and contributes to both my professional and personal growth. Therefore, the number of manuscripts I accept for revisions corresponds to those I am confident I can complete properly. 

3. Do you complete reviews in your free time?
As much as possible, I try to balance my work and free time. I don't like taking time away from my family, so I usually complete my reviews during work hours, optimizing any downtime. A revision typically takes me three to five hours, but I work in stages and spread the time over several days. 

4. How do you approach rejections? Specifically, would you be willing to review a manuscript again in a second round if you rejected it in the first?
When I decide to suggest rejection, I always try to provide comments that may be useful to the authors in revising their manuscript or, in any case, in understanding the existing critical issues. If the Editor, after receiving multiple revisions, considers it appropriate to give the authors a second chance, I'm generally willing to provide an additional review, unless there are unresolvable issues that I consider incompatible with publication. However, this is a very rare scenario. I therefore trust the Editors' work and defer to their decisions. 

5. Do you think that the voucher system is a good way to receive recognition for your contribution? Are reviewer certificates useful for your career progression?
The voucher system is certainly an excellent way to recognize the work of reviewers. I also find certification of review very useful, as it can be used for curricular purposes. Both forms of recognition are highly valued. 

6. What is your personal view on open access?
I believe open access is extremely important because it allows scientific information to be shared quickly and freely, not only with academics but also with the general public. In the past, the scientific community has often been too closed in on itself, whereas there is a real need for a more dynamic relationship between science and society. For this reason, I believe scientific literature should be accessible, and the scientific community should take responsibility for guiding the public in understanding scientific advances. This could help build broader scientific awareness, which is a foundational requirement for so-called citizen science. The scientific community itself would greatly benefit from this. 

7. What is your view on the use of AI in publishing? Do you see a use for AI in creating review reports or manuscripts?
I have mixed feelings about AI: on the one hand, I strongly believe that authors should not use generative AI in producing scientific work; a strong intellectual contribution should prevail. Even more so, reviewers should not rely on generative AI for their reports, as they are expected to guarantee their own expertise and scientific opinion. The peer-review process must continue to maintain a sense of peer-to-peer comparison, which would be undermined if one of the two parties relied on generative AI. On the other hand, AI undoubtedly represents a major technological and social revolution, so leaving it on the shelf could mean falling behind. In this sense, I believe AI could be used only in the post-production phase of hand-written manuscripts, for example, to improve the syntax, grammar, and overall fluency, both in papers and review reports. I also believe AI could be very useful to editors, for instance, to quickly verify whether a large number of incoming manuscripts align with the journal's general aims and scope, or to provide alerts regarding potential critical biases. Editors should always maintain a primary decision-making role.

I take this opportunity to add a personal final comment: the review process is a fundamental component of scientific publishing. High-profile scientific journals rely on three peer reviewers. Authors expect constructive, high-quality evaluation reports; this would suggest that each author should make three manuscripts available for review for every article they publish. This not only reflects on the scientific community's commitment to the publication process but also ensures that editors have an adequate pool of trained reviewers who are aware of their role and responsibilities. A good scientific author should, first and foremost, be an excellent reviewer. I know many colleagues who review little or not at all. Even young students entering the scientific panorama are often called upon to produce manuscripts, but do not have to review as many. I am convinced that this trend should change, and I hope that editors and publishers can use their skills to highlight this need.