We are thrilled to share the updated Exceptional Reviewers List 2025, a program designed to recognize and honor scholars delivering consistently exceptional review reports to Biomedicines (ISSN: 2227-9059). Committed to fostering rigorous research and promoting knowledge exchange, Biomedicines recognizes the significant role our reviewers play in maintaining the quality and integrity of published articles. According to surveys conducted in 2024, 92% of our authors rate the peer review as good or excellent, thanks to our pool of excellent reviewers.

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

Dr. Mihail Mitov is an Associate Professor of physiology at Sam Houston State University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Texas (USA), where his work focuses on muscle biology, cellular metabolism, and redox regulation. With more than twenty years of multidisciplinary research and teaching experience, he studies sarcomere remodeling, mitochondrial function, and bioenergetic disturbances in health and disease, while also educating the next generation of physicians grounded in the principles of osteopathic medicine. He remains committed to advancing scientific rigor and supporting the biomedical community through active mentorship and peer review.

The following is an interview with Dr. Mihail Mitov:

1. Can you share your current research direction and latest progress?
My current research focuses on two complementary areas of muscle physiology and cellular metabolism. In collaboration with Idaho State University, I am investigating how spinal cord injury alters muscle sarcomere structure, oxidative stress, and extracellular protein composition in neonatal rats. We are quantifying changes in thick and thin filament proteins and assessing their relationship to denervation, sex differences, and age-dependent adaptations, with the expectation that early-life injury results in less pronounced muscle loss than in adults. In parallel, I am studying cellular bioenergetics, oxidative stress, and insulin signaling in cancer and pancreatic cell lines, as well as in vivo and in vitro models of hypo- and hyperthermia. This work examines how environmental factors and naturally occurring bioactive compounds (such as melatonin, apigenin, and related antioxidant molecules) may help restore impaired mitochondrial and glycolytic function. Together, these studies aim to identify strategies that improve metabolic health in cancer and diabetes models.

2. Could you share with us your feelings about winning the award? What does this award mean to your academic career?
Winning this award has been an unexpected but deeply appreciated honor and a meaningful recognition of my efforts in the peer-review process. As scientists, we rarely expect acknowledgment for this essential work; we simply aim to uphold the standards that help our discipline advance. This award underscores the importance of thoughtful, fair, and rigorous evaluation and reinforces the value of investing time to strengthen others’ research. Rather than marking a personal milestone, this recognition highlights the broader impact that conscientious reviewing can have by supporting authors, improving manuscripts, and enhancing the scientific record. It encourages me to continue contributing to the quality, clarity, and integrity of biomedical science.

3. What role do you think reviewers play in the process of paper publication?
Reviewers play a central role in safeguarding the quality, accuracy, and integrity of scientific publications. They provide an expert, unbiased evaluation that helps identify strengths, clarify uncertainties, and correct methodological or interpretive issues before a study is published in scientific journals and literature. At the same time, effective reviewers serve as mentors-at-a-distance by offering constructive feedback that helps authors strengthen their work, improve clarity, and situate their findings within the broader field. In this way, reviewers function not only as gatekeepers of scientific rigor but also as contributors to advancing and refining knowledge across disciplines.

4. How do you balance the comprehensiveness and efficiency of review? Can you share some specific methods or principles for reviewing?
I balance comprehensiveness and efficiency by focusing on elements that most strongly influence the reliability and impact of the work. I pay particular attention to experimental and statistical design, as these aspects are often problematic, and I carefully examine figures and diagrams to see whether the clarity or quality of the information presented can be improved. I try to refrain from requesting additional experiments unless they are essential for scientific validity, and I explicitly flag potential red flags that could raise concerns or risk retraction in the future. Throughout the process, I make sure the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, and for Special Issues, I carefully assess whether the work truly aligns with the theme and goals set by the editors.

5. In your opinion, what key qualities should an excellent manuscript have? From what perspectives will you help authors improve the quality of their papers?
An excellent manuscript is clear, well-designed, and brings a fresh perspective to an important scientific or health-related question. I especially value studies that introduce new angles or bridge concepts across different fields, as these often advance understanding in meaningful ways. Highly technical or overly complex papers do not impress me as much as elegantly performed work with clear reasoning and well-presented data. When reviewing, I focus on helping authors strengthen clarity, methodological rigor, and the overall coherence of their findings.

6. How do you hope that journals and publishers can further support reviewers’ work?
The work reviewers contribute is significant, yet it often takes place quietly in the background of academic life. Most researchers already balance demanding teaching schedules, laboratory responsibilities, and institutional service, so the additional time required for thoughtful peer review is rarely acknowledged within their home institutions. As a result, reviewers’ efforts can be overlooked despite their essential role in maintaining scientific rigor. Journals can strengthen reviewer support by offering practical incentives—one valuable approach is to provide more awards like the one I have received. Another meaningful option would be to allow dedicated reviewers to publish an APC-free article within a three- to five-year window. Opportunities like this could encourage more reviewers to participate as authors and help ease the financial challenges of producing research at a time when funding is increasingly constrained. Such measures would send a clear message that careful, high-quality reviewing is recognized and genuinely valued.

7. Please briefly describe your experience with our services and journals so far.
My experience with MDPI journals has been consistently positive and professionally rewarding. Over the past five years, I have reviewed roughly 50 manuscripts (averaging more than ten per year) across a wide range of MDPI journals, including Biomedicines, Antioxidants, IJMS, Nutrients, JCM, and several others. I find the submission and review systems efficient, transparent, and supported by timely editorial communication. In addition to my reviewer roles, I am currently serving as a Guest Editor for two Special Issues: “Next-Generation Cancer Therapeutics: Precision Oncology Through Novel Inhibitors and Their Mechanism of Action” in Cancers, and “Bioactive Compounds as Modifiers of Mitochondrial Function” in Biomolecules. These experiences have provided deeper insight into MDPI’s editorial standards and strengthened my appreciation for the journals’ commitment to scientific quality. I value the opportunity to support this community and contribute to maintaining rigor across the biomedical literature.