Interview with Dr. Tong Liu—Winner of the Sensors Outstanding Reviewer Award

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your field of research?

I am a Postdoctoral Fellow at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. My research focuses on measurement and geodesy, particularly ionosphere, high-precision GNSS processing and PNT applications. Since measurement and error handling are at the core of my work, it is closely related to the journal Sensors. Many kinds of sensors can provide raw data, and my research emphasizes how to process these measurements accurately, especially under challenging conditions such as space weather disturbances. A major part of my work examines the impact of ionospheric activity on GNSS, including modeling and scintillation mitigation, which directly connects sensor data to practical positioning and navigation outcomes.

2. What key aspects do you typically focus on during the review process?

I mainly look at the originality of the work and whether the content is substantial. Specifically, I follow a structured approach.

First, I quickly read the abstract and conclusion to understand the field and the core problem. Then, I examine the introduction, methods, and results in detail. For the introduction, I check if it clearly contrasts with the most advanced existing methods to frame the problem. A good introduction should explain not just what the authors are doing, but why it is needed. It should outline what other scholars have done, identify the specific challenges, and show how this work addresses those challenges in a targeted way. This reflects a deep understanding of the scientific question.

For the methods and results, I assess if they are correct and thorough enough to support the conclusions. Some manuscripts have insufficient work or unclear figures, making it hard for readers to judge the findings. Results should directly and specifically address the problem or challenge stated in the introduction and conclusion, showing how it is solved, not just mentioned generally. These aspects are key for peers, both close and broad, to recognize the work's value and innovation.

3. Based on your reviewing experience, what are some common problems that authors face?

The most frequent issue is writing quality. On a deeper level, this often reflects a lack of scientific logic or maturity. One common problem is that many manuscripts read like lab reports rather than research papers. A lab report simply states what was done, but a scientific paper requires real thinking, a grasp of the academic frontier, and a deep analysis of results, especially new findings.

Another issue is with wording and writing itself. Many submissions use terms that are too grand and vague. Academic writing should be clear and specific, explaining exactly what was done and outlining the contribution without exaggeration. Many authors struggle to grasp these two points conceptually. Even when they receive reviewer comments on them, they often cannot revise the paper effectively. This highlights a fundamental difference in mindset between technical engineers and scientists.

4. For young scholars who are just beginning to participate in peer review, what specific advice would you offer?

My advice is to be strict and uphold scientific standards. If a paper does not meet the level for publication, it should be revised and improved according to academic norms, not be accepted with lower standards. I find my reviews are often more stringent and detailed than some other reviewers'. Some manuscripts have flaws in content or method but try to avoid mentioning them in the abstract and conclusion to get by, while being well-packaged in form. These require even more careful scrutiny. Furthermore, for journals like Sensors that cover a broad scope, the reviewer may not be a specialist in that exact niche. For a general peer reviewer, this kind of thorough examination is even more important.

5. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?

Serving as a reviewer has greatly broadened my perspective. Reading many manuscripts, some excellent and some less so, has helped me understand where my own writing stands. It allows me to learn from truly skilled scientists in how to structure and articulate research. Being exposed to high-quality work is particularly beneficial. Sometimes, a truly good paper has real taste; its logic is so smooth that you can read it in one sitting, and the experience is immediately positive. This inspires me in my own research. It has also been crucial for improving my scientific taste.

6. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?

The rise and application of AI is a major, unavoidable trend. However, it cannot currently replace a scholar's judgment in evaluating research. Last year, I participated in an evaluation of large language models by Shanghai AI Lab. The conclusion was that without being fed specific literature, current language models, when used for answering professional questions or doing research, perform at most at an undergraduate level. Therefore, maintaining scholarly judgment and taste is essential. In terms of efficiency, however, AI is very capable in areas like language polishing. This can make communication between reviewers, authors, and readers smoother, reducing misunderstandings caused by unclear English expression.