Name: Dr. José Ednésio Da Cruz Freire
Affiliation: Superior Institute of Biomedical Sciences, State University of Ceará, Brazil
Research interests: peptides and proteins related to defense mechanisms in plants and animals; bioinformatics applied to genomics and proteomics; health informatics; recombinant DNA technology; and cytogenetics of plants with pharmacological and biotechnological potential.

1. How does receiving this award resonate with you, and what does it mean for your journey in peer review?
   Receiving the Outstanding Reviewer Award from Biology is both an honor and a responsibility. It reinforces my commitment to maintaining high standards in peer review and validates the time and care I invest in providing thorough, constructive, and scientifically grounded evaluations. More importantly, it marks a milestone in my journey, motivating me to continue contributing meaningfully to the scientific community by helping ensure the rigor, clarity, and impact of published research.
2. What key aspects do you prioritize when evaluating a manuscript?
   When evaluating a manuscript, I prioritize scientific coherence and methodological robustness. This includes alignment between the study’s objectives, experimental design, results, and conclusions. I pay close attention to the adequacy of controls, statistical analyses, and reproducibility of methods. Additionally, I value mechanistic insight, particularly when studies integrate computational and experimental approaches. Clarity in scientific writing and logical organization are also essential, as they directly affect the interpretability and credibility of the work.
3. What common weaknesses do you see in academic writing, and how can authors improve the reviewability of their manuscripts?
   Common weaknesses include lack of coherence between sections, insufficient methodological detail, overinterpretation of results, and language issues that obscure meaning. In many studies, I often observe limited validation or inadequate discussion of limitations. Authors can improve reviewability by ensuring a clear narrative flow, explicitly linking results to conclusions, providing reproducible methodological details, and critically discussing limitations. Careful revision of language, preferably with professional editing when needed, also greatly enhances clarity and reviewer engagement.
4. How has reviewing others’ work informed or shaped your own research?
   Peer review has significantly refined my critical thinking and scientific rigor. By evaluating a wide range of studies, I have become more attentive to potential methodological pitfalls, biases, and gaps in interpretation. This experience has directly influenced my own research design, leading me to adopt more robust validation strategies and clearer data presentation. It has also strengthened my ability to anticipate reviewers’ concerns, ultimately improving the quality and impact of my work.
5. With AI-assisted writing and detection tools on the rise, how do you envision the future of peer review?
   AI will undoubtedly play an increasing role in supporting both authors and reviewers, particularly in language refinement, plagiarism detection, and preliminary quality checks. However, I believe that human expertise will remain central to peer review, especially for evaluating scientific originality, mechanistic depth, and contextual relevance. The future will likely involve a hybrid model, where AI enhances efficiency while reviewers focus on higher-level critical analysis. Ensuring transparency and ethical use of AI tools will be essential to maintain trust in the peer review process.