1. Could you briefly introduce your current role and research interests?
I am an Associate Professor at the Technical University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. In the last 30 years, because of my curiosity and our socio-political context, I have been involved in different studies and activities, so nowadays I prefer cross-disciplinary research.  The most important part of my job is to be an educator, so the main research thematic is directed into those activities that help and support students in learning and developing, not only technically and scientifically, but as a whole person. Also, an important part of our activities represents the technological developments in the field of electronics, the programming that in cloud computing became huge and, of course, understanding and responsibly integrating AI, when useful, in the process.

2. What motivates you to accept peer review invitations, and how do you manage the time commitment?
In accepting the peer reviews there are two main factors that motivate me, on one hand the curiosity, because nowadays there are so many interesting and intriguing research directions available and me, as a person, and as a research team member, could not be able to do the research in all of them, and on the other hand, I am always willing to help people to develop, to research, to publish, so that others may benefit of their discoveries. Regarding time management, it is always a task of being organized and to correctly plan the activities. If they are more, the planning functions better, because I cannot delay or procrastinate. And then, when the work is finished, there is such a rewarding feeling of accomplishment!

3. What are the most common issues you encounter in manuscripts in your area?
The most common issue nowadays is the excessive use of AI, in text writing it is not that bad, but sometimes the whole article structure and development is left the way the AI proposes it. And, as noticed, this has a tendency of starting ideas and not finishing them, or creating a chaotic structure where the introduction has nothing to do with the body and conclusions. Another more important issue is to observe the results. In a research paper, the result is crucial, the essence of the work. Therefore, it should be the best explained, detailed and “praised” because this is why you worked, actually! And it can happen that these are not actual results but also AI suggested. Fortunately, in my case, I didn’t encounter many works with counterfeit results. Other common issues are that engineers love to experiment and do coding or algorithms, but don’t like to explain and therefore they should take more time for describing their work and experiments.

4. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are starting to review or submit papers?
My advice for them is, first of all, to read as much as they can, not to watch videos, but to read, to get accustomed to articles’ structures, findings, ideas, ways of presenting someone’s work. To be curious, to see the paper or the review as a discovery and to imagine the best way to highlight it! And to be patient, to use their logic, knowledge and common sense and not immediately ask AI what it would do.

5. Do you have any suggestions for improving peer review or reviewer recognition?
I think this work is well done, the reviewer instructions are very detailed, clear and structured on your page. Regarding the recognition, I am grateful for this, and I receive it as a gift, and each of you, each MDPI Section and collective, do the best they can and they intend!

6. What makes a review especially useful for authors and editors in your view?
Reviewing is useful if people can not only improve their submission and better explain research results, but if, at the same time, they learn something valuable that they may use in the future for a better highlight of their work and their presentations. And generally, this may happen if you explain not only what the author should do, but also WHY they should do it. That is valuable and this is the same in education, not to give orders, but to explain the why of the actions and their consequences and thus comes the learning. And probably for editors, the most important is the way they manage to collaborate and cooperate with others from different fields, to reach a, let’s say, common denominator and a successful result.

7. Which topics or methods do you expect to become more important in the next 2–3 years in your area?
Probably everything regarding technology and AI is important, robots, cloud computing. But I deeply hope that at the same time we won’t forget more tangible subjects like education, empathy for other human beings, wellbeing, mental health, agriculture, art or soft skills in any domain. I mean “tangible” as remaining here on Earth, among our peers, caring for them and helping each other, and not migrating for good to a virtual reality.