We are honored to announce that Dr. Vassilis Martiadis has been selected as the winner of the Brain Sciences 2025 Outstanding Reviewer Award.

The following is an interview with Dr. Vassilis Martiadis.

1. Could you introduce yourself to our readers? What is your current research area?
I am a clinical psychiatrist based in Naples, Italy, with twenty years’ experience working in public community mental health services at ASL Napoli 1 Centro. My practice is firmly grounded in real-world clinical care, which inevitably influences the way I interpret and evaluate research. My primary question is whether the findings can be applied to the patients I see every day.
My research lies at the intersection of clinical psychopharmacology and the treatment of complex psychiatric conditions. I primarily work on schizophrenia, focusing on antipsychotic treatments and early intervention, as well as depressive disorders across the spectrum, paying particular attention to treatment-resistant depression. OCD is another consistent interest of mine. Recently, I have become interested in metacognition and its clinical applications in psychotherapy. I find this younger field genuinely exciting because of its potential to bridge neuroscience and everyday therapeutic practice.

2. What motivated you to participate actively in the peer review process?
There are several reasons that keep me motivated. Firstly, I am motivated by curiosity: reviewing means reading new research before it is published, often touching on topics that intersect with my clinical and academic interests. Secondly, I have a genuine desire to contribute to the rapid and high-quality dissemination of scientific knowledge: rigorous peer review is a service to the entire scientific community. There is also something reciprocal about it: you put your best effort into reviewing someone else's work, in the hope that, when it is your turn as an author, someone will do the same for you. This form of professional solidarity is deeply meaningful to me.

3. What are your tips on how to prepare a detailed review report?
First, I look for the paper’s strengths and ensure they are recognized and highlighted, a step that is often overlooked. Then, I try to constructively identify the weaknesses, always suggesting concrete ways to address them, rather than just pointing out the problems. Even when a manuscript is not ready for publication, I try to offer a way forward. Every submitted paper represents the hard work of people who have dedicated a long time to it, and that deserves respect. A good review should leave authors with something useful, regardless of the outcome.

4. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
Authors are finding it increasingly difficult to find journals that can guarantee both speed and scientific rigor at an affordable price. Open access is essential for broad dissemination, but the APC model can create inequities: institutions in lower-income countries or without institutional support are often effectively excluded. We need more sustainable models, including accessible waiver systems without bureaucratic barriers.

5. Which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
I see several exciting developments on the horizon. Personalized treatments are set to become increasingly important. Currently, we largely operate by trial and error, particularly when it comes to treating resistant forms of depression, schizophrenia, and OCD. AI has enormous potential in this area, not to replace clinical judgement, but to help predict treatment response in ways that are simply not possible today. Alongside pharmacological innovation, new forms of psychotherapy that are more adaptive, digitally supported and informed by frameworks such as metacognition will transform the way we treat the entire spectrum of psychiatric conditions. In my view, resistant forms across all diagnostic categories remain the frontier where the most urgent work needs to be done.

6. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?
Like training consistently, reviewing a lot improves your skills. Every manuscript teaches you something new: a different statistical approach, a novel way of contextualizing results or an unfamiliar writing style. It hones your ability to swiftly identify methodological issues, compels you to consider how findings align with broader literature, and ultimately enhances your writing skills. If you are serious about academic work, there is no substitute for it.

7. What advice would you give to early-career researchers who are starting to participate in peer reviews?
My honest advice is to learn to review before you learn to write. Reading and critically evaluating the work of others gives you a foundation that no writing course can fully replace. Perhaps more importantly, always remember that a reviewer is not an omnipotent judge. We are colleagues who are trying to understand, appreciate and improve someone else's work. At different points in our careers, we are all both reviewers and authors. This changes everything about how you approach the process.

8. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with the advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
AI can be genuinely useful for summarizing large bodies of literature, checking language and style, and handling repetitive or mechanical tasks in the review process. This is a real and valuable benefit. However, clinical reasoning—the ability to weigh evidence in context, draw meaningful conclusions, and identify what is truly new—remains a human prerogative. At least for now—and I believe it will remain so for longer than many predict. The interpretation of what a finding actually means for patients and practice cannot be automated. Fortunately, that judgement is still ours.