To thank our reviewers, the Editorial Office of Children (ISSN: 2227-9067) will announce our Exceptional Reviewers each month. You can access the award list here: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/15639.
We wish to congratulate Dr. Shingo Ueki (Kyushu University) on being on the list. He has also shared some professional opinions about the current peer-review process.
The following is an interview with Dr. Shingo Ueki:
1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research topic to our readers, as well as the important role of your research area in promoting children's health?
My area of expertise is pediatric nursing, with a particular focus on children with cleft lip and/or palate and their parents. Children with these conditions often experience feeding difficulties, while parents may also develop negative emotions and anxiety associated with feeding. My research therefore focuses on feeding methods specifically designed for children with cleft lip and palate, with the aim of improving both child outcomes and parental well-being.
2. What criteria do you consider most important when evaluating a manuscript?
When reviewing manuscripts, I pay close attention to the consistency and appropriateness of the research objectives, methodology, and methods. I also value logical and coherent writing throughout the manuscript and consider whether the study adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines according to its methodology.
3. How do you view the role of a reviewer in shaping the quality and integrity of newly submitted research? What are your thoughts on the use of AI tools in the academic publishing industry, and what are your recommendations for ensuring quality control in the future?
Reviewers serve not only as evaluators, but also as both gatekeepers and facilitators who help connect published research to future studies. I believe reviewers should also consider whether the findings of a manuscript are truly meaningful and necessary for society. Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming an indispensable tool in academia. However, AI should be used with the ability to critically assess the validity and authenticity of its outputs. A critical evaluation process of AI-generated content is always essential.
4. What advice would you give to early career researchers who want to become strong peer reviewers? Or any suggestions for the current peer-review process? Would you like to recommend that more scholars join us as reviewers to promote the scientific quality of peer review?
Any researcher who has published even a single paper should have confidence in their potential ability to contribute as a reviewer. Not every reviewer is necessarily a specialist in every submitted topic. Even when encountering an unfamiliar methodology for the first time, reviewers should sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn from it and make the effort to understand it. Through this process, researchers can continue to grow and advance academically.
