Interview with Prof. Dr. Francisco Solano—Winner of the Biomedicines 2023 Oustanding Reviewer Award
We had the privilege of discussing some topics on research and peer review with Prof. Dr. Francisco Solano, who has recently been honored with the Biomedicines 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award.
Name: Prof. Dr. Francisco Solano
Affiliation: Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Immunology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
Research Interests: tyrosinase and melanogenesis proteins; melanin pigmentation; photoprotection and other melanin functions; polyphenols as antioxidants; oxidative stress and ROS; skin-lightening agents; ocular melanin; melanin as polymeric biomaterial; bacterial and fungal melanin
1. Can you please tell us a little more about yourself, and your current research?
I am a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the School of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain. I am 69 years old. I divide my time between teaching and researching. My current research is related to several issues, as I advise young researchers completing their Ph.D. degrees. My main expertise over my decades as a principal investigator has been photobiology, particularly melanin biosynthesis, precursors, and regulation of that pathway. This includes cutaneous pigmentation, pigmentary disorders, and melanoma. I am also involved in research related to oxidative stress, antioxidants and antioxidant response, aging and metabolic nutrition, and the antifungal effects of natural antioxidants.
2. Can you please share with us your sentiments upon winning the award?
I was very happy to receive the news. During the last years, I have dedicated a significant part of my time to the peer review process. I do not need to dedicate all my time to my own research as it will no longer be the sole focus of my career. It’s very important to me that I share my experience with the authors, and I try to be honest throughout the process. Regarding my sentiments about the award, I feel that my time and efforts have been recognized, and I am overwhelmed with gratitude.
3. In your opinion, what are some key qualities that make a review outstanding?
The most important quality is will. I should be convinced that you want to do it to improve the document, both in the content and in the format. Another key quality is time. A good reviewer should take their time in doing a first reading, taking a general idea, and then writing comments and a list of details on the improvement of that idea. Other qualities include knowledge and experience in the field. In addition, reviewers should act with fair play and honesty. They should give authors the chance to discuss alternative opinions, although the scientific rigor should always be in mind. The comments should always be constructive and clear enough for introducing modifications or for making new experiments to solve possible ambiguities and pitfalls if the manuscript contains positive sections and it would provide a chance of a revised version. Regarding the format, the manuscript should follow the instructions for authors, with a logical development, appropriate references, and so on. The manuscript should be logical and well-ordered, as should the report.
4. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are interested in becoming reviewers for academic journals like MDPI Biomedicines?
Love for science, honesty, integrity, scientific rigor but comprehension, and patience are crucial. Reviewers should act the same as they would like other scientists to act with their work. Fair review is important and instructive. I would rather be a reviewer than an editor, and I dislike the fact that many scientists refuse to review other scientist’s research since they are busy with their own.
5. Biomedicines is an open access journal. How do you think being open access impacts authors?
This is a very important issue. Open access is a great idea which facilitated the free availability of science to scientists. Scientific literature has changed a lot since the appearance of open access; however, I believe open access journals should be regulated. Quality and veracity of science are very important. Impact factor, number of reading and citations, and many other bibliometric parameters are useful, but, in my opinion, the number of journals, or the number of issues published annually by invitation should be limited. Predatory journals and easy business are currently serious risks. Editors, as any other members involved in publishing scientific literature of the system, should be fair.
This is a crucial time in many fields, but biomedicine is one of the most promising topics. AI and the new genetic revolution using CRISPR/Cas9 editing and related techniques will be able to make miracles soon. The mRNA technology developed after the COVID-19 pandemic and the new coming vaccines are trends of the near future. Tridimensional details about protein structure and the design of specific inhibitors/activators of key proteins will also trend. No doubt, it will be amazing and exciting.