1. Congratulations on your award! Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers and tell us a little bit about your fields of interest?

Hi, my name is Can. I graduated with a bachelor’s in psychology and a master’s in clinical psychology. After that, I started my Ph.D. in Information Engineering, which is quite an unusual combination. My research now focuses on how video games affect emotions.

In my Ph.D. project, I mainly work on detecting emotions while people are playing video games. To do this, we improved and applied convolutional neural networks to analyze emotions during serious games. We also collect data from users ECG and PPG biosignals to understand the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Essentially, we're trying to understand how different reactions and facial expressions are linked to video games. Our goal is to create a complex model to determine the exact impact of video games on emotions.

2. Do you have any advice for aspiring young researchers looking to make a meaningful impact in their respective fields?

That is a great question. Honestly, if you had asked me three years ago where I would be today, I wouldn’t have expected to find myself in information engineering. Even six years ago, if you had asked me, I probably would have said I would be more focused on clinical psychology, given my master’s degree. But looking back, my best advice would be to embrace a multidisciplinary approach. Science today, especially with advancements in artificial intelligence and human–computer interaction, requires a broader perspective. It is crucial to consider how technologies and applications impact human life from various dimensions. We shouldn't confine ourselves to just one area. There are many fields within science, and it is important to explore and integrate different branches. This approach is especially valuable for younger people entering the field, and even for myself, as I continue to learn and grow. But the main perspective should be more focused on socialization, especially nowadays. Scientists are increasingly expected to communicate effectively, which is more important than ever before.

For example, last year, I spent three months in Japan and three months in Korea as a research assistant, while my Ph.D. is based at the University of Florence, Italy. I found that building connections through email and communication was crucial. It is essential for improving your networking and broadening your perspective. Meeting new people and experiencing different cultures can significantly impact your outlook and career. This kind of interaction is really valuable, in my opinion.

3. How supportive might this kind of award be for researchers? Do you have any suggestions on how our journal could further support the academic community?

First of all, thank you for organizing such award programs for early career researchers like me. When you come from countries where the research budget is limited—covering just travel, conference registration, even meals—you start to realize the significance of rewards and funding. When you attend a conference, you need to eat, after all.

That is why I always advise my colleagues and new Ph.D. students to keep track of these things because they will be crucial later on. Maybe not in the first year of your Ph.D., but definitely in the final year when your budget might be exhausted from summer schools, conferences, and publications. You will need that financial support, and it is frustrating if your professor doesn’t have the budget to cover it. For instance, if your paper gets accepted at a prestigious conference, what do you do? Conference registration and travel costs are quite high these days. Sadly, it is the reality we face. Ph.D. students often need to create their own budget for research. If you need a server for testing or other resources, you might have to seek out sponsorships or other solutions. While institutions are supposed to handle these needs, the current world isn’t always ideal, so finding your own solutions is sometimes necessary.

4. Do you have any suggestions for our journal, how we could further support young researchers and the academic community?

Awards are valuable and competitive, but often they are one-time opportunities. To be honest, this is a common issue with such awards. Currently, one idea will be to support small projects through specific calls. For instance, researchers can apply for funding for small projects, which may be supported for several months. This approach provides opportunities for both new and established researchers to engage in meaningful work. If we consider implementing a system similar to annual European projects, such as Horizon 2020, it could be beneficial. By opening calls for projects on a regular basis, we would provide ongoing opportunities rather than one-off rewards. This would encourage consistent engagement from the research community.

5. What is your experience with our service from the point of view of an author and reviewer?

In my opinion, my experience with MDPI journals, such as Bioengineering and Algorithms, has generally been good. Of course, there are times when some reviewers can be a bit persistent and make the process more challenging, but that is understandable and part of the process. On the whole, the editorial progress is faster than usual, which I am quite happy about. However, I have noticed that MDPI conferences are relatively rare compared to other publishers. For example, publishers host a lot of conferences, but MDPI has only started doing so in the past five years. This limited number of conferences can decrease opportunities for researchers to connect and network.

One suggestion I have is that MDPI could increase its involvement in conferences. When you publish in a journal and then have the chance to participate in a conference supported by that journal, it creates more opportunities for collaboration and networking. Creating a community involves more than just publishing papers; it is about setting goals and fostering interactions. This way, researchers can build connections and collaborate more effectively. For instance, one of my professors is on the editorial board of Bioengineering and we share a professional connection. If MDPI wants to build a stronger community, it needs to create more opportunities for interaction. Otherwise, it risks just being a platform where people publish their work without building an engaged audience. Networking is crucial, and conferences are a great way to facilitate these connections.

6. How have you heard about this award, and do you have any suggestions to improve the visibility of this award?

OK, this is quite important. For example, how I focus and become aware of opportunities like this is through my professor, Antonio Lanata. He's a fantastic, social man and engineer. We were talking about different opportunities, and he told me to look at these awards because they are quite nice and worth winning. We discussed them, and basically, when you share information with your editorial board, it's nice, but professors receive a lot of emails.

When they get something from a journal, they might read it and forget it. This is not unexpected. In my opinion, to reach people effectively, maybe target university branches. For example, there are university clubs. European universities have this kind of culture. In my case, we had a group for Information Engineering Ph.D. students. The university itself will publish information about these opportunities because they want to support their students. It makes things much easier.

Finally, I would like to thank my supervisors and teammates Andrea Guazzini, Antonio Lanata and Mirko Duradoni who supported me and were always with me as I approached the end of my Ph.D. journey.