Interview with Prof. Lyudmila Boyanova—Antibiotics Exceptional Reviewer 2026

We recently invited Prof. Lyudmila Boyanova, a reviewer featured on the Antibiotics Exceptional Reviewers List 2026, to share some of her perspectives on peer review.

Name: Prof. Lyudmila Boyanova
Affiliation: Medical University of Sofia, Bulgaria

1. Congratulations on being selected for the Exceptional Reviewer List for the second quarter of 2026! Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?
Thank you very much. I am a professor at the Department of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Sofia, and our laboratory primarily works with clinically significant anaerobic bacteria and microaerophiles such as Helicobacter pylori. We are currently investigating the activity of newer antibiotics against these bacteria in light of rising bacterial resistance and multidrug resistance.

2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for Antibiotics, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process?
I am motivated above all by my interest in approaches to counteracting the growing bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which poses a serious challenge to patient therapy. Furthermore, I consider it a moral obligation to share insights based on the literature and my personal experience to improve the related publications.

3. How do you balance encouraging innovation with ensuring methodological rigor in peer review?
Potential innovations in the field of antibiotic practice or policy are highly valuable if the relevant studies are conducted in accordance with the fundamental rules and principles of diagnostic work and are explained in sufficient detail. Furthermore, it is important to note that pilot data must subsequently be confirmed in further studies, including clinical trials.

4. What are your key tips for writing a high-quality review report? What makes a review truly outstanding?
It is important for the reviewer to contribute to the improvement not only of the submitted manuscript but also of the authors’ future work as a whole. This means adopting a helpful and constructive approach, even when it is necessary to be critical.

5. How has your experience been with Antibiotics as a reviewer? What kind of support would you like to see from MDPI and the journal?
I am satisfied with my role as a reviewer for the journal. It would be beneficial for the reviewers of MDPI journals to always receive formal recognition through ORCID and Scopus.

6. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face? What suggestions do you have for authors to make their manuscripts more readable and engaging?
In some cases, when authors present a biased (one-sided) discussion and cite references that support their approach, they need to critically examine all possible shortcomings and alternative approaches and compare them with their own. The limitations of the study should always be thoroughly described. The conclusion should clearly highlight what new insights the manuscript can contribute to the existing knowledge on the topic. This is sometimes overlooked.

7. What are your views on the open access publishing model, and what role do you think it plays in advancing scientific research?
I would like reviewers to have more opportunities to publish for free whenever possible.