Interview with Dr. Sin-Guang Chen—Antibiotics Exceptional Reviewer 2026

We recently invited Dr. Sin-Guang Chen, a reviewer featured on the Antibiotics Exceptional Reviewers List 2026, to share his perspective on peer review.

Name: Dr. Sin-Guang Chen
Affiliation: The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China 

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 very honored to be selected for the Exceptional Reviewer List for the second quarter of 2026.
My name is Sin-Guang Chen. I am currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Oncology and Immunology and an Honorary Research Associate in the School of Biomedical Sciences at The University of Hong Kong.
My research background is multidisciplinary and spans biomedical sciences, molecular and cellular biology, infectious diseases, natural products, and disease models. My current interests are mainly related to cancer biology and the development and application of advanced experimental models for studying human diseases. I am particularly interested in using biologically relevant model systems to better understand disease mechanisms and identify potential therapeutic vulnerabilities.
Because my research experience has involved several different areas of biomedical science, I also enjoy reviewing manuscripts across related disciplines. I find that peer review provides an opportunity to evaluate individual studies, and to learn about new developments outside my immediate research focus. 

2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for Antibiotics, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process?
I see peer review as an important part of academic responsibility. Scientific research depends not only on generating new findings, but also on careful evaluation of whether the methods, analyses, and conclusions are sufficiently supported.
I am motivated to review when I feel that my scientific background can help evaluate a manuscript and provide constructive feedback. For me, reviewing is not simply about identifying weaknesses or recommending acceptance or rejection. A good review should help authors improve their work and help editors make an informed decision.
The most rewarding part is seeing that constructive comments can improve the scientific clarity of a manuscript. Sometimes a study has an interesting idea but the conclusions are stronger than the available evidence. In other cases, the experiments are useful but important methodological details are unclear. Helping authors address these issues can make the final publication more rigorous and useful to readers.

3. How do you balance encouraging innovation with ensuring methodological rigor in peer review?
I think innovation and rigor should not be viewed as competing priorities. In my opinion, truly valuable innovation should eventually be supported by evidence that is appropriate for the strength of the claim.
When reviewing an innovative study, I try not to reject an idea simply because it is unconventional or because every question has not yet been answered. Instead, I ask whether the authors have provided sufficient evidence for the conclusions they actually make.
One principle that I consider particularly important is proportionality between evidence and claims. For example, preliminary or associative findings can still be valuable if they are presented appropriately. However, stronger mechanistic or causal conclusions require stronger evidence.
I also try to distinguish between major limitations and limitations that can be acknowledged. Not every imperfection is a fatal flaw. A constructive review should identify which issues are essential for the scientific validity of the study and which issues mainly affect interpretation, generalizability, or future directions.

4. What are your key tips for writing a high-quality review report? What makes a review truly outstanding?
My first suggestion is to read the manuscript as a complete scientific argument rather than reviewing individual experiments in isolation. I usually ask: What is the main question? What evidence is provided? Do the data support the conclusions? Are there alternative explanations?
A high-quality review should be specific and evidence-based. General comments such as “the study is weak” are usually less helpful than explaining exactly which experiment, analysis, or interpretation needs attention and why.
Second, I think reviewers should prioritize their comments. The most important issues should be clearly identified. If a concern can substantially change the validity of the main conclusion, it should not be hidden among minor comments.
Third, the tone should remain constructive and respectful. Authors may disagree with a reviewer, but they should still be able to understand the scientific reasoning behind the comment.
Finally, an outstanding review should distinguish between what the data demonstrate and what the authors infer. In biomedical research, conclusions can sometimes become stronger than the experiments justify. Helping authors align their conclusions with the available evidence is, in my view, one of the most valuable contributions a reviewer can make. 

5. What has your experience been like as a reviewer for Antibiotics? What kind of support would you like to see from MDPI and the journal?
My experience with Antibiotics as a reviewer has been positive. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute my expertise to the evaluation of manuscripts and to provide detailed scientific feedback.
One aspect I value is a clear and organized review process. For reviewers, clear communication regarding the manuscript, deadlines, revision process, and editorial decisions is important because it allows us to focus on the scientific evaluation.
Looking forward, I think continued support for reviewers would be valuable. This can include clear guidance on reviewing expectations, recognition of reviewers’ contributions, and feedback when appropriate. Peer review requires significant time and intellectual effort, so recognition such as the Exceptional Reviewer award is encouraging and appreciated.
More broadly, I think journals can support high-quality peer review by emphasizing scientific rigor, transparency, and constructive communication among authors, reviewers, and editors.

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?
One common problem is that the main conclusion is sometimes stronger than the evidence presented. Authors may have interesting results, but they should clearly distinguish between what has been directly demonstrated and what remains a hypothesis or possible interpretation.
Another common issue is insufficient methodological detail. Reproducibility depends on readers understanding how experiments and analyses were performed. Important information should not be omitted simply because it seems familiar to the authors.
I also frequently see manuscripts in which the scientific story is difficult to follow because the introduction, results, and discussion are not sufficiently connected. Authors can improve readability by clearly explaining the research question at the beginning and ensuring that each major experiment contributes to answering that question.
For writing, I would suggest keeping the central message clear. A manuscript does not necessarily become more convincing by including every available result. A well-organized scientific narrative with clear figures, appropriate controls, and conclusions proportional to the evidence is often more engaging and easier to evaluate.
I would also encourage authors to view reviewer comments as part of the scientific process. Even when authors disagree with a comment, carefully considering the underlying concern can help clarify the manuscript and improve its communication.

7. What are your views on the open access publishing model, and what role do you think it plays in advancing scientific research?
I believe that open access can play an important role in making scientific knowledge more widely available. Researchers, clinicians, students, and institutions do not all have equal access to subscription-based journals, and open access can help reduce barriers to reading and using scientific findings.
For biomedical research in particular, wider accessibility can facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and allow findings to reach researchers working in different fields or regions.
At the same time, accessibility should always be accompanied by rigorous editorial and peer-review standards. Open access and scientific quality should reinforce each other. Making research freely available is most valuable when readers can also have confidence that the work has been evaluated carefully and presented transparently.
Therefore, I see open access as an important component of scientific communication, but its value ultimately depends on maintaining strong standards of methodology, transparency, and peer review.