Announcements

1. Could you please share a bit about your research interests and recommend some hot topics in your field?
My research interests focus on environmental science, environmental chemistry, and ecotoxicology, particularly on the interactions between natural processes and human activities. Throughout my career, I have primarily investigated the bioaccumulation and biotransformation of contaminants to better understand how environmental pressures affect ecosystem quality and how living organisms adapt to high concentrations of natural or anthropogenic chemical substances.
Microplastic pollution and emerging contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals and PFAS, are undoubtedly among the most pressing topics in environmental research today due to their widespread occurrence, persistence, and still only partially understood ecological and human health implications.
While these issues are rightly attracting considerable scientific attention, I believe that environmental sciences should not lose sight of a broader perspective. Understanding the complex interplay between natural dynamics and anthropogenic pressures remains essential for explaining how ecosystems evolve, adapt, and respond to ongoing environmental challenges. In my view, this integrated approach will continue to be one of the most important directions for future research.

2. How do you approach the peer review process to ensure fairness and constructive feedback?
I like to view the peer review process as a constructive exchange between peers. Ideally, it should generate value for everyone involved (authors, reviewers, and editors). For this reason, I always try, whenever possible, to provide comments and suggestions that are genuinely constructive, regardless of whether my overall evaluation is positive or negative.
My goal is to offer observations that can serve as useful points for reflection and help authors identify opportunities to strengthen the quality of their work. I believe that effective peer review should not simply identify weaknesses, but also provide clear guidance on how they can be addressed.
Nobody enjoys receiving criticism for its own sake. When writing my reviews, I always keep in mind that behind every manuscript there are researchers who have invested considerable time, effort, and dedication into completing their study. Respecting that commitment while maintaining scientific rigor is, in my view, one of the most important responsibilities of a reviewer.

3. How do you think the peer review process could be improved in scientific publishing?
This is a very intriguing question, and certainly not an easy one to answer. From a reviewer’s perspective, one improvement I would particularly appreciate would be receiving periodic feedback from publishers on the quality of my reviews. For example, annual or monthly assessments could provide insights into how useful, reliable, and constructive my evaluations are perceived to be, as well as identify areas where they could be strengthened. Such feedback would help reviewers become more aware of their strengths and weaknesses and encourage continuous professional development.
Another important aspect is reviewer training. Unlike many other academic activities, there is no formal “school” for peer reviewers. Most researchers learn how to review manuscripts through experience, often by trial and error. I believe that early career researchers should be encouraged to engage in the peer review process from the beginning of their careers, ideally under the guidance of experienced senior researchers acting as mentors. In this regard, publishers could play a key role by providing dedicated training resources and platforms that facilitate mentor–mentee interactions in peer review. Such initiatives would not only help develop the next generation of reviewers but could also contribute to improving the overall quality, consistency, and effectiveness of the peer review process.

4. What is your experience with our service from the point of view of a reviewer?
My experience has been very positive overall. I have always appreciated the professionalism of the editorial staff, the clear and courteous communication, and the prompt responses whenever interaction with the editors was needed.
The review platform is intuitive, accessible, and easy to use, making the entire review process efficient and straightforward. Another aspect I particularly value is the generally good quality of the manuscripts I receive for evaluation. Even when a manuscript requires substantial revisions, it is usually scientifically sound and worthy of consideration, which reflects the high standard of the editorial screening and pre-check procedures.
In the specific case of Applied Sciences, I also appreciate its multidisciplinary nature. It often gives me the opportunity to review manuscripts that, while remaining within my areas of expertise, address topics or approaches that are new and intellectually stimulating. This makes the review process not only a professional responsibility but also a valuable opportunity for continuous learning and scientific growth.

5. Do you have any other suggestions on how our journal could further support young researchers and the academic community?
I believe that MDPI already offers a wide range of initiatives that effectively support early career researchers, including awards, training opportunities, academic events, and activities that help increase visibility within the scientific community. Looking ahead, one opportunity could be to further strengthen the connection between scientific publication and research dissemination. In today's academic landscape, producing excellent research is only part of the challenge; ensuring that scientific findings reach the appropriate audiences is becoming increasingly important. Young researchers are often very active on digital and social media platforms and are eager to communicate their work beyond traditional publishing channels. Journals could further support this process by expanding initiatives that promote the visibility of high-quality research and by providing guidance on effective and responsible science communication. More broadly, any effort that helps transform published articles into opportunities for discussion, collaboration, and knowledge exchange would further reinforce the journal's role not only as a publishing platform, but also as an active hub for the scientific community.