Announcements

The 5th International Symposium on Frontiers in Molecular Science (ISFMS2025), organized by the International Journal of Molecular Sciences (ISSN: 1422-0067) and MDPI, will be held from 26 to 29 August 2025 in Kyoto, Japan.

This conference will present outstanding research results that elucidate the molecular mechanisms of biological functions and regulation and will also facilitate drug design based on molecular biology, biophysical characterization, in vivo environmental homeostasis, organ interactions based on sensory systems, the physiome, and AI-assisted analysis of protein structures and functions. It aims to bring together scientists, researchers, and engineers from across the world who are working in academia, national labs, and industry to discuss the latest advances in molecular science.

Topics that will be covered include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Protein structure and function;
• Multidomain proteins;
• Drug design and drug resistance;
• Enzymes;
• Molecular biology of galectins;
• Glycobiophysics;
• NMR spectroscopy;
• Specific sensory systems;
• Brain and systemic function.

The following MDPI journals will be represented at this conference:

• International Journal of Molecular Sciences;
• Current Issues in Molecular Biology;
• Cells;
• Bioengineering;
• Biophysica;
• BioTech;
• Cancers;
• International Journal of Translational Medicine;
• Kinases and Phosphatases;
• Microorganisms;
• Molecules;
• Synbio;
• Antibiotics;
• Antioxidants;
• Applied Biosciences;
• BioMed;
• Biomedicines;
• BioMedInformatics;
• Membranes;
• Antibodies.

If you are planning to attend this conference, please feel free to reach out online and start a conversation with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at our booth and answering any questions you may have. For more information about this event, please click on the following link:  https://sciforum.net/event/ISFMS2025.

The following is an interview with Prof. Sellke:

1. Can you tell me a bit about your background and what your research focuses on?
I grew up in Indiana and received my medical degree (MD) at the Indiana University School of Medicine. I trained in Surgery and Cardiothoracic Surgery at the  Indiana University Medical Center, NE Ohio University School of Medicine, and the University of Iowa. During my time at the University of Iowa, I did research with Dr David Harrison on microvascular physiology. I then moved to Boston, to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where I became Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery at BIDMC, and to Harvard Medical School in 1990, where I became the Johnson & Johnson Professor of Surgery. I moved to Brown University in 2008 to become the Karlson & Karlson Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Chief of CT Surgery. I recently stepped down from this position but continue to do research and some clinical work. My research focuses on the regulation of microcirculation in health and disease, especially in the setting of hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes. I also investigate regenerative therapies for coronary artery disease, including stem cells, growth factors, and extracellular vesicles, and novel diabetic drugs.

2. What made you decide to publish a bioengineering article? Why did you choose Bioengineering MDPI?
It has a good reputation and has excellent peer review. The journal is easy to work with.

3. What was your experience publishing with Bioengineering MDPI?
We have published many articles with MDPI and Bioengineering.

4. Was it important to you that the journal is open access? How does open access publishing advance the field of bioengineering?
Open access increases readership and exposure.

5. What do you hope that readers will get from your paper?
We work in the area of regenerative medicine, extracellular vesicles for the treatment of CV disease, and we thought the journal was a good fit for our work.

6. What critical scientific or engineering problems did your research initially aim to address?Extracellular vesicles are derived from stem cells and may be a novel way to increase myocardial function and perfusion and alter oxidative stress, and improve cell signaling. Engineering EVs is one way to optimize the effect, potentially. Nearly all regenerative treatments of CV disease have failed in the clinical setting. Understanding how diabetes, medications, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia affect these therapies is a focus of our lab. All of these illnesses increase oxidative stress in the myocardium, and this may be one of the factors causing a diminished response to all regenerative treatments.

7. What are the current bottlenecks in this field, and how did you identify your research’s breakthrough point?
Nearly all regenerative therapies, growth factors, gene therapy, cell therapy, and now extracellular vesicles work very well in otherwise normal animals such as the mouse or the pig, but nearly all therapies in patients have not worked. Understanding why myocardial regeneration is possible in mice and otherwise normal larger animals, and nearly always negative in clinical trials, is a bottleneck. Diabetes, aging, and hypertension all increase oxidative stress in the myocardium, and this may be one of the factors causing a diminished response to all regenerative treatments and why stem-cell therapies and other regenerative therapies have failed to meet expectations.

8. Which technologies or tools played pivotal roles in designing your methodology (e.g., AI, microfluidics, 3D bioprinting)?
We use physiological and clinically relevant models of human disease in rodents and especially pigs. We feel this gives us a large amount of clinically relevant information as to why, derived from normal, young animal models. We do not need the use of AI or 3D printing for our work, but it may become relevant in the future.

9. Have your experiments or theoretical models undergone significant adjustments? What motivated those changes?
We started using porcine models of hypercholesterolemia and diabetes about 25 years ago. This has been the major adjustment in our lab. We have tested many drugs and pathways in the myocardium to provide mechanisms for why therapies work or do not work.

10. Why do you think this article has been highly cited?
It provides a mechanism as to why the use of extracellular vesicles may offer some advantage in the treatment of myocardial disease.

11. Are there follow-up studies planned based on this paper’s findings?
We are continuing our studies using engineered EVs to improve efficiency.

12. Did your research involve cross-disciplinary collaboration? How did teamwork shape the outcomes?
I am a cardiovascular surgeon, and I work with molecular biologists, cardiologists, and other microvascular scientists to perform our research. It is definitely a multidisciplinary approach.

13. How did early career researchers or students contribute to this work?
We always have several postdoctoral fellows working in the lab. Indeed, the first author (Dr. Doug Harris) is a surgical resident from Harvard who intends to be a cardiovascular surgeon in the future.

14. What was the greatest technical or theoretical challenge during this research, and how did you overcome it?
There are many technical (surgical) issues with our experiments, and these can produce significant problems, but we have overcome most of these. The main issue is that we still do not fully understand why myocardial tissue regeneration has not worked well clinically.

15. Were there difficulties in data acquisition or experimental reproducibility? How were they resolved?
While there are some technical issues, reproducibility has not been a major problem as long as the experiments are carefully planned and variability is minimized.

16. Which technological directions in bioengineering deserve the most attention over the next 5 years?
We will continue to work on the use of novel medications and regenerative treatment for the management of CV disease.

17. How is AI reshaping bioengineering research in disruptive ways?
AI provides information that would otherwise be difficult to obtain in a rapid manner.

18. What learning resources would you recommend for newcomers entering this field?
Obtain a good knowledge of medicine and a medical degree so you can understand what is important and currently available clinically.

The following is an interview with Dr. Michopoulou:

1. Can you tell us a bit about your background and what your research focuses on?

First of all, I would like to thank you for this interview. I am very honored by the journal’s interest and opportunity to present myself and my research interests. I am a biologist with a PhD in molecular and cellular biology from Claude Bernard University of Lyon (Lyon 1), where I conducted my research under the supervision of Dr. Patricia Rousselle at Laboratoire de Biologie Tissulaire et Ingénierie Thérapeutique in Lyon, an expert in extracellular matrix biology. My academic and research journey spans over a decade and has centered on skin biology, wound healing, and regenerative medicine, with a focus on cell–matrix interactions and tissue engineering. During my PhD, I investigated the role of the proteoglycan transmembrane receptor syndecan-1 in keratinocyte migration and how it regulates MMP-9 expression during skin repair. We uncovered a novel mechanism involving syndecan-1 and CD44 in response to laminin 332, which provided key insights into matrix remodeling during re-epithelialization. Building on that foundation, I continued my research in postdoctoral positions at the Lab of Biochemistry of the Medical School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh), including a project funded by BIOHELLENIKA SA, under the supervision of Dr. George Koliakos, where I led efforts to develop anti-psoriatic treatments and 3D bioengineered skin substitutes. My postdoctoral studies were interdisciplinary, involving work on the design and optimization of biopolymer-based scaffolds, drug delivery systems, and cell therapies, often in collaboration with chemists, more specifically, the lab of Dr. Dimitrios Bikiaris (AUTh), clinicians, and biomedical engineers.

Overall, my work bridges basic scientific and applied biomedical research, aiming to develop therapeutic strategies for skin regeneration and disease treatment.

2. What made you decide to publish a bioengineering article? Why did you choose MDPI’s Bioengineering?

I chose to publish in Bioengineering (MDPI) because the journal’s scope aligns directly with the interdisciplinary nature of my work, combining molecular and cellular biology, stem cell therapies, and skin regeneration. The open-access model also ensures broad visibility, which is especially important for rare diseases like Epidermolysis Bullosa, the focus of our article. Additionally, I had the privilege of serving as a Guest Editor for the Bioengineering Special Issue titled “Recent Advances in Skin Repair and Regeneration”, which I co-edited with Dr. Patricia Rousselle. This role gave me deeper insight into the journal’s editorial standards, peer review process, and scientific community. It also allowed me to help curate and highlight innovative research in the field, including my own contribution as a corresponding author of the article on stem cell-based approaches for treating Epidermolysis Bullosa. Therefore, I thought it was a meaningful opportunity to contribute both as an author and as part of the editorial team advancing the field.

3. What do you hope that readers will get from your paper?

With this review paper, our primary goal was to offer readers a comprehensive yet accessible overview of current and emerging stem cell therapies for Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB)—a group of rare, severe, and often life-limiting skin disorders for which there are still no approved curative treatments. We wanted to consolidate and clarify the complex landscape of therapeutic strategies, focusing on hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells, genetically corrected epidermal stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These strategies are evolving rapidly, and many clinicians or researchers outside the EB field may not be aware of their nuances, clinical trial progress, or limitations. We also emphasized the translational challenges, such as delivery methods, immune compatibility, and long-term graft viability, to give readers a realistic view of what stem cell therapies can and cannot yet achieve. Importantly, we highlighted how systemic forms of EB present unique difficulties that go beyond skin regeneration and require broader biological solutions. Finally, we hope this review will serve as a stimulus for collaboration and innovation, particularly for those working in adjacent fields like biomaterials or gene editing, to help close the gap between experimental treatments and durable, safe clinical applications.

4. Why do you think this article has been highly cited?

I’m really glad that our review has attracted attention—it tells me that it filled a genuine need in the field. When we wrote it, our goal was to provide a clear and comprehensive synthesis of the various stem cell-based therapies being developed for Epidermolysis Bullosa, especially since the field was rapidly evolving but scattered across different disciplines.

I think it’s been cited frequently because it offered a structured overview that researchers could easily use to orient their own work, trying to cover everything from hematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells to gene-corrected epidermal cells and iPSCs. We thought it would be very important to include a detailed analysis of clinical trial data, which many later reviews and experimental studies may have referred back to. What I’ve found particularly rewarding is seeing that several citations come from papers proposing next-generation approaches—like biomaterials, gene editing, or extracellular vesicles—where our review helped frame the background or justify new directions. That kind of scientific dialogue and continuity is exactly what we hoped to contribute to.

5. Are there follow-up studies planned based on this paper’s findings?

Yes, I definitely hope so. When we wrote that review, I was working as a postdoctoral researcher at BIOHELLENIKA SA, a stem cell banking and biotechnology company in Thessaloniki, which is also my hometown. The company focuses on isolating and preserving stem cells from newborns and adults, and thus, it was a very productive environment for thinking about how these biological resources could be applied therapeutically, including for rare diseases like Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). I believe there is good perspective for a future collaboration, especially around stem cell-based treatments for EB, which remains an area of unmet clinical need. The review itself identified several open questions—from how mesenchymal stem cells exert their therapeutic effects to how we can improve delivery strategies using biomaterials and gene correction. Since then, I’ve been developing ideas for follow-up research involving 3D skin equivalents, engineered scaffolds, and potentially patient-derived iPSCs. These platforms could be used to test new therapies or model disease progression in a controlled setting. I'm also very interested in integrating material science and cell biology to make these treatments more effective and targeted. So yes, let’s say the review wasn’t a final word—it was a starting point. And I hope it continues to inspire both collaborative research and translational applications.

6. How did early career researchers or students contribute to this work?

I believe that involving students and early career researchers in the conception and synthesis of projects is incredibly important—not just for the project itself, but for their own development as independent thinkers and scientists. In the case of this review, I worked closely with a junior collaborator who was just beginning to explore the field of regenerative medicine and stem cell biology. Writing a review—especially one that covers both molecular mechanisms and clinical applications—is a demanding task for someone early in their career. It requires critical reading, synthesis of diverse sources, and clear scientific writing. But, under the right supervision, it’s also one of the best opportunities to help them build essential research skills—how to assess the literature, identify knowledge gaps, and construct a narrative that moves science forward. In this project, my role was both scientific and mentorship-focused, guiding the process of outlining, researching, and refining the manuscript. I’m proud of the collaborative spirit of the paper and the fact that it became a learning experience as much as a scholarly one. Helping young scientists find their voice is one of the most rewarding parts of this kind of work.

The following is an interview with Dr. Karuna Nambi Gowri:

1. Can you tell us a bit about your background and what your research focuses on?
My basic major is textile technology with a focus on textile and materials chemistry. During my PhD, I looked at different bioresorbable polymeric materials that could be used as absorbable sutures, and so my research focus is completely on the realm of sustainable biomaterials used for different applications, ranging from traditional textile finishes and biomedical textiles to, currently, non-woven and paper manufacturing.

2. What made you decide to publish a bioengineering article? Why did you choose MDPI’s Bioengineering journal?
I was involved in the realm of biomedical textile research and looking at different polymeric biomaterials that can be engineered and fabricated into innovative wound closure devices, barbed or knotless sutures. Since my research focus was to engineer polymeric biomaterials into these barbed sutures, we anticipated that Bioengineering would be a good place to get our review manuscript published. And this is the main reason we resorted to publishing it in the Bioengineering journal. The other reason why we chose to publish this journal is because of the wide scope of the journal itself.

3. Was it important to you that the journal is open access? How does open access publishing advance the field of bioengineering?
It was important to publish this article in an open access journal since we wanted this to be a baseline for future researchers who like to work on barbed sutures. If it is an open access manuscript, then it would be beneficial to them to actually review it and progress their research from there instead of going through a whole lot of research done over two decades. And open access publishing actually helps advance this field of bioengineering by creating more visibility of the work that was done previously, which would be a win-win situation for both the authors of the article and also the readers who read the article.

4. What do you hope that readers will get from your paper?
We looked through the literature to identify different barbed sutures and their properties that were already published and available for review and evaluation. But there weren’t many review manuscripts for barbed sutures from a material standpoint and there were review articles from clinical standpoints. And so our hope was that this would be a good collection of all the previous works that have been done and published in the area of barbed sutures, and that this manuscript would give a broad overview of how research on barbed sutures was and how it is expected to improve in the future.

5. What critical scientific or engineering problems did your research initially aim to address?
The critical scientific problem that we wanted to address in this research on barbed sutures was to see if we could make the fabrication of these barbed sutures more efficient and commercially scalable with easy manipulation of the barb geometries and parameters. So, in order to address this issue, we looked at switching the currently existing mechanical fabrication to a laser fabrication technique which would enable us to manipulate the barb geometries and parameters in a faster and more precise way, making it suitable for use in a lot more complicated surgical procedure.

6. What are the current bottlenecks in this field, and how did you identify your research’s breakthrough point?
The current bottleneck in the fabrication of barbed sutures is that all the commercially available barbed sutures have the same barb parameters irrespective of the surgery they are to be used in. However, from the literature and previous research studies, it can be seen that different surgical procedures require different barb parameters, since different procedures involve different tissue compositions and structures. So, our research aim was to identify alternative fabrication techniques to better manipulate the barb parameters, considering the final surgical procedure they could be used in. The breakthrough was that we were able to prove that an ultrashort pulsed laser system can be used to fabricate barbed sutures with customized barb parameters that are needed for their use for different surgical procedures.

7. Why do you think this article has been highly cited?
I think the reason for the high citation of this article is because this review manuscript is a collection of all the previous work that focuses on barbed sutures, inclusive of both patents and manuscripts. I guess it is easier for all future researchers who are willing to work in this area of barbed sutures, this article is like a compiled manuscript which has details from research done for over two decades in this area of biomedical textiles.

MDPI Singapore successfully hosted its first in-person Engineering Multidisciplinary Editorial Board Meeting on 19 May 2025.

We are deeply thankful for the enthusiastic participation and strong support of our Editorial Board Members (EBMs). It was a valuable opportunity to connect face-to-face and discuss the future development of the engineering subject area. We would like to invite everyone to jointly review the content of this meeting, and we look forward to welcoming even more EBMs to our future gatherings.

The meeting kicked off with a light icebreaker, where participants introduced themselves and shared their academic backgrounds and experience with MDPI. This was followed by a brief overview of MDPI’s presence in the engineering field—showcasing our journals, performance statistics, and outreach activities.

Discussions then focused on ways to grow and enhance MDPI’s engineering portfolio. Topics included the following:

• Strategies to attract high-quality submissions.
• Improving journals’ visibility.
• Enhancing author support and increasing submission success rates.
• Strengthening the role and engagement of EBMs.
• Identifying emerging research topics.

We wrapped up with an open sharing session, where EBMs reflected on their experiences working with MDPI and offered thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Their ideas were insightful and sparked some great conversations.

We are truly grateful to all attendees for their time, ideas, and commitment. Collaborating with such passionate scholars is an honor, and we look forward to working closely together to elevate research excellence in the engineering field.

Journals our EBMs are affiliated with:

• Applied Sciences;
• Aerospace;
• Bioengineering;
• JMMP.

Six new journals covering a range of subjects launched their inaugural issues in June 2025. We are excited to be able to share with you the newest research rooted in the value of open access. We are pleased to present the latest research and to make it accessible to all.

We extend our sincere thanks to all the Editorial Board Members for their commitment and expertise. Each journal is dedicated to upholding strong editorial standards through a thorough peer review process, ensuring impactful open access scholarship.

Please feel free to browse and discover more about the new journals below.

Journal	Founding Editor-in-Chief	Journal Topics (Selected)
	Prof. Dr. Chang-Pu Sun, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Beijing, China; Computational Science Research Center, China Editorial | View inaugural issue	quantum information and phenomena; condensed matter physics and statistical physics; atomic, molecular, and optical physics; computational physics and mathematical methods View journal scope | Submit an article
	Prof. Dr. Hualiang Lin, Sun Yat-sen University, China; Prof. Dr. Jose L. Domingo, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain Editorial | View inaugural issue	green and organic food; green infrastructures; green exercise; environmental impact of the healthcare sector; effects of climate change on human health | View journal scope | Submit an article
	Prof. Dr. Francesco Veglio, University of L’Aquila, Italy Editorial | View inaugural issue	ultra-pure substances; water purification; air purification; gas purification; inorganic chemical purification; purification technologies View journal scope | Submit an article
	Prof. Dr. Junxing Zheng, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China Editorial | View inaugural issue	computer-aided design and engineering; artificial intelligence and machine learning; building information modeling (BIM) and digital twins; robotics and automation in construction; smart sensors and Internet of Things (IoT); intelligent control systems and facilities management View journal scope | Submit an article
	Prof. Dr. Assunta Di Vaio, University of Naples Parthenope, Italy Editorial | View inaugural issue	sustainability, managerial, and biodiversity accounting; carbon management accounting; corporate social responsibility; artificial intelligence and disclosure View journal scope | Submit an article
	Prof. Dr. Changjun Liu, Sichuan University, China Editorial | View inaugural issue	bioeffects of electromagnetic waves; electromagnetic science and engineering; microwave, millimeter-wave, and terahertz technologies; metamaterials and metasurfaces; communication, sensing, and networks; energy, power, and sustainable applications; quantum and emerging technologies; artificial intelligence and advanced fabrication View journal scope | Submit an article

Conference: The CRS 2025 Annual Meeting and Exposition
Date: 14–18 July 2025
Location: Philadelphia, USA

This conference will be the 52nd annual conference of the Controlled Release Society. The annual CRS conference is the most important conference in the pharmaceutics field. The main topics of the conference include nanomedicine and nanoscale delivery, immuno delivery, oral delivery, skin and mucosal delivery, ocular delivery, bioengineering, gene delivery and gene editing, alternative methods to animal testing, long-acting drug delivery formulations, delivery to the nervous system, artificial intelligence, and predictive models in pharmaceutical technologies.

The following open access journals will be represented at the event:

• Pharmaceutics;
• Gels;
• Pharmaceuticals;
• Biomedicines;
• Bioengineering;
• Biomolecules;
• Sci. Pharm;
• CIMB;
• Future Pharmacology.

If you plan to attend this conference, please contact us online. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at booth #202 and answering any questions you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the following website: https://crs2025annualmeeting.eventscribe.net.

The following is an interview with Prof. Mesin:

1. Can you tell us a bit about your background and what your research focuses on?
I am an electronics engineer with a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Currently, I serve as an Associate Professor in biomedical engineering. My main research interests lie in the processing and analysis of biomedical data (both signals and images). One focus of my research is on EEG signal acquisition, preprocessing, and functional connectivity analysis.

2. What made you decide to publish a bioengineering article? Why did you choose Bioengineering MDPI?
As an Associate Editor of Bioengineering, I had the opportunity to contribute a review paper in an area closely aligned with the journal’s scope. The choice of MDPI was driven by its strong reputation for rapid and transparent peer review, as well as its commitment to open access dissemination.

3. What was your experience publishing with Bioengineering MDPI?
The experience was very positive. The review process was efficient and timely, and the editorial staff ensured high-quality editing and publication standards.

4. Was it important to you that the journal is open access? How does open access publishing advance the field of bioengineering?
Yes, open access is particularly important for researchers like me. I tend to focus on the scientific substance of my work and less on promotion. Unfortunately, this sometimes means that even my most innovative work goes under-recognized. Open access provides a valuable opportunity for broader dissemination, making research accessible to a larger audience regardless of institutional affiliation or financial resources.

5. What do you hope that readers will get from your paper?
The paper offers a comprehensive tutorial review of data-driven methods for assessing EEG-based functional connectivity. It aims to serve as a reference for researchers by summarizing methods, clarifying technical details, and discussing the impact of acquisition and preprocessing on connectivity estimates.

6. What critical scientific or engineering problems did your research initially aim to address?
We aimed to address the complexity of accurately inferring functional connectivity from EEG data. This includes methodological challenges in preprocessing, signal interpretation, and the selection and validation of appropriate connectivity metrics.

7. What are the current bottlenecks in this field, and how did you identify your research’s breakthrough point?
Key bottlenecks include variability in preprocessing methods, lack of standardization, and the difficulty of distinguishing true from spurious connectivity. Our review highlights the importance of methodological rigor and proposes emerging solutions, such as high-order interactions and graph-based approaches, to advance the field.

8. Which technologies or tools played pivotal roles in designing your methodology?
Our work focuses primarily on data-driven methodologies, including both linear and nonlinear statistical tools. Concepts such as Granger causality, transfer entropy, and multivariate autoregressive modeling are central, alongside tools from information theory and graph theory.

9. Have your experiments or theoretical models undergone significant adjustments? What motivated those changes?
Yes. Throughout the years, our approaches have evolved to incorporate more sophisticated multivariate methods and to address limitations identified in simpler bivariate analyses. These changes were motivated by a deeper understanding of EEG complexity and the risk of misinterpreting indirect connections.

10. Are there any untold “behind-the-scenes” stories worth sharing about this work?
The paper was the result of a genuine collaborative effort between two groups with complementary expertise. Early discussions revealed the need for a unified framework that could bridge theoretical developments and practical EEG applications, which ultimately shaped the paper’s structure.

11. Why do you think this article has been highly cited?
Citation patterns are influenced by complex and often unstable dynamics. A well-known phenomenon is that highly cited papers tend to attract further citations, especially when they receive attention early after publication. In our case, the open access format ensured wide visibility from the outset, and the comprehensive scope of the review likely made it a useful reference for researchers entering or working within the field. Moreover, the collaboration among experienced authors with established scientific reputations may have added credibility and contributed to its early recognition.

12. Are there follow-up studies planned based on this paper’s findings?
Yes, several ongoing studies in our groups are extending the reviewed methodologies to real-world EEG datasets, particularly in clinical and cognitive neuroscience applications.

13. Did your research involve cross-disciplinary collaboration? How did teamwork shape the outcomes?
Definitely. My group was more focused on EEG acquisition and preprocessing, while Prof. Faes’ group contributed theoretical expertise in connectivity metrics. This synergy was essential to producing a balanced and integrative review.

14. How did early career researchers or students contribute to this work?
They played a fundamental role. Early career researchers carried out most of the literature review and technical analysis, under the supervision of senior authors who guided the overall structure and interpretation.

15. What was the greatest technical or theoretical challenge during this research, and how did you overcome it?
One major challenge was organizing a vast and fragmented literature into a coherent and accessible framework. We addressed this by systematically categorizing connectivity metrics across time, frequency, and information-theoretic domains, and by explicitly linking them through their mathematical foundations.

16. Were there difficulties in data acquisition or experimental reproducibility? How were they resolved?
While the paper is primarily a review, we are well aware that reproducibility is a major issue in EEG research. We emphasized best practices in preprocessing and model validation to improve reproducibility and highlighted the importance of transparent methodological reporting.

17. Did ethical concerns (e.g., gene editing, biosafety, etc.) arise? How were they addressed?
No specific ethical concerns arose in this work, as it is a review of methodological approaches and did not involve new experimental protocols with human subjects.

18. Which technological directions in bioengineering deserve the most attention over the next 5 years?
In the coming years, I believe particular attention should be given to the integration of multiple neuroimaging modalities, which can offer complementary spatial and temporal resolution for studying brain function. The development of non-invasive brain–computer interfaces will continue to open new possibilities for clinical and assistive technologies. Equally promising is the evolution of adaptive neurostimulation systems, enabling a deeper and more personalized interaction between the user and the device. Lastly, the incorporation of explainable artificial intelligence into biomedical signal processing holds great potential for improving both diagnostic transparency and clinical trust in AI-based systems.

19. How is AI reshaping bioengineering research in disruptive ways?
AI enables the analysis of complex, high-dimensional data and fostering real-time decision-making in clinical contexts. In EEG analysis, deep learning is being explored for source localization, artifact rejection, and connectivity estimation, though interpretability remains a key challenge.

20. What learning resources would you recommend for newcomers entering this field?
I recommend starting with foundational texts on signal processing and time series analysis, followed by specialized literature on EEG analysis and functional connectivity. Our review paper itself offers a structured entry point. Practical experience with tools like MATLAB, Python, and EEGLAB is also invaluable.

We are pleased to share that Bioengineering (ISSN: 2306-5354) has received an increased CiteScore of 5.3 in June 2025. The CiteScore ranks the journal 90 out of 163 titles (Q3) in the “Bioengineering” category, an impressive achievement for a journal running in Volume 12.

You can find more statistics on our website: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/bioengineering/stats.

The current CiteScores measure the average number of citations within a journal over a four-year window (2021–2024). The Scopus database provides a comprehensive suite of metrics that support informed publishing strategies, research evaluation and enable benchmarking of journal performance.

This achievement reflects the collective efforts of our authors, reviewers, and editors. Together we will continue to track the progress of Bioengineering and its growing impact in biomedical engineering.