Announcements

We are pleased to share that Biomedicines (ISSN: 2227-9059) has received an increased CiteScore of 6.8 in June 2025. The CiteScore ranks the journal 69 out of 433 titles (Q1) in the “Medicine (miscellaneous)” category and 49 out of 225 titles (Q1) in the “General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology” category, an impressive achievement for a journal running in Volume 13.

You can find more statistics on https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomedicines/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 Biomedicines and its growing impact in biomedicines.

Conference: ESC Congress 2025
Date: 29 August–1 September 2025
Location: Madrid, Spain

We will be attending the ESC Congress 2025 together with the World Congress of Cardiology as an exhibitor. The event will take place in Madrid, Spain, from 29 August to 1 September 2025.

Organized by the European Society of Cardiology, the ESC Congress 2025 will focus on the theme “Cardiology Beyond Borders – Global Health”, highlighting the evolving role of cardiovascular disease within the broader global health landscape.

The following Open Access journals will be represented:

• JCM;
• JCDD;
• Healthcare;
• Biomedicines;
• Cardiogenetics;
• IJTM;
• Hearts;
• Medicina;
• IJERPH;
• Diseases;
• Genes;
• EJIHPE;
• JPM;
• Clinics and Practice;
• Tomography.

If you are attending this conference, please feel free to start an online conversation with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at booth #B206 and answering any questions you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the following website: https://www.escardio.org/Congresses-Events/ESC-Congress.

We are pleased to invite you to attend the AIM-SCI 2025, a scientific conference dedicated to advancing spinal cord injury research and its translation into clinical practice, taking place in Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal, from 15 to 16 October 2025.

Abstract Submission Deadline: 30 June 2025
Early Bird Registration Deadline: 14 July 2025
Standard Registration: 15 July–5 October 2025
Conference Dates: 15–16 October 2025
Website: https://aimsci2025.wixstudio.com/aimsci

The AIM-SCI 2025 will bring together leading researchers and clinicians working across the basic, translational, and clinical aspects of spinal cord injury. The program will feature renowned keynote speakers, including Prof. Simone Di Giovanni, Prof. Charles Hubscher, and Dr. Susan Harkema.

Held in the stunning Azores archipelago, the meeting is accessible via direct flights from major cities in North America and Europe. Travel grants will be awarded for the best abstracts submitted, and outstanding oral and poster presentations will receive monetary prizes.

To submit your abstract or register for the event, please visit the following link: https://eventos.b-acis.pt/geral/inseririnscricao.aspx?evento=95&formulario=141&lingua=en-GB.

The journal Biomedicines (ISSN: 2227-9059) is proud to present the winner of the Biomedicines 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award—Dr. Dorota Formanowicz!

Dr. Dorota Formanowicz is a physician, a specialist in internal medicine, and above all, a scientist. In January 2022, she became a full professor. For several years, she has been the head of the Department of Medical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine at the Poznań University of Medical Sciences, where she leads a group of 30 outstanding employees in research or teaching positions with various skills, doctors of different specializations, including internal medicine, cardiology, diabetology, anesthesiology and intensive care, but also biotechnologists, laboratory diagnosticians, chemists and dietitians. This diversity also reflects the versatility of her interests and research capabilities. She is most interested in a systemic approach to medicine.

The following is a short interview with Dr. Dorota Formanowicz:

1. Can you share your current research direction and latest progress?
Due to my professional path, I am particularly fascinated by the relationship between nephrology, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerosis, with particular emphasis on oxidative stress and local inflammatory processes. In addition, as part of my research, in collaboration with bioinformaticians, I co-create and analyze biological models that organize knowledge and better understand the pathomechanisms underlying many diseases. Due to the partial similarity between atherogenesis and oncogenesis, I also focus on better understanding the processes underlying cancer diseases, including signals in the tumor microenvironment. Recently, I have established foreign cooperation in using natural compounds in the pharmacotherapy of metabolic and malignant diseases. My research interests are broad, and I believe there is still much to discover. Science is a beautiful challenge.

2. Could you share with us your feelings about winning the award? What does this award mean to your academic career?
The award surprised me, but it also gave me great pleasure. I always try to approach all tasks with exceptional care and demand a lot from myself. However, I did not expect it to be noticed in the context of my being a reviewer. I am at a stage of professional development where this award gave me pleasure. I'm pretty modest and haven't boasted about this award to anyone except my immediate family.

3. What role do you think reviewers play in the process of paper publication?
Reviewers play a key role in the publication process, and the final appearance of the article largely depends on their commitment, determination, and reliability. A reviewer is there to help, not to criticize, because no one is infallible. No one has a patent on knowledge. We are different, and sometimes we pay attention to different things. The reviewer needs to be friendly but fair.

4. How do you balance the comprehensiveness and efficiency of review? Can you share some specific methods or principles for reviewing?
I don’t have a specific way of preparing a review. Most often, I read the abstract very carefully. Then I always check the ethical aspects, and if they don't raise any doubts, I start reading the whole paper. I check whether the researchers have planned the study well to achieve the goal. I assess the conclusions, whether they meet the assumed goals.
During the review, I mark the parts of the text that raise my doubts, I try to understand the intentions of the researchers. In general, I approach articles with great kindness; as a rule, I try to help the author as much as possible, and I don't cross out their work from the beginning. Instead, I give tips and think about how the work should be improved so that it is clear and has a coherent message, so that the reader can easily find the necessary information. I often ask for diagrams, a kind of graphic summary, because they help to systematize the message and are a great approach today in the era of images.
In the review process, I always try to help the authors, as if it were my article, to make it correct and readable first and foremost. Although essential, technical aspects are, of course, secondary.

5. In your opinion, what key qualities should an excellent manuscript have? From what perspectives will you help authors improve the quality of their papers?
An excellent manuscript is simple, coherent, logical, and understandable, but without overly “stretching” the topic. The research is comprehensive, and the authors show that they are experts. They do not overwhelm the reader with too much information but try to emphasize what is most important. In addition, they systematize the knowledge, rely on reliable data sources, and use diagrams and summary tables, if it is a review article.
If these are clinical trials, it is best if they are registered; explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria are known. The authors should describe the strengths of their work, but they can also indicate its limitations. Finally, the conclusions are not a description of the results, but a real conclusion based on deep analysis. Today, when there are close relationships between doctors and IT specialists, articles in which researchers use new tools and can return to old issues armed with new research methods are appreciated.

6. How do you hope that journals and publishers can further support reviewers' review work?
I like the idea of this particular publishing house, although I think reviewers should have a bit more time to review. I think 8-10 days instead of 7 would be reasonable. Support through discounts and vouchers is undoubtedly one of the essential criteria that a reviewer considers, considering that, as researchers, we are literally “flooded” with review requests.  Of course, the system of awards and certificates and the visibility of reviews in the Web of Science are highly appreciated.
I always check at the beginning whether the topic is close to me, and I usually accept the review. It is not always reasonable, but I usually do not refuse, because as a scientist, I am curious about what is new in the research.

7. Could you please briefly describe your experience with our services and journals so far?
My experience has been outstanding. Of course, you can say that I am not objective. However, as an author and a reviewer, I appreciate the excellent, fast, and helpful contact with the academic editors and the assistant publishing house.
I have experience with other publishing houses, and comparing them here, I see that everyone tries to help both the author, the reviewer, and the assistant editors, and there is excellent contact.

MDPI is excited to collaborate with Toronto Metropolitan University to host an engaging Scientific Publishing Workshop aimed at empowering scholars with the knowledge and tools needed to succeed in academic publishing. This workshop will delve into the key aspects of MDPI’s open access publishing framework, offering an in-depth exploration of journal selection, the editorial workflow, and the essentials of publication ethics. Participants will also gain practical advice on improving their scientific writing and effectively addressing reviewer comments, with guidance from an experienced professional. This session promises to equip attendees with valuable skills to elevate their publishing journey.

Workshop Highlights:

• Learn How to Better Write and Structure a Research Article;
• How to Choose Where to Publish Academic Work;
• How to Respond to Reviewer Comments;
• Reasons for Rejection During Pre-Check;
• How to Navigate Through Ethics and AI Use.

Date: 15 May 2025
Time: 12:00–1:30 p.m.
Venue: Toronto Metropolitan University

Program:

A message from the webinar Chair:
To celebrate the success of a topic related to the effects of photodynamic therapy published in Biomedicines (“Photodynamic Therapy 2.0”), a webinar has been organized, inviting seven authors who will speak for 20 minutes about their published manuscript. This webinar will be split into two different sessions (with four speakers for session 1 on 19 May and the other three speakers for session 2 on 20 May). In my opinion, the manuscripts included in this volume are all of great quality, dealing with different areas in the field of photodynamic therapy and therefore reflect the need to investigate the questions raised. Therefore, this webinar will also be an opportunity to meet this need by anticipating the timing of the new volume, “Photodynamic Therapy (4th Edition)”, dedicated to this care. Good work!

Date: 20 May 2025 at 10:30 a.m. CEST | 4:30 p.m. CST (Asia) | 5:30 a.m. BRT
Webinar ID: 883 8608 8578

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information on how to join the webinar. Registrations with academic institutional email addresses will be prioritized.

Unable to attend? Register anyway, and we will let you know when the recording is available for viewing.

Register now for free!

Program:

Webinar Chair and Keynote Speakers:

• Prof. Dr. Stefano Bacci (Chair and Speaker), Department of Biology, University of Florence, Italy;
• Prof. Dr. Nicolette Houreld (Speaker), Laser Research Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg, South Africa;
• Prof. Dr. Maria Fernanda Setúbal Destro Rodrigues (Speaker), Post Graduate Program in Medicine-Biophotonics, Universidade Nove de Julho, Brazil.

Relevant Special Issues:
“Wound Healing: From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Approaches”
Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. Stefano Bacci
Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 July 2025

“Photodynamic Therapy (4th Edition)”
Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. Stefano Bacci
Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 October 2025

For more information about this webinar, please visit the following link: https://sciforum.net/event/Biomedicines-16.

A message from the webinar Chair:
To celebrate the success of a Special Issue related to the effects of photodynamic therapy published in Biomedicines (“Photodynamic Therapy 2.0”), a webinar has been organized, inviting seven authors who will speak for 20 minutes about their published manuscript. This webinar will be split into two different sessions (with four speakers for session 1 on 19 May and the other three speakers for session 2 on 20 May). The manuscripts included in this volume are all of great quality, dealing with different areas in the field of photodynamic therapy, and therefore reflect the need to investigate the questions raised. This webinar will also be an opportunity to meet this need with the publication of the new volume “Photodynamic Therapy (4th Edition)”.

Date: 19 May 2025 at 10:00 a.m. CEST | 4:00 p.m. CST (Asia) | 5:00 p.m. KST
Webinar ID: 876 7231 6232

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information on how to join the webinar. Registrations with academic institutional email addresses will be prioritized.

Unable to attend? Register anyway, and we will let you know when the recording is available for viewing.

Register now for free!

Program:

Webinar Chair and Keynote Speakers:

• Prof. Dr. Stefano Bacci (Chair), Department of Biology, University of Florence, Italy;
• Prof. Dr. Francesca Rossi (Speaker), Institute of Applied Physics "Nello Carrara”, National Research Council (CNR-IFAC), Italy;
• Prof. Dr. Montserrat Fernández-Guarino (Speaker), Dermatology Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Ramón y Cajal Institute for Health Research (IRYCIS), Spain;
• Prof. Dr. Kyungsu Kang (Speaker), Center for Natural Product Systems Biology, Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), South Korea;
• Dr. Jorge Naharro-Rodriguez (Speaker), Dermatology Service, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Ramón y Cajal Institute for Health Research (IRYCIS), Spain.

Relevant Special Issues:

“Wound Healing: From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Approaches”

Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. Stefano Bacci

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 July 2025

“Photodynamic Therapy (4th Edition)”

Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. Stefano Bacci

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 October 2025

For more information about this webinar, please visit the following link: https://sciforum.net/event/Biomedicines-15.

The journal Biomedicines (ISSN: 2227-9059) is proud to present the winner of the Biomedicines 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award—Dr. Nicoletta Cera!

Dr. Nicoletta Cera is an enthusiastic researcher with a Ph.D. in functional neuroimaging. She collaborates with the Laboratory of Neuropsychophysiology at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences at the University of Porto, and she is an invited researcher at the Research Unit in Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Cross I&D Lisbon Research Centre, Escola Superior de Saúde da Cruz Vermelha Portuguesa.

Please see below an interview with Dr. Nicoletta Cera:

1. Can you share your current research direction and latest progress?
My interests vary from neuroimaging to psychophysiology to neuropsychoendocrinology.  

2. Could you share with us your feelings about winning the award? What does this award mean to your academic career?
Thank you for this question. When I read the email announcing the award, I was amazed and happy, and I shared this with my family and close friends. I am unsure if this prestigious award will benefit my academic career, but it holds significant value for me, as it acknowledges my efforts, time, and dedication to an important facet of research. I am grateful for this award.

3. What role do you think reviewers play in the process of paper publication?
This is a very relevant question, thanks. Reviewers play a key role in the process of publication since they can help and guide authors to improve the quality of a submitted manuscript. This is particularly important for young researchers or Ph.D. students who can receive feedback about their scientific work, organization of the manuscript, methodological and theoretical insights, and encouragement to do their best to revise their manuscript. Unfortunately, “desk rejections” without editorial feedback can be both disappointing and a missed learning opportunity for researchers submitting their first manuscripts.  

4. How do you balance the comprehensiveness and efficiency of review? Can you share some specific methods or principles for reviewing?
Thank you. According to me, three tips can be important for a reviewer: “Be kind”, “be serious, thoughtful, and independent”, and “Be quick”. When reviewing a manuscript, above all, we need to be kind. Behind a manuscript, there are researchers with their lives, who did their best to conduct a scientific study under difficult conditions. Reading a manuscript several times is important, as well as analyzing it, section by section, before writing the report, seriously and independently. Assessing methodological quality is essential, checking the hypotheses and research questions, in which manner they were assessed, and the statistical analyses performed, etc. When I have doubts, I usually use checklists, which are important and helpful tools. I suppose that it is difficult to explain how to submit a report quickly, and it is a matter of expertise. 

5. In your opinion, what key qualities should an excellent manuscript have? From what perspectives will you help authors improve the quality of their papers?
An excellent manuscript should possess a good or excellent methodological quality, complemented by a solid theoretical background that facilitates the replicability of the study in a different context. In this way, a detailed description of the material and methods, including procedures, is fundamental. A good manuscript can also become excellent with the assistance of editors and reviewers, who can help improve its quality, raise concerns, and provide specific suggestions.

6. How do you hope that journals and publishers can further support reviewers’ work?
Thanks for the question. During the last few years, some initiatives have supported the reviewers’ work, like yours, and I hope that in the future, new initiatives to support reviewers will be done and improved.

7. Please briefly describe your experience with our services and journals so far.
My experience with your services, both as author and reviewer, was satisfying. Every time I needed assistance, I found kindness, prompt responses, and flexibility in being able to meet my specific needs.

The Biomedicines journal (ISSN: 2227-9059) is proud to present the winner of the Biomedicines 2024 Young Investigator Award—Dr. Simone Battaglia!

Dr. Simone Battaglia is currently an Associate Professor in cognitive neuroscience at the University of Bologna, Italy. His scientific background combines cognitive neuroscience, clinical neuropsychology, and translational research in biomedical engineering. His academic journey has always been driven by a strong interest in how brain stimulation and psychophysiological techniques can help us understand and modulate emotional learning and action control in both healthy individuals and neurological populations.

Please see below an interview with Dr. Simone Battaglia:

1. Could you please share your current research direction and the latest progress?
I am currently focusing on understanding and modulating the neural mechanisms of fear learning, emotional action control, and brain plasticity using non-invasive brain stimulation (e.g., TMS and tDCS) in combination with EEG, EMG, HRV, and SCR. I am developing innovative cortico–cortical paired associative stimulation (ccPAS) protocols to enhance neural connectivity and cognitive–emotional function in processing emotional visual stimuli. Recent projects also explore translational applications involving a combined approach between non-invasive stimulation and neuroimaging techniques across Bologna, Turin, and Maastricht to map causal interactions in the human brain.

2. Could you please share with us your feelings after winning the award?
Receiving the Biomedicines Young Investigator Award was both an honor and a strong encouragement. It reinforced my belief in the value of interdisciplinary, translational neuroscience and the importance of combining methodological rigor with clinical relevance. I feel grateful to my mentors, collaborators, and students for their continuous support and to the journal for acknowledging my work.

3. Could you please share the most impressive breakthrough in your research career, either in terms of ideas or research results?
One of the most meaningful breakthroughs was demonstrating that state-dependent TMS over the prefrontal cortex can disrupt fear–memory reconsolidation in humans, preventing the return of fear. This line of research had a relevant translational impact as it was central in demonstrating the possibility of using non-pharmacological interventions in anxiety-related disorders. Equally impactful has been our work published in Biomedicines, where we explored the role of neurodegeneration in cognitive and affective disorders and investigated how non-invasive brain stimulation can enhance premotor–motor network plasticity. These findings support the translational potential of neuromodulatory protocols as additional resources for the treatment of clinical populations.

4. Do you have any other suggestions on how journals and publishers can further support young researchers and the academic community?
Journals could further support early career researchers by promoting transparency in peer review, offering mentoring programs for junior reviewers, and prioritizing thematic issues or special editions led by young scientists. Open access options with reduced fees for early career researchers and increased visibility of non-Western researchers would also ensure a more equal opportunity landscape for academics worldwide.

5. Based on your experience, which research topics in this field do you think will be of particular interest to the academic community in the next few years?
In the coming years, I believe there will be a growing interest in the cross-talk between peripheral physiological systems and brain dynamics, especially in the context of emotions, learning, and psychiatric vulnerability, as these interactions are at the core of many disorders. Moreover, emerging translational approaches combining neuromodulation with neurophysiological biomarkers will shape personalized biomedicine in neuropsychiatry.

6. Do you have anything to say to your fellow scholars?
Stay passionate and curious. Science advancements have always relied on a coordinated effort, but now more than ever, interdisciplinary collaborations are central to pushing existing boundaries and generating new knowledge. Let’s keep pursuing our interests and make new, exciting breakthroughs together.