Announcements

We are pleased to announce Dr. Thais Suzane Milessi Esteves as one of the winners of the Fermentation 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award.

The following is an interview with Dr. Thais Suzane Milessi Esteves:

1. Can you please tell us a little more about yourself?
I am a biochemical engineer with a master’s degree in industrial biotechnology and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. I am Brazilian, and I am currently a professor at the Department of Chemical Engineering (DEQ) at the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar). My main experience throughout my career is in the field of biochemical engineering, working mainly in the valorization of biomass through fermentation or enzymatic processes.

2. What is your current research focus, and why did you choose this research field?
Currently, my main research focus is on the consolidated bioprocessing of biomass, which is an emerging technology where hydrolytic enzyme production, biomass hydrolysis, and fermentation are performed simultaneously in a single bioreactor. In addition, in my research group, we are also working on second-generation bioethanol, Industry 4.0 technologies applied to bioprocesses, cell and enzyme immobilization, and the production of high value-added bioproducts from biomass.

3. When and how did you first become aware of the open access Fermentation journal? How do you think open access impacts authors?
I became aware of Fermentation when I was searching the literature for recent work in my field and looking for a journal to publish my research. In my opinion, OA journals are good for broadening the reach of published articles, in addition to making articles more accessible to readers.

4. What are the key factors and aspects that you consider most when reviewing a manuscript?
I think that the clarity and organization of the manuscript together with a detailed methodology are key factors when reviewing manuscripts. Statistical treatment and a discussion of results and good-quality figures are also important features. Finally, the most important thing is to make clear the novelty and contribution of the manuscript to the field, especially for review manuscripts.

5. In your opinion, what are some key qualities that make a review outstanding?
I believe that a good review report is based on well-detailed and justified suggestions or questions, always keeping the ethics and respect of the authors. In addition, I believe that to complete a good review, it is necessary that the manuscript is inserted in the field of expertise of the reviewer; I often decline review invitations when I feel that I do not have the necessary expertise.

6. What do you think of receiving the Outstanding Reviewer Award? What advice do you have for future reviewers?
I was happy and honored by the recognition. If I could give any advice, it would be to give the time, attention, and respect that we want a reviewer to give to our own work.