Interview with Dr. Jasmina Lukinac—Winner of the Foods Outstanding Reviewer Award
Dr. Jasmina Lukinac is a Full Professor at the Department of Process Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology Osijek, J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia. She is a scientist dedicated to connecting research with real-world applications in the food industry. Her work focuses on optical non-destructive testing, computer vision, mathematical modeling and optimization of food processes, food upcycling, and the development of innovative and sustainable food products. Dr. Lukinac actively collaborates with international research groups, leads academic networks, and has contributed to numerous national and international projects. She also serves on multiple editorial boards and reviewer panels of high-impact journals, helping to shape the global direction of food science research. Beyond her academic work, Jasmina is a warm and engaging individual who enjoys connecting with people. She is passionate about nature, particularly the sea, and loves traveling.
The following is an interview with Dr. Jasmina Lukinac:
1. Could you introduce yourself to our readers? What is your current research area?
My name is Dr. Jasmina Lukinac, and I am a Full Professor at the Faculty of Food Technology Osijek, J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek in Croatia. My scientific background lies in process engineering and food technology, with a particular interest in integrating engineering principles, data science, and emerging technologies to address contemporary challenges in food production and quality assessment. My research encompasses optical non-destructive testing, machine and computer vision, mathematical modeling and process optimization, food upcycling, and the creation of sustainable and innovative food products. Over the past five years, I have focused especially on advancing optical methods for food quality evaluation, applying data-driven modeling to optimize food processes, and exploring new pathways for sustainable food innovation. Across all these areas, my overarching goal is to contribute to a more efficient, sustainable, and high-quality food production system.
2. How was your experience reviewing for Foods, and what motivated you to participate actively in the peer review process?
Reviewing for Foods has been a very positive and professionally rewarding experience. The journal maintains high editorial standards, excellent communication, and a strong commitment to scientific quality. I value the constructive and rigorous environment in which reviewers play an important role in shaping scientifically robust manuscripts. My motivation to participate actively in the peer-review process comes from a genuine desire to contribute to the scientific community and support the development of the field, as well as from the opportunity to stay informed about emerging research trends. I strongly believe that high-quality peer review is essential for maintaining scientific integrity, and I also see it as an important way to mentor younger researchers by helping them strengthen their methodological and reporting practices. Receiving the Outstanding Reviewer Award from MDPI is a great honor and an additional encouragement to continue contributing with the same level of dedication.
3. What are your tips on how to prepare a detailed review report?
I consider peer review an essential academic responsibility. A high-quality review should be constructive, objective, clear, and balanced. It is important not only to identify weaknesses but also to highlight strengths and offer suggestions that genuinely help authors improve their work. Respectful communication and objectivity are key; every comment should aim to enhance the manuscript, not to criticize the authors personally.
4. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
Authors face a wide range of challenges. Sometimes reviews provide insufficiently clear or specific guidance, leaving authors unsure about what exactly needs to be corrected. In other cases, reviewers may allow subjective impressions to affect their judgment, forgetting that objectivity is essential in this process. The pace of scientific publishing today is incredibly fast, which is both an advantage and a challenge. While rapid dissemination of knowledge benefits scientific progress, important methodological details are sometimes overlooked. These details can be crucial when researchers attempt to replicate experiments or build on previous findings. Ensuring clarity, transparency, and completeness is more important than ever.
5. Which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
Topics that align with global sustainability goals, climate change challenges, and evolving consumer expectations will, in my view, remain at the forefront of scientific interest. Research will increasingly focus on developing more sustainable and circular approaches to food production, exploring new and alternative protein sources, and integrating artificial intelligence and machine learning into food systems. At the same time, significant attention will be given to novel processing technologies that can reduce energy consumption and minimize environmental impact, supporting a more resilient and responsible food system for the future.
6. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?
Reviewing has greatly strengthened my critical thinking and analytical skills. It exposes me to diverse methodological approaches and innovative ideas that often inspire my own work. Through evaluating different manuscripts, I have gained a deeper understanding of best practices in experimental design, statistical analysis, and scientific communication. Peer review encourages me to be more critical of my own writing, ensuring clarity, transparency, and methodological rigor. It has also helped me better understand what editors look for in high-quality submissions, which in turn makes me a more effective author.
7. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are starting to participate in peer reviews?
Start small, be patient, and treat each review as a valuable learning experience. Reviewing improves your scientific writing, your analytical thinking, and your understanding of research quality. Read manuscripts carefully, take notes, and do not hesitate to verify methods or references if something seems unclear. Remember that the goal is to help improve the work, not to judge the authors. And finally, respect deadlines. Timely reviews are an important professional courtesy to both authors and editors.
8. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with the advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
The future will likely rely on a hybrid model where AI tools assist with repetitive or technical tasks, such as checking for plagiarism, formatting issues, or statistical inconsistencies, while human reviewers focus on scientific validity, novelty, and constructive evaluation. However, AI cannot replace scientific judgment, creativity, experience, or ethical reasoning. Reviewers will need to develop new competencies, including understanding how AI tools work and how to interpret their outputs responsibly. AI will certainly help make the peer-review process more efficient, but human expertise will remain at the center of high-quality scientific evaluation.