Announcements

Conference: 6th International Congress “Food Technology, Quality and Safety – FoodTech 2026”
Organizer: Kenes Group
Date: 27–29 October 2026
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia

The 6th International Congress “Food Technology, Quality and Safety – FoodTech 2026”, to be held from 27 to 29 October 2026 in Novi Sad, Serbia, comes at a landmark moment for our institution and for the wider scientific and professional community. FINS is celebrating 20 years since its establishment, marking two decades of scientific progress, technological innovation, and strong collaboration within the food sector.

Guided by the motto “Reshaping the Future of Food - Two Decades of Science”, FoodTech 2026 symbolizes the continuity of knowledge and a forward-looking vision in which science plays a key role in transforming food and feed systems. FoodTech 2026 is conceived as a dynamic platform bringing together researchers, innovators, industry leaders, and decision-makers around a shared goal: the development of sustainable, safe, digitally supported, and consumer-driven food systems. The congress builds on two decades of advancement of knowledge and the institutional role of FINS as a meeting point between science and industry, where research ideas are transformed into innovative and applicable solutions.

Over the years, FoodTech has established itself as a space where ideas flow freely between science and industry. The 2026 edition continues this mission through plenary lectures, thematic scientific sessions, interactive formats for early-career researchers and innovators, and numerous opportunities to initiate new collaborations and joint innovative projects.

By marking the 20th anniversary of FINS, FoodTech 2026 is not only a scientific congress but also an opportunity to collectively reflect on achieved results and to open new pathways for the coming decades of research, development, and innovation in the field of food technologies.

We warmly invite you to join us in Novi Sad and become part of a congress that looks ahead—toward more resilient, sustainable, and healthier food systems for all.

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

• Sustainability;
• Foods;
• Processes;
• Gastronomy;
• Nutrients;
• Dairy;
• Agriculture;
• Beverages.

If you are planning to attend the above conference, please feel free to stop by our booth. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person and answering any questions that you may have.

For more information about the conference, please visit the following website:
https://congress.fins.uns.ac.rs/.

1. Could you introduce yourself to our readers? What is your current research area?
I am Dr. Christian Anumudu, a teaching fellow in the School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, UK. My career in food microbiology and biochemical engineering is diverse, cutting across industry and academia. My research is focused on natural methods of food preservation using bacteriocins and novel processing technologies. In addition to this, I am interested in ensuring global food security and limiting food fraud with the aid of technology and resilient policy development.

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 both intellectually rewarding and personally fulfilling. I started reviewing because of the poor experiences I experienced with my articles previously, the delays associated with the review process and the poor quality of reviews received. I believe that peer review is an important aspect of the scientific process and thus I decided to contribute to the body of literature not just as an author, but as a reviewer. Reviewing offered me the opportunity to strengthen the evidence base, supporting authors in refining their scholarship, and contributing to the collective advancement of the research area. Upon reviewing for Foods, I found that the journal aligned with my interests. The journal’s emphasis on methodological rigour and clarity in food science research aligns closely with my own academic values, making each manuscript I review an opportunity to engage deeply with emerging work in the field.

3. What are your tips on how to prepare a detailed review report?
To prepare a detailed review report requires a balance of scientific rigour, understanding the authors perspective and clarity of communication. To achieve a good review process, I always set out a dedicated time slot. This allows me to focus on the review without being rushed. The first thing I do is to holistically read the manuscript to appreciate the work (without making any notes or comments). This allows me to understand the authors’ aims, the novelty of the work, and how well the narrative flows. I then conduct a second, more analytical reading, evaluating methodological soundness, experimental design, statistical treatment, and whether the conclusions are genuinely supported by the data. I believe that a strong review report should be structured, starting with a concise summary of the manuscript to demonstrate understanding, followed by major comments that address conceptual issues, methodological limitations, or gaps in interpretation, and then minor comments that focus on clarity, formatting, or small corrections. To help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts, it is important that the review report is specific, evidence‑based, and constructive, while highlighting strengths as well as weaknesses. Finally, I ensure that my tone remains professional and supportive, recognising that peer review is not only an evaluative process but also a collaborative effort to help authors strengthen their work.

4. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
Every manuscript is different, just as authors and writing styles are different. However, many authors, especially early‑career researchers, encounter a set of recurring challenges during manuscript preparation and submission. A common issue is insufficient clarity in the research question or hypothesis, which makes it difficult for reviewers to assess novelty and scientific contribution of the manuscript. Also, methodological descriptions are often incomplete or lacking reproducibility, particularly in studies involving complex analytical techniques or microbiological assays. Another frequent problem is misalignment between results and conclusions, where interpretations extend beyond what the data can support. Authors also struggle with data presentation, including unclear figures, inconsistent statistical reporting, or inadequate explanation of variability in their results. For review articles, one of the major challenge/problem is lack of contextualisation of the paper within the existing literature and a need to more clearly highlight the contribution of the review to the body of knowledge. Finally, issues of language clarity and organisation can hinder the communication of otherwise strong research.

5. Which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
The food research landscape is evolving rapidly. In the coming years, I believe more focus will be on sustainable food systems, particularly innovations that reduce environmental impact through alternative proteins, circular‑economy approaches, and low‑energy processing technologies. This is because of the growing global consciousness on sustainability and environmental impact of everything, including foods. Similarly, I think there will be more interesting microbiome-driven nutrition, precision fermentation and bioengineered cultures for food preservation/processing. Also, there is growing interest in AI‑enabled food analytics, from predictive contamination modelling to automated quality assessment, which will be relevant, especially for the industry.

6. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?
Reviewing manuscripts has reshaped my perspective on what constitutes a high‑quality scientific writing. Engaging critically with diverse submissions has made me far more attentive to clarity of research questions, methodological transparency, and data‑to‑conclusion alignment in my own work. I now spend more time to improve my manuscript to avoid the myriad of problems I have seen in manuscripts I reviewed such as gaps in experimental detail, overextended interpretations, or insufficient contextualisation. This has encouraged me to adopt a more disciplined and reflective approach when preparing my own papers. Perhaps most importantly, the process has deepened my understanding of the reviewer’s perspective, prompting me to write with greater intentionality, anticipate potential critiques, and ensure that my manuscripts are both rigorous and accessible.

7. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are starting to participate in peer reviews?
I advise early career researchers to approach each manuscript with curiosity and humility, rather than feeling pressure to judge a paper. Reviewing at the early career stage can be an opportunity to learn from diverse methodologies, writing styles, and scientific perspectives. Also, with writing the reviewer’s report, it is important to ground every comment in evidence‑based reasoning, focusing on clarity, methodological soundness, and alignment between data and conclusions. Similarly, it is important to remember that the tone of the review matters. Thus, your comments should be constructive and respectful and aimed to guide authors to improve the manuscript rather than overly harsh criticism.

8. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with the advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
Advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools are reshaping all aspects of life including the publishing landscape and in the near future will be pivotal to the review process. I foresee that as AI becomes more capable of screening methodological issues, detecting plagiarism, and flagging statistical inconsistencies, reviewers will increasingly shift toward roles that require interpretive judgement, contextual expertise, and ethical discernment which requires human discernment. With AI, the role of the reviewer can shift more towards ensuring conceptual coherence of a study, the originality of its contribution, and the appropriateness of its interpretations within the broader literature.

MDPI will be attending the 8th Mediterranean Poultry Summit (MPS), which will take place from 27 to 30 September 2026 in Split, Croatia.

The Mediterranean Poultry Summit is a key biennial event for poultry science in the Mediterranean region, bringing together researchers, veterinarians, and industry professionals from over 30 countries. It is organized by the Croatian Branch of the World’s Poultry Science Association.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Poultry health and disease control;
• Nutrition and feed efficiency;
• Genetics and breeding;
• Production management and animal welfare;
• Food safety and product quality;
• Alternative feed resources and sustainable production;
• Mediterranean-specific production systems;
• Emerging technologies in poultry science.

The following MDPI journals will be represented at the conference:

• Poultry;
• Foods;
• Life;
• AgriEngineering.

If you are planning to attend this conference, please feel free to start an online conversation with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at our booth and answering any questions that you may have.

We look forward to connecting with you in Split.

Foods (ISSN 2304-8158) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal advancing knowledge in the field of food research. We are currently recruiting dedicated and experienced researchers to join the Reviewer Board.

Recruitment:
The initial term is 1 year and can then be renewed or terminated.

The main responsibilities of Reviewer Board Members (RBMs) include the following:

• Foods requires rigorous peer review to ensure the thorough evaluation of each manuscript; this is a fundamental task for our reviewers;
• RBMs must have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of manuscripts;
• RBMs need to provide high-quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
• RBMs must maintain standards of professionalism and ethics;
• RBMs must review a minimum of six manuscripts per year. Should the reviewer be unable to provide a report when invited, they are expected to suggest alternative potential reviewers (the proposed candidates must meet the reviewers’ requirements: https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers).

The benefits of being a Reviewer Board Member include the following:

• A certificate recognizing you as a Reviewer Board Member;
• Reviewer Board Members are announced on the journal website;
• A discount voucher code entitling you to a reduction in the article processing charge (APC) of a future submission to any MDPI journal. Vouchers are linked to your email address and can be applied online at submission or any time before acceptance. Note that vouchers cannot be used after an invoice has been issued. If your article is rejected, the voucher can be reused for your next submission;
• Reviewer voucher codes can be used to pay for Author Services professional English editing;
• Consideration for the Outstanding Reviewer Awards; click the following link for more information: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods/awards;
• Inclusion in the journal’s annual acknowledgment of reviewers if there are more than 50 reviewers assisted the journal in the previous year;
• Building a profile on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly Publons) and having their reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Publons profiles can also be integrated with ORCID.

More details are available at https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers.

To apply for this position, recommend potential candidates, or request further information, please contact the Foods Editorial Office via foods@mdpi.com and attach the following file:

• A full academic CV.

For more information about Foods, please click the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods.

We look forward to welcoming new members to help shape the future of Foods.

Foods Editorial Office

We are thrilled to share the updated Exceptional Reviewers List 2026. This program was established to recognize and honor scholars who have consistently delivered exceptional review reports to our journal. Committed to fostering rigorous research and promoting knowledge exchange, Foods (ISSN 2304-8158) acknowledges the vital role our reviewers play in maintaining the quality and integrity of the articles we publish. According to surveys conducted in 2025, 93% of our authors rated the peer-review process as good or excellent, reflecting the strength and effectiveness of our reviewer community.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to all the reviewers who have generously volunteered their time and expertise to assist in Foods’s peer-review process. Their dedication and attention to detail in evaluating manuscripts, offering valuable feedback, and contributing to academic rigor are truly commendable.

The Exceptional Reviewers List was introduced in 2026. Each quarter, we will be selecting a group of outstanding reviewers and introduce them here.

Q1

Name: Dr. João Almeida
Affiliations: ¹ INIAV - National Institute for Agricultural and Veterinary Research, Animal Production Station, Rua Professor Vaz Portugal, 2005-424 Vale de Santarém, Portugal; ² CIISA - Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, Av. Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal; ³ AL4AnimalS - Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Av. Universidade Técnica, 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
“Peer review is a core part of how science works, and I'm glad this contribution has been recognized. My reviewing activity in Foods has focused primarily on manuscripts in meat science and technology—an area that covers food safety, processing, sensory quality, and product innovation, all well represented in this MDPI journal. Rigorous peer review in this field matters. Research on meat quality, preservation technologies, and functional meat products needs to be methodologically sound before it is published. I try to hold that standard in each review I write.
I hope to continue contributing to Foods and thank the editorial team for their work.”

Name: Dr. Riccardo Aigotti
Affiliation: Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Turin, via Pietro Giuria 5, 10125 Torino, Italy
“I am grateful to the Editorial Office of Foods for this recognition. Peer review is an essential part of scientific research. It has been a privilege to contribute to this process, and I look forward to continuing to support the journal and the scientific community through rigorous, constructive, and objective reviews.”

Name: Dr. Matthias Pretzler
Affiliation: Universität Wien, Fakultät für Chemie, Institut für Biophysikalische Chemie, 1090 Wien, Austria

Name: Prof. Yajun Zheng
Affiliation: Food Science College, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030031, China

Name: Dr. Christian Anumudu
Affiliation: School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

Dr. Karthikeyan Venkatachalam is affiliated with the Faculty of Innovative Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Prince of Songkla University, Surat Thani Campus, Thailand, where he serves as Head of the Center for Food Innovation and Research. His research focuses on the valorization of aquatic by-products and underutilized raw materials, edible films and coatings, postharvest technologies for tropical fruits, functional food development, and food fermentation, with additional interests in food enzymes and antioxidants. He has authored numerous peer-reviewed articles and regularly reviews manuscripts for journals in food science and technology, including Foods (ISSN 2304-8158).

1. Could you introduce yourself to our readers? What is your current research area?
My name is Karthikeyan Venkatachalam, and I am an Associate Professor affiliated with the Faculty of Innovative Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Prince of Songkla University, Surat Thani Campus, Thailand. I also serve as Head of the Center for Food Innovation and Research. My research focuses on the valorization of aquatic by-products and underutilized raw materials, including fish-, crustacean-, and other aquatic-derived ingredients, as well as the development of edible films and coatings and postharvest technologies for tropical fruits, particularly in southern Thailand. In recent years, this work has expanded to functional food development and fermentation-based approaches for recovering bioactive and nutritional value from materials that might otherwise be discarded or underused. Across these areas, my main interest is connecting laboratory-scale compositional, functional, and structural characterization with practical processes that can be adopted by small- and medium-sized food industries, particularly in tropical and Southeast Asian contexts.

2. How was your experience reviewing for Foods, and what motivated you to participate actively in the peer-review process?
Reviewing for Foods has consistently been a rigorous and fair experience. Editorial handling is efficient, and the review criteria are applied consistently, allowing reviewers to engage with manuscripts in depth. My motivation to review actively comes from the substantial volume of research being published in areas close to my own, including aquatic by-product valorization, edible coatings, and functional foods, where methodological rigor can vary considerably. Peer-review allows me to contribute to improving research quality while keeping me informed about new methods and findings. I also regard reviewing as a form of service to early-career authors. Many manuscripts come from researchers publishing in an international journal for the first time, and a careful, constructive review can improve both the paper and the authors' future work.

3. What are your tips on how to prepare a detailed review report?
After an initial reading of the complete manuscript, I examine it systematically, beginning with the methods, followed by the results and discussion. The methods determine whether the findings can be trusted; therefore, I check whether the procedures are described clearly enough to be replicated and whether cited analytical standards or reference methods, such as ISO or AOAC methods, have been applied correctly. For the results, I verify elements that can be independently checked, including compositional totals, statistical groupings, and unit conversions, rather than assuming that all reported values are internally consistent. Every criticism should be accompanied by a specific, actionable suggestion linked to a table, figure, section, or sentence. A comment that identifies a problem without explaining how it may be resolved is of limited value to the author.

4. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
The most frequent problem is insufficient methodological detail, including missing parameters, incomplete instrument settings, and analytical conditions described too generally to permit reproduction by another laboratory. A second issue is internal inconsistency between the data and the statistical treatment, such as superscript letters from mean-separation tests that do not correspond to the reported ANOVA results or compositional totals that do not sum correctly. A third issue is overinterpretation: drawing broad mechanistic or industrial-scale conclusions from a single small-scale experiment without acknowledging the limitation. These issues do not necessarily reflect poor science; they often result from insufficient attention to reporting after the experimental work is complete. This is precisely where careful peer-review can add value.

5. Which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
I expect continued growth in the valorization of aquatic and agricultural by-products, with greater emphasis on recovering proteins, lipids, and bioactive fractions from processing residues and underutilized species, rather than treating them as waste. Alternative and underutilized protein sources, including edible insects and other invertebrates, will likely receive more rigorous nutritional, safety, and functional characterization as they move from novelty to practical application. In postharvest technology and packaging, I anticipate further development of edible films and coatings and mild, non-thermal preservation methods that extend shelf life while reducing the dependence on synthetic preservatives and intensive processing. Fermentation-derived functional ingredients should also attract sustained interest because they align with clean-label demands and the need for cost-effective routes to produce bioactive compounds.

6. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?
Reviewing has made me considerably more careful about my own manuscripts before submission. Having seen how often statistical groupings or compositional totals contain small internal errors, I now recompute these values in my own datasets rather than assuming that they have been transferred correctly from the raw data. Reviewing has also sharpened my reporting methods. I try to describe procedures with enough specificity for another laboratory to reproduce them without needing to contact me for clarification, because that is the standard I apply when reviewing other authors' work. More broadly, reviewing manuscripts across a range of topics exposes me to analytical and statistical approaches beyond my immediate subfield, some of which I have adopted in my own research.

7. What advice would you give to early-career researchers who are starting to participate in peer-reviewing?
Read the complete manuscript, but examine the methods and results carefully before accepting the narrative presented in the discussion. It is easy to be persuaded by polished writing that is not fully supported by underlying data. Keep comments specific and linked to locations in the manuscript, and distinguish essential corrections from matters of preference or style. Do not hesitate to recommend major revision or even rejection when the evidence is incomplete or does not support the conclusions, but always explain the reasoning so the authors can respond constructively. Treat deadlines as a professional obligation, because a late review delays both the editorial decision and the authors' progress. Finally, approach every accepted assignment as a learning opportunity; reviewing exposes you to methods and perspectives beyond your usual reading.

8. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
I expect a carefully governed hybrid model to emerge, in which journal-approved automated systems assist with mechanical checks, such as similarity screening, reference verification, formatting assessment, and basic arithmetic or unit-consistency checks. This could allow reviewers to devote more attention to questions requiring scientific judgment: whether the experimental design supports the conclusions, whether the work is novel in relation to the literature, and whether the interpretation is scientifically sound. However, confidentiality must remain paramount. Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscript content to public generative AI systems, and any permitted use of language- or analytical-assistance tools should comply with the journal's policy and be disclosed when required. Automated outputs should therefore be treated as supporting checklists rather than substitutes for expert evaluation and careful reading.

Minh Quoc Ha is a food scientist and PhD candidate at Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. His research sits at the intersection of food fermentation, protein science, mass spectrometry-based peptidomics, and sustainable food ingredient development.

My PhD project is supervised by Assoc. Prof. Thao Le and is part of her broad research program on food, plant-based and meat-alternative proteins, and the valorization of food processing side streams. Under her supervision, I am investigating how fermentation and related food science approaches can help improve the value of underutilized food materials.

More broadly, I am interested in how food biotechnology can support more sustainable food systems. I hope my work can contribute to reducing food waste, creating high valued food ingredients, and supporting the development of healthy and sustainable foods.

I first became aware of Foods when I started my PhD in mid-2023. At that time, my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Thao Le, was serving as a Guest Editor for a Special Issue in Foods. Through our discussions and my own literature reading, I became familiar with the journal’s focus on food science, sustainability, fermentation, functional foods, and innovation.

My interest in sustainable food research began before my PhD. When I was in Vietnam, one of my life mentors shared a simple but powerful idea with me: there is no such thing as discarded food; we simply have not yet discovered how to transform it into something useful or even edible. That idea changed the way I thought about food waste and encouraged me to see underutilized food materials as potential resources. After that, I completed a research internship in Denmark, where I was exposed to microbial fermentation, biorefinery thinking, and circular bioeconomy approaches. This experience strengthened my interest in using food science and biotechnology to create value from biological and food-related materials.

Also, during the internship, I interviewed with Assoc. Prof. Thao Le for a PhD grant opportunity in New Zealand. I came to the interview with an interest in food proteins, bioactive compounds, and analytical techniques because of her expertise in these areas. She then guided me toward a PhD research direction within her group’s expertise, and I developed the proposal under her supervision. This was an important turning point that led me to New Zealand and shaped the research direction I am pursuing today.

As for the Foods Travel Award, my motivation was simple. As an early career researcher, I wanted the opportunity to attend an international conference, present my work, learn from leading scientists, and build new collaborations. Initially, I was not aware that travel awards like this existed. It was my supervisor who encouraged me to apply, and I fortunately got the opportunity provided by Foods; I am really grateful for that.

I see this Travel Award as more than financial support. It also gives me the opportunity to represent Foods within my research community.

At the conference, I will acknowledge the support of the Foods Travel Award during conversations with fellow researchers and when discussing my work. Conferences are excellent places to exchange ideas, and I would be pleased to recommend Foods to colleagues whose research aligns with the journal's scope, particularly in food science, fermentation, sustainable food systems, and functional ingredients.

Beyond the conference, I believe the most effective way to share the journal is through academic and professional networks. I regularly use LinkedIn to connect with researchers and industry professionals, and I would be happy to share my experience receiving the Foods Travel Award and highlight the opportunities that the journal provides for early-career researchers. I would also recommend Foods to my colleagues and students whenever it is relevant to their research or publication interests.

I think many young researchers go through periods of uncertainty and question whether they are on the right career path. I have experienced those moments myself.

One belief that has always kept me moving forward is that we live in a very big world, and there is a place for everyone to grow, contribute, and make a difference. Our paths may not all look the same, and success rarely comes quickly, but every researcher has something unique to offer.

My advice is to stay curious, keep learning, and don’t lose hope when things become difficult. Research is full of challenges, setbacks, and unexpected results, but persistence is often what separates those who make an impact from those who give up too soon.

If we continue to believe in our purpose and keep improving one step at a time, I truly believe we can contribute not only to science but also to the communities we serve.

I think Foods is already doing an excellent job through initiatives such as the Travel Award and recognition of outstanding research.

One idea I would love to see is an annual “Foods Translation Challenge”, where selected authors are invited to explain how their research could be translated into real-world food industry applications. This would help bridge the gap between academia and industry while making research more accessible and impactful.

I believe initiatives like this could further strengthen Foods as a platform that not only publishes excellent science but also promotes innovation with real societal benefits.

Although I have not yet published in Foods, my experience with the journal has been very positive. Our research team has published several papers in Foods, and I have become familiar with the journal through our previous publications.

Receiving the Foods Travel Award has further strengthened my impression of the journal's commitment to supporting researchers, especially those at an early stage of their careers. I am currently preparing manuscripts from my PhD research and hope to submit one or two of them to Foods in the near future.

Dr. Nikola Stanišić is a principal research fellow and the Assistant Director for Science, Innovation and Sustainable Development at the Institute for Animal Husbandry in Belgrade, Serbia. His research focuses on meat science, food technology, hybrid meat products, food quality, sustainability, and innovative protein sources. He has authored numerous scientific papers, patents, and technical solutions; serves as a Guest Editor and Topic Editor for international journals; and is actively involved in translating scientific research into innovative food products through close collaboration with industry.

The following is an interview with Dr. Nikola Stanišić:

1. Could you introduce yourself to our readers? What is your current research area?
I am a principal research fellow at the Institute for Animal Husbandry in Belgrade, Serbia, where I also serve as Assistant Director for Science, Innovation and Sustainable Development. My research focuses on meat science and food technology, particularly on developing healthier and more sustainable meat products. After completing my PhD, I spent eight years in the Netherlands working for AVEBE as a Field Technical Service Specialist, gaining international experience in the development and application of ingredients for the food industry. I am also the founder and director of Super Meat Products, a spin-out company that translates research on hybrid meat products into commercial food innovations. This combination of academic, industrial and entrepreneurial experience continues to shape my research and strengthens my focus on bridging science and practice. In recent years, much of my work has been dedicated to hybrid meat products, aiming to improve their nutritional value and reduce their environmental impact without compromising quality. I am also interested in meat quality, processing technologies, fat-replacement strategies and the application of novel ingredients in meat products.

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 rewarding experience. The journal publishes a wide range of high-quality research, which allows me to stay informed about the latest developments in food science while helping to maintain scientific standards. My motivation comes from the belief that peer review is an essential part of the scientific process. Every constructive review helps to improve a manuscript, even when major revisions are required. I also appreciate that Foods values reviewers’ contributions and provides an efficient, professional editorial process, which makes the reviewing experience both productive and enjoyable.

3. What are your tips on how to prepare a detailed review report?
I usually begin by reading the manuscript without making detailed comments, in order to understand its overall objective and scientific contribution. During the second reading, I carefully evaluate the study design, methodology, statistical analyses, interpretation of the results, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. I organize my comments according to the structure of the manuscript: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Above all, I aim to provide constructive suggestions that help authors strengthen their work rather than simply point out weaknesses.

4. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
One of the most common issues is insufficient methodological detail, which makes it difficult to assess a study’s reliability and reproducibility. In many cases, statistical analyses are not fully appropriate or are not described clearly. Another frequent problem is that the discussion section tends to repeat the results rather than critically interpreting them in the context of the existing literature. Some manuscripts also draw conclusions that extend beyond what the data supports. Finally, language quality can sometimes reduce the clarity of otherwise valuable research, underscoring the importance of careful scientific writing.

5. Which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
One of the most exciting developments will be the transition towards more diversified protein systems, in which conventional animal proteins, plant proteins, fermentation-derived ingredients, and cultivated components complement one another to meet different consumer needs and sustainability goals. Hybrid foods exemplify this approach, combining the nutritional and sensory advantages of meat with the environmental and health benefits of plant-based ingredients.
Beyond protein diversification, sustainability will remain a central theme in food science. Research on circular food systems, food waste reduction, and technologies that improve resource efficiency will continue to expand. At the same time, consumers increasingly expect foods that combine health benefits, sustainability, affordability, and excellent sensory quality. Research that integrates food science with nutrition, artificial intelligence, precision processing, and digital technologies will become ever more important in addressing these challenges.

6. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?
Reviewing has made me much more critical of my own work. Evaluating manuscripts from different research groups has helped me recognize common weaknesses and avoid them in my own studies. It has also improved how I design experiments, report methodologies, present statistical analyses, and structure scientific arguments. When writing my own manuscripts, I often ask myself the same questions I would pose as a reviewer. I believe this has significantly enhanced both the quality and clarity of my research publications.

7. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are starting to participate in peer reviews?
Treat every review as an opportunity to learn. Reviewing exposes you to new ideas, different experimental approaches, and diverse styles of scientific writing long before the work is published. When reviewing, always be objective, respectful, and guided by evidence. Focus on whether the science is sound rather than on whether the results agree with your expectations. A good review should help authors improve their manuscript while assisting editors in making informed decisions. Constructive criticism is far more valuable than simply listing flaws.

8. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with the advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly become an increasingly useful tool in scientific publishing. It can help identify language issues, check reporting standards, detect inconsistencies, and assist in screening manuscripts. However, AI cannot replace expert reviewers. Evaluating scientific originality, methodological soundness, practical relevance, and the significance of research findings still require human expertise and critical thinking. I see AI as a valuable assistant that allows reviewers to focus more on scientific quality rather than routine technical checks. Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring the integrity and quality of scientific publications will continue to rest with experienced researchers.