Announcements

We had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Cristina Gabriela Grigoraş, Assistant Professor at “Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacau, Romania and the recipient of the Gels 2025 Outstanding Reviewer Award, to hear her opinions and experiences with scientific research and awards.

Name: Dr. Cristina Gabriela Grigoraş
Affiliation: Department of Food and Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, “Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacău, Calea Mărășești 157, 600115 Bacău, Romania

Dr. Cristina Gabriela Grigoraş has built an academic career in food, chemical, and environmental engineering through teaching, research, and applied scientific projects. Their current research focuses on developing low-cost gel-based adsorbent materials from industrial waste for water purification and investigating their performance, regeneration, and practical applications. They also study the recovery of bioactive compounds from industrial waste for use in the food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries, with an emphasis on sustainability, waste valorization, and the circular bioeconomy.

1. What is your current research focus, and what inspired you to pursue this field?
My current research focuses on the use of renewable, biodegradable or industrial waste-derived resources for the development of composite materials intended for water treatment and remediation. I adapt the preparation methods of these materials to reduce solvent consumption, energy requirements and processing time. I continuously evaluate their sustainability not only in terms of their performance in removing dyes, heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other contaminants from aqueous media, but also with respect to their regeneration, reuse and end-of-life management, while considering their overall environmental impact. In addition, I seek to understand how the structure and functionality of these materials can be modified to enhance their efficiency in removing a wide range of water contaminants.

2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for Gels, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process?
I consider the peer-review process to be both an essential component of publishing scientific results and a major responsibility. The motivation to evaluate manuscripts for Gels comes from the desire to contribute to maintaining the quality, rigor and credibility of published research in a field that I am directly interested in. The careful evaluation of manuscripts serves to strengthen the authors’ experimental design, refine the interpretation of results, improve the clarity of presentation and ultimately increase the impact of their research. On the other hand, reviewing papers allows for contact with different advanced methodologies and provides me with new and interesting scientific perspectives.

3. What are your key tips for writing a high-quality review report? In your opinion, what distinguishes an outstanding review from an average one?
A high-quality review combines scientific expertise, objectivity and appreciation for the authors’ efforts. It begins with an assessment of the manuscript as a whole to determine its relevance, novelty, and the coherence between results and conclusions, as well as the work’s strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, the review should include clear, specific and actionable comments addressing methodological aspects and the presentation and interpretation of results. The difference between an ordinary review and an excellent one lies in the constructive nature of the latter—specifically, the ability not only to identify issues but also to offer rigorous, useful recommendations designed to help authors enhance the scientific quality, clarity and impact of their work.

4. Has feedback you received through the peer-review process ever contributed to a significant improvement or breakthrough in your own research? If so, could you share your experience?
Certainly. Over time, I have received valuable scientific insights through the peer-review process, including suggestions for the use of complementary characterization techniques that I had not initially considered, as well as new angles for interpreting mechanisms governing the studied processes. Although implementing such comments required a considerable amount of additional work, they have led to a deeper understanding of the investigated subject, to more robust and impactful results and to significant reinforcement of the drawn conclusions.

5. Based on your extensive reviewing experience, what are the most common issues or mistakes you encounter in submitted manuscripts?
The most frequent issues I encounter are not necessarily related to the scientific idea itself, but to the way the research is conceived, presented or interpreted. A common problem is the inadequate presentation of the novelty of the studies or the research gaps they cover. Lack of sufficient methodological detail, which affects the reproducibility of the experiments and can make it difficult to validate or extend the results by other researchers, is also common. Other recurring problems are insufficient discussion of the results and the frequent absence of appropriate contextualization. Often the conclusions exceed the evidence provided by the experimental data, although it is advisable to remain proportional to the claims. In addition, deficiencies in scientific writing, organization of the paper and presentation of data can diminish the impact of otherwise valuable work. Ultimately, the manuscripts that stand out are those that combine solid experimental design, rigorous data analysis, transparent reporting and balanced interpretation of the results.

6. Throughout your peer-review career, have you had a particularly memorable reviewing experience? If so, could you tell us about it?
One of my peer-review experiences was related to a manuscript describing a bio-based gel for water purification applications. The concept was interesting, but the original version lacked sufficient experimental evidence to support some of the study’s main hypotheses. In the revised version, additional experiments were added and the interpretation of the results was substantially expanded. What made the peer-review process enjoyable was not only the improvement of the manuscript itself, but also the willingness of the authors to respond to the received suggestions. The review was beneficial both for the authors and for the final quality of the paper.

7. What specific advice would you give to early-career researchers who are participating in peer review for the first time?
My main advice is to approach the review process with professionalism and not to consider the review of a manuscript as a demonstration of authority or the identification of as many flaws as possible. The peer-review process must ensure, on the one hand, the effective communication of the research carried out and the observance of appropriate scientific standards, on the other hand. I recommend that reviewers at the beginning of their careers take sufficient time to analyze manuscripts before drawing conclusions, to maintain objectivity regardless of whether the reviewed works align with their own perspectives or research interests and to provide clear and concise comments to the authors.

8. How has your experience been as a reviewer for Gels? Are there any additional forms of support or initiatives you would like to see from MDPI and the journal?
My experience as a reviewer for Gels has always been positive. I consider this journal a suitable platform for publishing research across the broad field of gel utilization—ranging from material development to practical applications in environmental, biomedical and engineering contexts. I also appreciate the recognition of the reviewers’ role in upholding scientific quality. Receiving the “Outstanding Reviewer Award” signifies appreciation for the time and effort dedicated to this important aspect of the academic work.
Initiatives aimed at developing reviewer skills such as webinars or mentorship programs could provide additional value, particularly for early career researchers.

9. In your view, what are the main benefits of open access publishing for authors and the broader research community?
Open access publishing makes research in various fields immediately available and free of charge. In the context of global challenges such as sustainable resource management or environmental decontamination, rapid access to new knowledge accelerates the development and practical implementation of solutions. For authors, this publishing regime increases the visibility and potential impact of their works. Research results reach at the same time both the academic environment and professionals who can apply them in real-world contexts.
From a broader perspective, open access contributes to ensuring equity in research by removing the restrictions associated with limited financial resources that some researchers face, thus supporting an inclusive and transparent scientific ecosystem.