Announcements

We are very pleased to announce an impressive interview with Dr. Ian Mudway, who has just published an outstanding article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH, ISSN: 1660-4601). In this interview, we delve into the latest advancements, challenges, and future directions of his research.

Name: Dr. Ian Mudway
Affiliations:
1. Wolfson Institute for Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AB, UK;
2. MRC Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK;
3. NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Exposures, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Research interests: environmental exposures and health and chemical and radiation threats and hazards

Published Paper:
“Assessing the Impact of Non-Exhaust Emissions on the Asthmatic Airway (IONA) Protocol for a Randomised Three-Exposure Crossover Study”
by James Scales, Hajar Hajmohammadi, Max Priestman, Luke C. McIlvenna, Ingrid E. de Boer, Haneen Hassan, Anja H. Tremper, Gang Chen, Helen E. Wood, David C. Green, Klea Katsouyanni, Ian S. Mudway and Christopher Griffiths
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(7), 895; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070895
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/7/895

The following is an interview with Prof. Robert J. Gregory:

1. Could you give us a brief introduction about yourself to our readers?
I am a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Toxicology at the School of Public Health at Imperial College London. I also serve as a Co-Investigator on the Impact of Non-Exhaust Emissions on the Asthmatic Airway (IONA) study.

2. Can you tell us about any research you are currently undertaking that is related to the paper?
We recently published our protocol paper for the study, known as the IONA Study, in your journal (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/7/895). The study’s primary focus is to understand the impact of non-exhaust emissions from traffic on asthma. As regulations on tailpipe emissions from diesel and gasoline vehicles become stricter, there is a common perception that air quality will improve, potentially resolving health issues like the exacerbation of asthma symptoms related to air pollution.
However, what is less widely recognized is that a significant portion of urban air pollution actually comes from tire wear, the resuspension of road dust, and brake wear—all of which remain even as we transition to electric vehicles. Simply replacing combustion engines with electric vehicles does not eliminate pollution; it just changes its nature. The IONA Study aims to explore this issue in depth by determining whether this new form of pollution is as harmful to asthma as combustion-derived particles, or if it is safer. The study is designed specifically to address this critical question.

3. Are there any recent hot topics in your field of study?
There are two main areas of focus in this discussion. First, much of the attention is on achieving net-zero emissions and mitigating climate change. Reducing the use of combustion engines and transitioning to an electrified vehicle fleet are key targets for net zero, along with urban regeneration and city design. However, it is crucial to anticipate and avoid unintended consequences of these changes.
As we shift toward battery-powered vehicles, we must consider the entire lifecycle of these batteries and the pollutants that remain, or even increase, due to the shift in transportation methods. This study is really about looking ahead and asking whether, as we tackle the challenges of net zero and reduce CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions, we are also being mindful of the broader impacts on public health. Specifically, the focus on non-exhaust emissions (NEEs) is a hot topic in air pollution right now. As the vehicle fleet becomes more electrified, the number of vehicles will likely remain the same or even increase, but the types of particles they emit will change.
Additionally, climate change itself is altering the chemistry of our atmosphere. As we introduce more solar energy into the air due to a warming planet, secondary chemical reactions occur, producing new pollutants and changing the types we will be exposed to in the future. So, this discussion is really about what comes next. We already know diesel and exhaust emissions are harmful—that is settled. We are now entering a phase where these emissions are being phased out, which should lead to health benefits, unless the alternatives we are introducing are equally harmful. It is essential to ensure that this is not the case.

4. What do you hope that readers will gain from reading your paper?
It is a protocol paper. The purpose of a protocol paper is to clearly outline what we are going to do, explain the motivation behind the work, and explicitly state our hypothesis and what we intend to test. Essentially, it is a pre-publication of the study's intentions, which is incredibly important in my field.
In drug trials, for instance, it is mandatory to publish the aims, objectives, and hypothesis beforehand, so that when the data is analyzed later, it is clear that the study stayed true to its original intentions. Unfortunately, in my field, there has been a history of post hoc re-evaluation, where data are generated and then papers are written to fit a hypothesis to the results. By specifying and publishing a protocol upfront in environmental health studies, we adhere more closely to the principles of clinical trials.
Our goal is to ensure that environmental health studies are as robust as drug studies. This is especially important when the data eventually reaches the public domain, which can become contentious, particularly in areas like air pollution, car ownership, and potential restrictions on driving. These are politically sensitive topics, and it is crucial to demonstrate that the scientific process has been rigorous.
This is why protocol papers matter. As subsequent papers are published, reviewers can refer back to the protocol paper to ensure that the study adhered to its original plan. This is key to maintaining robust, evidence-based science.
The IONA study, for example, is funded by the United States Health Effects Institute, which has an interesting funding model—half of their funding comes from industry, and the other half from the U.S. government. This positions them as an independent arbiter between these potentially conflicting interests, especially in areas with significant economic impact. In studies like this, there is an added layer of due diligence to ensure that everyone knows the study's objectives and that we remain true to them.

5. What advice would you give to young investigators who aspire to be where you are now?
Do not be afraid of being wrong. In fact, any scientist should expect to be wrong about 95% of the time. If you are not wrong that often, it might be a sign that something needs closer examination. No one can always be universally right. Be wary of someone who has never had a hypothesis disproved—that likely means they either knew the outcome before they started or they are not asking sufficiently challenging questions.
Science is about pushing the boundaries of knowledge, and that means accepting that you will make mistakes. Often, it is those unexpected outcomes and the mistakes you make that lead to the most valuable discoveries in your field.

6. What is your impression of the publishing experience with IJERPH?
The submission process itself was painless—or as painless as submitting to a journal can ever be. Publishing is a strange business model if you think about it. We, as researchers, need the publishers, and they need our content, so it is a symbiotic relationship.
I imagine we can be frustrating at times because we do not always meet deadlines, but we are often juggling multiple demands. Conversely, I do not think many people in the scientific community fully grasp the pressures and workload that journal editors face. This can lead to mutual frustration.
That said, I found the process of publishing with your journal to be quite straightforward. Once we passed the review stage, the editorial process, manuscript preparation, and the advice we received were all clear and easy to follow—something that is not always the case.

7. We are an open access journal. How do you think open access impacts authors?
Firstly, most of our research councils require that our publications appear in open access journals. For papers funded by the latest Horizon 2020 European funding mechanism, not only must they be published in open access journals, but the data also have to be released simultaneously under FAIR data principles. This has caused a lot of concern, as everyone is trying to navigate what that actually entails, but it is absolutely essential.
Additionally, because I work in public health, where studies often become quite relevant very quickly, the days of quietly publishing and moving on are over. Once a paper goes to press, it can become a significant issue almost immediately. As I mentioned earlier, transparency in the research process is crucial. However, transparency is meaningless if people do not have access to the research. Open access publication is therefore essential to maintain public trust in science. When research is hidden behind a paywall, it creates opportunities for misinformation and mistrust, with people claiming that information is being concealed or that the system is rigged.
In my field, it is absolutely essential. You simply cannot conduct public health research if the public cannot access your findings.

We are very pleased to announce an impressive interview conducted with Prof. Linda L. Chao, who has recently published an outstanding article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH, ISSN: 1660-4601). In this interview, we delve into the latest advancements and challenges in and future directions of her research.

Published Paper:
“PON1 Status in Relation to Gulf War Illness: Evidence of Gene–Exposure Interactions from a Multisite Case–Control Study of 1990–1991 Gulf War Veterans”
by Lea Steele, Clement E. Furlong, Rebecca J. Richter, Judit Marsillach, Patricia A. Janulewicz, Maxine H. Krengel, Nancy G. Klimas, Kimberly Sullivan and Linda L. Chao
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(8), 964; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21080964
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/8/964

The following is an interview with Prof. Linda Chao:

1. Could you please give us a brief introduction of yourself and your current research topic to our readers?
My name is Linda Chao and I’m a professor of radiology and psychiatry at UCSF. I’m also a research career scientist at the San Francisco VA. I’m a cognitive neuroscientist by training, and my research examines normal aging neurodegenerative processes and how exposures to things like stress and neurotoxins affect the brain and cognition. I also study the effects of nonpharmacological interventions for conditions like mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Gulf War illness (GWI).

2. What inspired you to pursue this field of research?
Well, I’ve always been interested in the brain and how the mind works, particularly memory, and why some people have good memories and other people can’t seem to remember anything at all. When I took my first cognitive psychology class in college and the professor broke memory down into three processes—encoding, storage, and retrieval—I found out that people were doing research to find out which parts of the brain were responsible for different parts of cognition. I thought, “That’s what I want to do”.

3. Can you tell us about any research you’re currently undertaking that is related to the paper?
GWI has been a major focus of my research for the past 25 years. I currently have a study looking at veterans who were exposed to large amounts of pesticides during the Gulf War, and I’m studying whether they’re at increased risk for Parkinson’s disease. I have another study looking at whether deployed Gulf War veterans have higher than expected rates of mild cognitive impairment, which is considered a prodromal or early stage of dementia. Finally, I have a clinical trial looking at whether we can improve symptoms of GWI by treating veterans with GWI, insomnia, and undiagnosed or untreated sleep apnea with behavioral sleep therapy and a positive airway pressure (PAP) device.

4. What do you hope that readers will get from your paper?
For the longest time, Gulf War illness was this mystery illness, and no one could figure out why the soldiers who returned from a very brief conflict in the Persian Gulf region were getting so sick. We now know that Gulf War veterans were exposed to a lot of different types of chemicals, some of which are neurotoxins, but it’s long been a mystery why certain soldiers became so sick while others, who appeared to have similar deployment-related exposures, didn't get sick.
Dr. Lea Steele, our study’s first author, had some preliminary findings early on suggesting that genetic factors may have played a role in the development of Gulf War illness. Dr. Robert Haley also published some early studies suggesting that veterans with the RR genotype PON1 enzyme, which detoxifies toxic chemicals, may be more susceptible to the adverse effects of nerve agents.
I think what’s unique about our study is that we considered all deployment-related exposures, not just chemical nerve agents. By doing so we are seeing just how complicated the etiology of Gulf War illness likely is. Our results suggest that veterans who have QQ or QR types of the PON1 enzyme, which is much more common among the Gulf War veteran population than the RR type of PON1 enzyme, were likely more susceptible to the adverse effects of skin pesticides, which nearly every Gulf War veteran used during deployment. Furthermore, our findings hint at possible interactions between Pyridostigmine bromide (PB), which was used to protect the troops against possible nerve agent exposure, and nerve agents and skin pesticides that were used during deployment. In other words, the PB pills that many soldiers were ordered to take to protect them against nerve agents may actually have made things worse. We also saw hints that being a regular smoker during deployment may have also exacerbated the effects of exposure to skin pesticides.

5. What is your impression of your publishing experience with the journal IJERPH?
I was really impressed by the fast turnaround time from submission to publication. There aren’t that many Gulf War illness researchers in the field, and sometimes journals can have a hard time finding referees with the appropriate expertise who are willing to review Gulf War illness-related papers. So, we’re appreciative of the fast turnaround time from submission to publication. I also appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about our work.

6. We are an open access journal. How do you think open access impacts authors?
I think open access journals are great, and in particular, open access makes our work and our research more visible and available to the general public, journalists, and policymakers because they can access our papers without needing a subscription to the journals, which is nice.

7. What advice would you give to young investigators who aspire to be where you are now?
If there’s a topic that interests you, pursue it with passion, even if it’s not currently a hot or trendy topic. What’s trendy in research tends to have a cyclical nature, and if you’re studying something that you’re genuinely interested in, it’ll be easy for you to put in the number of hours that’s necessary to become successful. So, don’t worry if the rest of the world doesn’t think what you’re studying is cool or interesting because they’ll eventually catch up.

MDPI will attend the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) 101st Annual Conference. Great minds come together at the ACRM Annual Fall Conference, the place to fuel creative energy, promote innovation and spark collaboration—the kind of collaboration needed to help bring the latest science into practice faster. With 150+ inter-professional groups at ACRM, including community groups, committees, and task forces, the 100th anniversary conference is planning 4 powerful plenaries, 15+ symposia, 300+ educational sessions, symposia and lectures, and 600+ scientific papers and digital poster presentations.

The mission of ACRM is to enhance the lives of those with disabling conditions through interdisciplinary research. To optimize patient care, it is essential for researchers to effectively communicate their findings, and for clinicians to provide valuable feedback to inform and advance research efforts. The objective of the ACRM 101st annual conference is to foster engagement among attendees, encouraging discussions and collaborations that will propel the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation forward.

The following MDPI journals will be represented:

• Healthcare;
• IJERPH;
• Behavioral Sciences;
• Trauma Care;
• Nursing Reports;
• Brain Sciences;
• JFMK;
• Biomechanics;
• Prosthesis;
• EJIHPE;
• Sensors;
• Sclerosis.

If you plan on attending this conference, please feel free to stop by our booth #434 and start a conversation with us. 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 https://conference.acrm.org/.

MDPI’s Best PhD Thesis Awards are granted to promising young scholars whose PhD theses are deemed exceptional within their respective research fields. These awards aim to encourage young scholars to continue their outstanding accomplishments and further contribute to their field.

We extend our heartfelt congratulations to the 54 winners of the 2023 Best PhD Thesis Awards and wish them success with their future research endeavors.

MDPI will continue to provide support and recognition to the academic community. To learn more about all the awardees and their research projects in your field of study, please visit the following pages:

About MDPI Awards:

To reward the academic community, especially young researchers, and enhance communication among scientists, MDPI journals regularly offer various awards to researchers in specific fields. These awards, serving as a source of inspiration and recognition, help raise the influence of talented individuals who have been credited with outstanding achievements and are making a significant contribution to the advancement of their fields.

To explore more MDPI awards, please click here.

MDPI will be attending the GSA 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting (GSA 2024), which will be held from 13 to 16 of November 2024, in Seattle, USA.

The Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting draws professionals in the field of aging on a global scale, representing specialties including geriatrics, biological sciences, nursing, nutrition, medicine, social work, economics, policy, and psychology. The GSA is the largest and most established international, interdisciplinary scientific organization devoted to the advancement of gerontological research.

GSA 2024 offers numerous opportunities for career development and networking. Nearly 4,000 researchers, clinicians, educators, and other professionals will gather in Seattle to learn about and discuss the latest trends, research, and key issues in aging.

The following MDPI journals will be represented at the conference:

• Healthcare;
• Geriatrics;
• Nursing Report;
• Epidemiologia;
• Journal of Clinical Medicine (JCM);
• International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH);
• European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education (EJIHPE);
• Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM);
• Nutrients;
• Journal of Ageing and Longevity (JAL);
• International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IJMS);
• Societies;
• Behavioral Sciences.

If you are planning to attend the conference, we encourage you to visit our booth and speak to our representatives. We are eager to meet you in person and assist you with any queries you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the official website at https://www.gsa2024.org/.

We were very pleased to announce an impressive interview with Prof. Robert J. Gregory, who has just published an outstanding article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH, ISSN: 1660-4601). In this interview, we delve into the latest advancements, challenges, and future directions of his research.

Name: Prof. Robert J. Gregory

Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA

Interests: borderline personality disorder; suicide prevention; addictions; psychotherapy

Published Paper: “Dynamic Deconstructive Psychotherapy for Suicidal Adolescents: Effectiveness of Routine Care in an Outpatient Clinic”
by Rebecca J. Shields, Jessica P. Helfrich and Robert J. Gregory
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(7), 929; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070929
Article Link: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/7/929

The following is an interview with Prof. Robert J. Gregory:

I am a researcher, clinician, and teacher, and I was part of a regional youth mental health task force. Back in 2016, one of the recommendations from that task force was to improve care for suicidal individuals in our region. Since around 2007-2008, adolescents in the United States—and to some extent worldwide—have not been doing well. Even before the pandemic, there were rising rates of suicide and suicide attempts. In fact, during that time in the United States, there was a fivefold increase in adolescents coming to emergency rooms for suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts. The health system was overwhelmed, and we did not have adequate services for them. Frankly, we still do not have enough.

In 2017, I established a program called the Psychiatry High Risk Program, specifically for suicidal teens and young adults. The program utilizes an evidence-based psychotherapy that I developed about a decade earlier, called Deconstructive Dynamic Psychotherapy (DDP). Although DDP was well researched, it had not been used specifically for suicidal individuals. We decided to apply it to this population because it targets core vulnerabilities that lead to suicide—vulnerabilities such as impaired emotion processing, poor self-compassion, feelings of worthlessness, and a sense of alienation and isolation.

The goal of DDP is to address these core vulnerabilities over the course of up to a year, offering transformative healing rather than just helping people cope with their psychiatric disorders. Our recent study focused on adolescents aged 13 to 17 in our program. We looked at 65 consecutive adolescents who were highly suicidal, with a median of seven lifetime suicide attempts per person. Over six months, there was an 84% reduction in suicide attempts and a significant reduction in suicidal ideation. We also saw broad improvements in depression, anxiety, self-compassion, social functioning, and school performance, as well as a two-third reduction in emergency room visits and hospitalizations, saving an average of four hospital days per patient.

There is little research on adolescent suicide interventions, and our recovery-based approach seems to be working. I hope other institutions will consider adopting a similar model, as there is nothing about our program that cannot be replicated in other communities.

One of the challenges that we face is that this is a self-supporting program. We do not receive any state funding or other government support. We have received some donation money, which has been very helpful and has allowed us to conduct certain studies. One particularly helpful aspect was working with a few managed medical companies to secure slightly higher reimbursement rates. Unfortunately, the state did not cooperate, as they have a different, more short-term model in mind. However, the managed medical insurance companies were willing to work with us given our outcomes, especially since we were saving them a significant amount of money by reducing hospitalizations. This has allowed us to treat those patients who may not have private insurance or the means to afford it.

In terms of dissemination, I have found that it can be a significant challenge for any innovative treatment model. People are often skeptical of data unless they see patients improving with their own eyes. We have had some interest from different places around the world, and we have conducted training in Mexico and Israel and a residency program in North Carolina. We have also trained staff at a hospital in San Diego. However, progress is slow because of skepticism. Once people see the power of the method, especially in adolescents or young adults who have not responded to multiple other treatments, they become much more open to it.

Globally, the trend is moving in the opposite direction towards short-term interventions such as ten-session CBT or three-session approaches. While these have their benefits, particularly in helping people become less suicidal and get through a crisis, they also have limitations. Because these approaches are so short-term, they do not address the core vulnerabilities, which means that they do not break the cycle of chronicity. As a result, people may still be at risk when the next major stressor arises.

I hope it inspires them to see that there is another way—that they actually can make a difference. Many of the therapists I train, both regionally and internationally, are feeling burnt out. They feel like they are in a mill, trying to do the best they can, but no one is getting better, and clients keep cycling back into the clinic. This can be very discouraging. However, one thing that I have noticed with the training is that the morale of the therapists I train significantly improves. After initial skepticism, when they start seeing changes in their clients, they get really excited about it. Almost no therapist who begins training leaves; nearly all of them continue because they are inspired by the transformational changes they witness.

There is so much psychotherapy today that is ineffective, more akin to hand-holding and offering advice to get people through crises. Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, many have given up on psychotherapy as a solution. It can be hard to even get psychotherapy studies published, because not everyone realizes that not all therapy is the same. The counseling you might get in the community is very different from evidence-based, focused, structured psychotherapy. Many people are turning to quick solutions for their suicidality—a better drug, a new boyfriend or girlfriend—without realizing that more transformative healing is possible. They do not need to live the rest of their lives suffering from depression and suicidal thoughts.

Most of our clients have been struggling with suicidal thoughts since at least their early teens, and they are amazed and relieved when those thoughts finally go away for the first time in their lives. I have had clients tell me that they have been on their knees in their living room, with tears streaming down their faces. They are finally free from depression and suicidal thoughts. It is an incredibly gratifying treatment for the therapist as well. In most clinics, there is a lot of staff turnover, but we have almost zero turnover because therapists feel like they are finally making the kind of meaningful impact they hoped for when they entered the field.

I would say, contact me or email me at my email address. I am the corresponding author on the paper published. Email me to express an interest in collaboration. In fact, that is how the collaborations with Israel and Mexico started. Very often, it begins that way, and then we conduct research and publish together. It is about getting the word out. I love to collaborate, and it is definitely possible to do that.

I thought the process was a very good one. Publishing in IJERPH followed a rigorous scientific process. The peer reviews I received were objective and very helpful. We had two peer reviews as part of the manuscript submission process and were able to make the necessary changes. Once we had the final manuscript, the publication process went very quickly—within a week or two, we were able to publish it. I have been very impressed with the efforts towards dissemination and the partnership in that process. This interview is a good example of that. I definitely plan to make submissions to this journal in the future, as it has been a very positive experience thus far.

I think there has been a real transformation over the last 20 years in how knowledge is disseminated within the field of medicine more broadly, and also in psychiatry and mental health. Open access has clearly been the direction of the future, and indeed, the present, over the last 20 years. With search engines, it is now relatively easy to find the information you need, and the process of obtaining information out there through an open access journal is much faster. I am used to articles, once accepted, taking six months to a year before being published, rather than one to two weeks. The ability to have new findings disseminated quickly and make them available in search engines, where people can easily find them, is incredibly helpful.

MDPI’s Young Investigator Awards recognize promising early career scientists, acknowledge their contributions, and foster collaboration within the scientific community. We are proud to announce the recipients for 2023, who were carefully selected by the journals’ esteemed Award Evaluation Committee.

We extend our heartfelt congratulations to the 79 winners of MDPI’s 2023 Young Investigator Awards for their excellent contributions in their research field. We look forward to seeing these rising stars continue to contribute to the advancement of science.

MDPI will continue to support and recognize the academic community. To explore details about the awardees by field, please visit the individual pages listed below:

Congratulations to all the winners for their exceptional contributions and dedication to advancing scientific research.

About MDPI Awards:
To support the academic community, particularly young researchers, and to enhance communication among scientists, MDPI journals regularly offer various awards to researchers in specific fields. These awards, serving as a source of inspiration and recognition, help to elevate the profiles of talented individuals who have made outstanding achievements and are making significant contributions to advancements in their respective fields.

To find out more about MDPI awards, please click here.

Conference: 1st International Conference of Environmental Medicine—Environmental Threats to Human Health: From Genetics to Epigenetics
Date: 11 September 2024
Location: Chieti, Italy

The 1st International Conference of Environmental Medicine is presented by the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine (SIMA) and the University "Gabriele d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, addressing the impacts of environmental exposures on human health with an epigenetic perspective. The event is organized in collaboration with the Environmental Health Research Organization (EHRO), the Spanish Society of Environmental Medicine and Climate Changes (SESMA), and the Laureate Science Alliance (LSA). Fostering the application of the precautionary principle, the conference aims to promote a new vision of medicine and epidemiology focused on the primary prevention of the most common diseases or conditions where the role of environmental exposures has already been investigated in the medical literature.

The following MDPI journals will be represented:

• IJERPH;
• Diseases;
• Air;
• Infectious Disease Reports;
• Biology;
• Adolescents.

Join us as we engage with our IJERPH 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award winner, Dr. Carol Nash, to discuss her scholarly insights and journey as a reviewer for the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH, ISSN: 1660-4601).

Name: Dr. Carol Nash
Affiliation: History of Medicine Program, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 1W7, Canada
Interests: self-directed learning; narrative research; history of medicine; health promotion; bioethics

The following is an interview with Dr. Carol Nash:

1. Can you give us a brief introduction of yourself and the main content of your current research? Additionally, could you share some emerging research directions in this field?
I am a full-time researcher, devoting time to writing articles and reviewing for peer-reviewed journals. I write and review by responding to the invitations I receive from journals. My current research concerns the responses of various appointment-based medical specialties to emergency redeployment during COVID-19. I recently published a comprehensive examination of the reaction of several specialties. I am now writing articles for various journals on the response of individual appointment-based medical specialties during the COVID-19 redeployment. The outcome of each specialty differed. I mention the emerging research directions for this topic in my recent publication: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-7914/1/2/19.

2. When and how did you first become aware of the open access IJERPH journal? How do you think open access impacts scholar communities?
In 2018, the MDPI journal Challenges invited me to review a submission. This manuscript was the first review I did for any MDPI journal. In 2019, I received my first invitation from IJERPH to review an article. By the end of 2019, I had refereed six papers for IJERPH. I cannot speak for scholar communities; I can only speak for myself. How it impacted me was to redirect how I structured my research to fit the requirements of MDPI journals. I am very supportive of research being open to all.

3. Which qualities do you think reviewers need?
To learn what qualities I believe reviewers need, please see my article on this topic in the MDPI journal Publications: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/2/32.

4. What are the key factors and aspects that you consider most when reviewing a manuscript?
Again, rather than me providing a short answer here to this question, please read my article: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/2/32. It provides the answers.

5. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
One common problem that authors face regarding the review process is that they often fail to read the review thoroughly, jumping to conclusions concerning their response. When this happens, it prolongs the review process, as the reviewer must ask the authors more than once to make the same changes. Another problem is that authors often neglect to see the value in ensuring that their citations reference both seminal work and current research, demonstrating that the interpretation of the original work cited remains the same. In many cases, the interpretation has changed, requiring that authors provide a history of the term’s evolution. For those authors for whom English is not their first language, submissions are sometimes written in poor English. When the English language usage is difficult to decipher, reviewers are less likely to take up the invitation to do the review, and it takes longer for the author to receive the review. To ensure a review of their work, authors should use an aid, such as Grammarly, to check their English before they submit.

6. What are the advantages of the MDPI review platform in your opinion?
The advantages of the MDPI review platform are as follows: it is standardized for most (but not all) MDPI journals, allows reviewers to examine their past reviews indefinitely, permits reviewers to see the reviews of the other referees of an article once all the reviews are in, and these other reviews are also available in perpetuity.

7. What’s the secret to a happy scientific life? Have you ever encountered any difficulties conducting research, and how did you overcome them?
As a researcher who has (among other topics) focused on burnout in researchers, the secret to a happy scientific life is researching because you want to find out the truth and will not be satisfied until you do. There is a difference between researching because it is fun and researching because you are looking for the truth. If your focus is fun, when work gets hard, you likely give up and will not be happy continuing the research. A researcher driven by the desire for truth is not concerned with what is momentarily fun. What is relevant is being self-directed in your research process based on a passion for finding the truth. An article of mine in the MDPI journal Challenges focuses on the happiest and most self-directed researcher I ever met. Here is a link to that article: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/13/2/45. It gives a more detailed answer to this question.
Regarding whether I have ever encountered any difficulties conducting research, before computers and the internet, my problems when researching were innumerable. In the past, to write an article, a researcher had to have access to the appropriate library and spend hours searching journals and books by hand to find the needed information. Notes were hand-written and then transcribed to the typewriter. The only mechanized part of researching then was that at least I had an electric, rather than manual, typewriter! It was almost impossible to be published as there were few journals, and the time reviewers took to read and comment on the article meant that submissions often took years to complete the acceptance process. Research in those days was agony. The only researchers who could get ahead in this system were those who had enough money to have secretaries and many research assistants to complete the work that was drudgery. Now, with computers, the internet, and so many journals to choose from for publication, one lone researcher can do the work of twenty in the past and have the results published in a tenth of the time it used to take. This time is history’s golden period for research.