Interview with Prof. Dr. Jonathan Blackledge—Winner of the Mathematics Editor of Distinction Award

Mathematics (ISSN: 2227-7390) is proud to present the 2025 Mathematics Editor of Distinction Award to Prof. Dr. Jonathan Blackledge, one of our Editorial Board Members! We would like to thank him for his invaluable contributions to the journal.

Name: Prof. Dr. Jonathan Blackledge
Affiliation: School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Technological University Dublin, Grangegorman, D07 EWV4 Dublin, Ireland
Interests: non-linear dynamical systems; fractional calculus; fractal geometry; econophysics; artificial intelligence; evolutionary computing; pattern recognition; deep learning; THz communication systems; post-quantum cryptography

The following is an interview with Prof. Dr. Jonathan Blackledge:

1. Congratulations on winning this year’s Mathematics Editor of Distinction Award. What would you like to share about how you feel at this moment?
   I am very pleased to have received this award. Before joining the meeting for the interview, I looked through the folder containing my work with MDPI, which spans several years. My collaboration with MDPI dates to around 2013. This was the first time I was contacted by MDPI to contribute to the Special Issue “Digital Signal Processing and Engineering Applications”.
   Since then, my involvement with MDPI has grown steadily, and it has now been nearly fourteen years of collaboration with the publishing company. Over this time, I have had the opportunity to contribute in various ways, making it a long-standing and rewarding professional relationship.
2. As a journal Editorial Board Member, what do you believe is the most critical step in maintaining the journal’s academic standards? Is it the evaluation of innovation during the precheck stage, the precise selection of reviewers, or the final decision of controversial manuscripts?
   The quality of peer review, and the expertise of those conducting the reviews, is one of the most important factors in maintaining the standards of any peer-reviewed journal. Ensuring that submissions are directed to the most appropriate journal can sometimes be challenging, particularly where there is significant overlap between subject areas. However, regardless of these challenges, the quality and rigor of the review process remain the most critical elements in safeguarding academic standards and ensuring that high-quality research is published.
3. What challenges have you encountered in the process of reviewing manuscript quality for the journal?
   The quality of submitted manuscripts can vary considerably. In some cases, papers are not properly formatted, which is an issue that should ideally be addressed prior to submission. Ensuring that authors follow the required formatting guidelines before submitting their work would help streamline the review process, reduce unnecessary delays, and improve the overall efficiency and professionalism of the publication workflow.
4. How do you handle manuscripts that are highly innovative yet controversial? When authors strongly appeal against reviewer comments, how do you usually strike a balance between upholding academic rigor and encouraging academic innovation?
   In mathematics, controversies are relatively uncommon, as the discipline is grounded in precision, rigor, and logical consistency. Rather than controversy, the primary concern is accuracy; ensuring that proofs, theorems, and lemmas are correct and clearly presented. In this sense, mathematics tends to minimize subjective disagreements.
   When differences of opinion do arise during the review process, I generally adopt a more cautious and critical approach, as there is almost always room for improvement. For example, if one reviewer recommends acceptance while another suggests major revisions, I typically support the recommendation for major revisions. Similarly, when multiple reviews are received, I tend to follow the majority view. For instance, if three reviewers recommend one course of action and one recommends another, I usually align with the majority decision.
5. As AI technology is increasingly applied in academic writing and peer review, what is your view on its impact on the traditional peer review process as an Editorial Board Member? How should the journal maintain oversight in terms of technical ethics?
   AI tools have made the review process significantly more efficient. I regularly use AI to proofread my reviews after I have written them. Typically, I draft the review myself, then use AI to refine the English, improve the structure, and correct any grammatical issues. Afterward, I read through the revised version carefully before submitting it. This process helps to substantially improve the clarity, grammar, and overall quality of the review while ensuring that the content and judgment remain my own.
6. What changes have occurred in the research hotspots and trends within the field of mathematics? What suggestions do you have for attracting high-quality submissions on popular topics and increasing the journal’s influence?
   Artificial intelligence is undoubtedly one of the most significant emerging areas in mathematics. The number of AI-related mathematical papers has grown substantially, particularly high-quality contributions from researchers at Chinese universities. This growth has accelerated markedly over the past two to three years, reflecting what can reasonably be described as a technological and scientific revolution. Mathematicians play a foundational role in this development, contributing to the theoretical frameworks that underpin machine learning, optimisation, and data-driven methods.
   In this context, one potential strategy would be to launch additional Special Issues focused on emerging and high-impact topics. Such initiatives can help attract high-quality submissions and strengthen the journal’s profile in rapidly developing areas. For example, Special Issues dedicated to machine learning and related mathematical challenges could significantly enhance the journal’s visibility, relevance, and academic influence.
7. What plans do you have for continuing as an Editorial Board Member?
   I plan to stay involved for as long as I am welcome, as I genuinely enjoy the work. The review system is very clear and well-structured, and the online process makes it straightforward to submit reviews, with clearly defined fields and requirements. Additionally, the quality of English in submissions has improved significantly, which further enhances the overall experience.