Announcements

Join us as we engage with our Metabolites Exceptional Reviewer 2025, Dr. Megan L. Falsetta, to discuss her scholarly insights and journey as a reviewer for Metabolites (ISSN: 2218-1989). 

Name: Dr. Megan L. Falsetta
Affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
Interests: lipidomics; polyunsaturated fatty acid metabolism; specialized pro-resolving mediators; eicosanoids; chronic pain

The following is an interview with Dr. Megan L. Falsetta:

1. Can you briefly introduce yourself and the main content of your current research?
While I hold a PhD in microbiology, I have become dedicated to the study of vulvovaginal disorders and pelvic pain. My research focuses on the role of innate inflammation in pain and scarring processes. Specifically, my lab is interested in improving our mechanistic understanding of vulvodynia (chronic vulvar pain), vulvar lichen sclerosus (scarring vulvar dermatosis), and endometriosis (growth of uterine tissue outside the uterus, which typically causes severe pain and impedes fertility). By improving our mechanistic understanding of these poorly understood and under-researched diseases, we can find new targets for novel therapeutics. In this vein, we have developed a “pipeline” for therapeutic testing in vulvodynia using a combination of primary human cells and mice, while collaborating on upcoming clinical trials in humans.

2. When and how did you first become aware of Metabolites? What attracts you most about this journal?
I first became involved with the MDPI group by guest editing a feature for Nutrients. I provided my information to serve as a reviewer and thus began reviewing for a few different MDPI journals, including Metabolites. Metabolites is an especially good match for my interests in polyunsaturated fatty acid metabolism and lipidomics.

3. What qualities do you think reviewers need?
To be a successful reviewer, you first need a positive attitude about the review process, understanding that commitment to review is a fundamental service as a member of the academic community. Then, you need to have an adequate amount of time to commit to each review and a keen eye for detail. You also need to have a bit of grace and patience to point out ways to improve the research without oversimplifying your responses or condescending to the authors. You also need to be willing to double-check your work and interpretations of the research to ensure you fully understand the context to make suggestions that will truly improve the work and ensure the highest quality.

4. What are the key factors and aspects that you consider most when reviewing a manuscript?
While there is often a big focus on novelty, the most important thing to look for in any manuscript is a sound scientific premise and experimental setup. It is also important to ensure that the data supports the conclusions, that appropriate sources have been cited, and that appropriate analysis and statistical methods have been applied. You need to have the ability to “let the data speak for itself”, as my PhD mentor taught me. By listening to the data, you can help ensure the results match the suppositions in the paper.

5. Do you have anything to say/share with early career researchers?
The review process is an important part of the scientific process. Accepting review requests is not just a responsibility, but an ability to learn. Every paper improves through the review process. Participating in the process makes you a stronger writer, keeps you up to date on recent developments in your field, and helps you to identify common pitfalls that cause a paper to be rejected or held up in the review process.

6. What advice would you give to early career researchers who are new to reviewing?
Say “yes” to the assignments that fit your interests and expertise. Building this experience can also lead to other opportunities to enrich your career, such as becoming a member of an editorial board, an associate editor, or even an editor in charge. However, I recommend choosing wisely and giving each review your best. If you do this, journals will notice you, and you will help build your career reputation.

7. Have you encountered manuscripts with overinterpreted conclusions? How would you advise authors to balance data and conclusions logically?

Listen to the data. Really listen. Allow the data to speak for itself and make sure that the data passes the burden of proof for every conclusion. If the conclusions appear overstated, point it out politely and respectfully. Sometimes authors inadvertently overstate results. Sometimes they do it deliberately but give everyone the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to modify their conclusions or provide additional information/data as needed to strengthen the conclusions.

8. Metabolites encourages data sharing and reproducibility in the manuscripts. What advice would you give to authors on this?
Unless you are a biostatistician, you should strike the word outlier from your vocabulary. Every data point should be meticulously recorded and shared at the time of publication, if not before. Sharing datasets allows the data to be used for other analytic purposes and enriches science. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel when another researcher could use your dataset to answer a different question. Sharing data enhances collaboration and progress. Do not be afraid to publish or share negative results. All data, if collected through sound scientific methodologies and premises, is worthwhile.