Need Help?
Announcements
15 May 2025
Interview with Dr. Atsushi Ueda—Winner of the Molbank 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award
Name: Dr. Atsushi Ueda
Affiliation: Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, 1-14 Bunkyo-machi, Nagasaki 852-8521, Japan
Research interests: organic chemistry; peptide; amino acid; organocatalyst; carbohydrate; glycosidation; organic synthesis
Below is a short interview with Dr. Atsushi Ueda:
1. Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers? Could you also tell us about your current research direction and its progress?
My research field is organic chemistry. I am currently working on the chemical synthesis of peptides containing unnatural amino acids. For example, the introduction of alpha,alpha-disubstituted alpha-amino acids is useful for enhancing enzymatic stability and controlling the secondary structure of peptides.
The hydrocarbon stapling of the side chains of peptides is also an effective approach for stabilizing their secondary structure. Hydrocarbon stapling produces a mixture of E and Z isomers. We now use alpha-carboxylic cyclic amino acids for hydrocarbon staling to better control side-chain hydrocarbon stapling to E isomer.
2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for Molbank?
Molbank has unique characteristics not found in other journals. It allows for the publication of articles focused on a single compound. I would like to see journals like Molbank continue to thrive in the future.
3. Do you have any tips for preparing a high-quality review report?
Honestly, I would like to ask for advice myself. But once I accept a review request, I make sure to read through the entire paper thoroughly.
In particular, I focus on why the research findings are important. Often, even excellent research lacks a clear statement of significance. In such cases, I point out issues like, “Please highlight this point more clearly in the introduction”.
4. With advancements in AI and automated tools, how do you see the role of peer reviewers evolving in the future?
As long as the review is conducted fairly, I believe it does not matter whether it is done by a human or AI. If it can be used as a support tool to speed up the process, I think it would be very beneficial.
5. Has your experience as a reviewer influenced the way you write your own manuscripts? Also, could you share your experience submitting a paper to Molbank?
Through reviewing papers, I have become more aware of common pitfalls in manuscripts.
For example, sometimes research objectives are stated in the introduction but not addressed in the results, or conversely, there are abundant data in the results, but the objectives are not clearly stated in the introduction.
By pointing out these issues in others' work, I naturally became more conscious of them in my own writing.
6. We hope the Outstanding Reviewer Award will open new opportunities for you. How do you think such awards support the career development of researchers?
Research awards often go to senior researchers. Therefore, having awards that young researchers can earn through steady peer-review efforts is very valuable for career support.
It also serves as motivation to continue contributing and can be a stepping stone for further career development.
7. What qualities do you think are essential for a good reviewer?
I believe neutrality and fairness are crucial. It’s easy to be influenced by the authors' names, affiliations, or the submitting institutions, but it’s important to evaluate papers solely based on their content without bias.
8. What are your opinions on the current scientific publishing landscape, and what do you think about the open access model?
Recently, the number of journals has increased dramatically, making things challenging for both authors and reviewers.
Having more options is generally a good thing, but an excessive number can also pose problems.
Regarding open access, some journals charge extremely high article processing charges (APCs), which is not ideal.
It can be difficult for research groups without sufficient funding to submit papers.
Compared to others, MDPI’s APCs are relatively affordable, and the availability of discounts is also helpful.
9. As the winner of this award, is there something you would like to express or someone you would especially like to thank?
I feel very honored to have received the Outstanding Reviewer Award. It was gratifying to have my steady efforts in peer review recognized in this way. I believe that as long as awards like this exist, there are opportunities for everyone. I would encourage readers to actively consider submitting to and reviewing for Molbank.
