Announcements

1. Can you briefly introduce yourself and the main content of your current research?

I graduated first in chemistry and later in physics from the University of Łódź in central Poland. For many years, I worked in the Department and later the Institute of Biophysics, where my research initially focused on aging at the cellular level. Over time, my scientific interests shifted toward reactive oxygen species and antioxidants, which remain the primary focus of my work today.

At the beginning, I worked mainly on synthetic antioxidants, especially nitroxides, but gradually my research moved more toward natural antioxidants and their mechanisms of action, as well as methods used to estimate antioxidant activity and antioxidant content.

Throughout my academic career, I also had opportunities to work internationally. I spent some time at Texas A&M University in the United States, then later in Düsseldorf, Germany, and also at Macquarie University in Australia. For a period, I worked simultaneously at the University of Łódź and at the University of Rzeszów in southeastern Poland.

Although I am now retired from the University of Łódź, I continue working at the University of Rzeszów, specifically at the Institute of Food Technology and Nutrition. At present, my research is still focused mainly on natural antioxidants and their biological actions.

2. When and how did you first become aware of Nutrients? What attracts you most about this journal?

It is actually difficult for me to remember exactly when I first became aware of Nutrients, because within the field of antioxidants and natural antioxidants, it has long been a very well-known and respected journal.

My own research often fits more closely with journals such as the International Journal of Molecular Sciences or Foods, especially because much of our work focuses on mechanisms of antioxidant action. Nevertheless, we regularly considered Nutrients as a possible publication venue, and the journal has always had a very strong reputation in our field.

In Poland, Nutrients is a highly respected journal. One important practical factor is that at our university, publication costs can be reimbursed when the journal has a sufficiently high impact factor. Since Nutrients has a strong impact factor and excellent standing in the field, it fully meets these criteria.

What attracts me most is the journal’s scientific reputation, its visibility, and the efficiency of its editorial process. It is a journal that researchers in my field recognize and respect.

3. Could you share with us your feelings about winning the award? What does this award mean to your academic career?

Winning the Reviewer Award was truly both an honor and a surprise for me. During a certain period, Nutrients kindly sent me many manuscripts for review, most of them closely related to my expertise, which made the reviewing process both interesting and intellectually rewarding.

Reviewing often required me to consult additional literature and verify details carefully. I really enjoyed being involved so actively with the journal, but I certainly did not expect such recognition.

At this stage of my life, my academic career is naturally approaching its later phase, but this award still means a lot to me professionally. Recognition of this kind strengthens appreciation within the university environment and contributes positively to one’s academic standing and reputation.

I was therefore genuinely very pleased and grateful to receive this distinction.

4. What role do you think reviewers play in the process of paper publication?

I believe the role of reviewers is extremely important. As both an author and reviewer, I have seen how peer review can significantly improve the quality of a scientific paper.

Some reviews focus mainly on editorial corrections or stylistic improvements, which are also valuable. However, the most important reviews are those that ask deep scientific questions and encourage authors to reconsider interpretations, improve methodologies, clarify conclusions, or better explain their results.

Very often, reviewers help authors notice problems or weaknesses that they themselves overlooked. In my own field, for example, I have often observed that methodological descriptions are incomplete or insufficiently precise. Usually, this is not because authors wish to hide anything, but simply because they unintentionally omit details. A reviewer’s task is to identify such issues and ensure that the methods and results are described properly and transparently.

Reviewers also play a major role in maintaining scientific quality standards. Of course, rejecting a paper is never pleasant because authors invest enormous effort into their research, but sometimes rejection is necessary if the work does not meet the required standards of a journal.

Overall, I think peer review is essential because it improves manuscripts, strengthens scientific rigor, and protects publication quality.

5. How do you balance the comprehensiveness and efficiency of review? Can you share some specific methods or principles for reviewing?

One thing I appreciate very much about MDPI journals is the efficiency of the review and publication process. Compared with traditional journals, where publication may take many months or even years, the MDPI system is remarkably fast and efficient.

In my experience, the standard one-week review period is usually sufficient for preparing a solid review. Often, even if one initially thinks more time is needed, the actual detailed review can realistically be completed within a few focused days.

My own reviewing method usually begins with a first reading of the manuscript in order to obtain a general impression of the work—whether it is scientifically interesting, what may be lacking, and what its strengths are. Then I perform a second, much more detailed reading. During this stage, I annotate specific comments, questions, and concerns throughout the manuscript.

I generally structure my reviews by starting with broad overall comments and then moving toward more detailed line-by-line observations. While I do not focus excessively on minor typographical issues, I still point out language or stylistic problems whenever they are relevant.

In the early years of my reviewing activity, I must admit that sometimes my reviews were too brief. However, editorial feedback encouraged me to make them more comprehensive and detailed, and I believe this improved my reviewing approach considerably.

Of course, comprehensive reviewing requires time and careful analysis, but I think efficiency and quality can coexist when the reviewer is organized and focused.

6. In your view, what characteristics typically define a high-quality peer review report? Drawing upon your extensive experience, what specific details or clues do you look for to determine whether a report might have been generated by AI?

A high-quality review should be detailed, constructive, balanced, and scientifically meaningful. It should not simply state whether a paper is good or bad; it should explain clearly why improvements are needed and provide guidance that helps the authors strengthen their work.

The best reviews usually demonstrate that the reviewer has genuinely engaged with the manuscript, considered the methodology carefully, examined the logic of the conclusions, and evaluated the significance of the findings within the broader scientific context.

Regarding artificial intelligence, I know that journals now require reviewers to declare the use of AI tools. Personally, I do not use AI to generate reviews because I believe that doing so would currently be intellectually dishonest, except perhaps for minor grammar or language corrections after the review is completed.

AI can certainly help identify missing details, compare publications, or detect editorial inconsistencies. However, in my opinion, AI is still unable to adequately evaluate the true novelty, importance, or scientific significance of a paper.

One indication that a report may have been generated by AI is when the review sounds overly generic, formulaic, or lacks deep engagement with the specific scientific content of the manuscript. AI-generated reviews may also focus excessively on formal aspects while failing to provide nuanced scientific judgment or field-specific insight.

Human reviewers bring scientific experience, intuition, contextual understanding, and critical judgment that AI still cannot fully reproduce. Of course, AI systems will continue to improve, so this situation may evolve in the future.

7. Please briefly describe your experience with our services and journals so far.

My experience with MDPI journals and services has generally been very positive. I have worked with several MDPI journals, including Nutrients, Foods, Molecules, Processes, and the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

What I appreciate most is the efficiency of the editorial workflow, proofreading process, and online publication system. In situations where rapid publication was important—for example, for grant applications or PhD defenses—the speed of publication was extremely valuable.

I also think the reviewer recognition system is very good and motivating. The journal communicates efficiently with reviewers and authors, and the editorial offices are generally very supportive.

One aspect I am somewhat more critical about is the very large number of Special Issues organized across MDPI journals. Sometimes researchers receive numerous invitations to contribute to Special Issues. In my opinion, this approach can occasionally feel too aggressive, but I can understand why the journals are using it.

Nevertheless, overall, my experience with the journals and services has been very positive, and I greatly appreciate the professionalism, efficiency, and support provided by the editorial teams.