Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
8.2
3.5
Journals
Sensors
Announcements
sensors-logo

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Announcements

6 May 2026
Interview with Dr. Saeideh Pahlavan—Winner of the Sensors Outstanding Reviewer Award


Name: Dr. Saeideh Pahlavan
Affiliation: Instituto de Microelectrónica de Sevilla, IMSE-CNM, (CSIC Universidad de Sevilla), Sevilla, Spain
Interests: electronic circuit design, real-time vision sensing, and wireless power transmission

  1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your field of research?
    I am currently a postdoctoral researcher at IMSE-CNM (CSIC–Universidad de Sevilla), where I work on neuromorphic ASIC design for biomedical applications. I received my PhD (Cum Laude) from the University of Tehran in 2023, specializing in integrated circuits for bio-inspired and biomedical systems.
    My research focuses on low-power analog and mixed-signal IC design, wireless power transfer for biomedical implants, and neuromorphic hardware for intelligent sensing and stimulation. During my PhD, I developed innovative wireless powering methods for moving biological targets, including machine-learning-based approaches for efficient power delivery in dynamic environments. This work resulted in several publications in high-impact journals such as IEEE TBioCAS.
    I have also collaborated with TU Delft on wearable health-monitoring systems and am currently leading the design of a programmable neuromorphic ASIC capable of implementing spiking neural networks for applications such as neural sensing, Parkinson’s disease treatment, and smart biomedical devices. My long-term goal is to establish an independent research line in neuromorphic integrated circuits for diagnosis and therapy.
  2. What key aspects do you typically focus on during the review process?
    During the review process, I primarily focus on the novelty and originality of the work, as well as the clarity of the research objectives. I carefully evaluate the structure of the manuscript, the relevance and completeness of the literature review, and whether the proposed idea is well-motivated.
    In addition, I assess the technical soundness of the methodology and whether the results clearly support the claims. A strong paper should present a well-defined problem, a meaningful contribution, and a convincing demonstration of its benefits.
  3. Based on your reviewing experience, what are some common problems that authors face?
    One common issue is an incomplete or biased literature review. Authors sometimes select references that only support their work while overlooking important contributions from other researchers.
    Another frequent problem is insufficient validation. Some manuscripts rely only on simulations or limited measurements without providing comprehensive validation. In my view, a strong study should be supported by three key pillars: theoretical analysis, simulation, and experimental validation. Ignoring one of these aspects often weakens the overall contribution.
  4. For young scholars who are just beginning to participate in peer review, what specific advice would you offer?
    I would recommend that young researchers accept review invitations only when they have sufficient expertise in the topic and enough time to perform a thorough evaluation. A careful and responsible review is more valuable than a rushed one.
    It is also important to rely on one’s own knowledge and critical thinking rather than overusing AI tools. Reviewers should read manuscripts carefully and objectively, providing constructive feedback.
    Finally, reviewers should support the development of research. If a paper has potential but requires improvements, it is better to recommend a major revision rather than rejection, giving authors the opportunity to strengthen their work.
  5. How has serving as a reviewer shaped your perspective on manuscript quality and improved your own writing or research practices?
    Serving as a reviewer has significantly improved my perspective on research quality and scientific writing. By reviewing a wide range of manuscripts, I have learned to identify both strong and weak aspects of research more effectively.
    This experience has directly influenced my own work. It has helped me improve the structure of my papers, strengthen my analysis, and present my results more clearly. Additionally, observing common mistakes in other manuscripts has made me more careful in avoiding similar issues in my own research.
  6. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?
    Artificial intelligence can be a useful supportive tool, but it should not replace human expertise. AI systems are based on existing data and are not always fully accurate or reliable.
    Reviewers will continue to play a critical role by applying their knowledge, experience, and scientific judgment. While AI can assist with tasks such as language improvement or initial screening, the evaluation of novelty, significance, and technical correctness must remain the responsibility of expert reviewers.

More News...
Back to TopTop