Announcements
6 November 2025
MDPI Launches the Michele Parrinello Award for Pioneering Contributions in Computational Physical Science
MDPI is delighted to announce the establishment of the Michele Parrinello Award. Named in honor of Professor Michele Parrinello, the award celebrates his exceptional contributions and his profound impact on the field of computational physical science research.
The award will be presented biennially to distinguished scientists who have made outstanding achievements and contributions in the field of computational physical science—spanning physics, chemistry, and materials science.
About Professor Michele Parrinello
"Do not be afraid of new things. I see it many times when we discuss a new thing that young people are scared to go against the mainstream a little bit, thinking what is going to happen to me and so on. Be confident that what you do is meaningful, and do not be afraid, do not listen too much to what other people have to say.”
——Professor Michele Parrinello
 |
Born in Messina in 1945, he received his degree from the University of Bologna and is currently affiliated with the Italian Institute of Technology. Professor Parrinello is known for his many technical innovations in the field of atomistic simulations and for a wealth of interdisciplinary applications ranging from materials science to chemistry and biology. Together with Roberto Car, he introduced ab initio molecular dynamics, also known as the Car–Parrinello method, marking the beginning of a new era both in the area of electronic structure calculations and in molecular dynamics simulations. He is also known for the Parrinello–Rahman method, which allows crystalline phase transitions to be studied by molecular dynamics. More recently, he has introduced metadynamics for the study of rare events and the calculation of free energies. |
For his work, he has been awarded many prizes and honorary degrees. He is a member of numerous academies and learned societies, including the German Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, the British Royal Society, and the Italian Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, which is the major academy in his home country of Italy.
Award Committee
 |
The award committee will be chaired by Professor Xin-Gao Gong, a computational condensed matter physicist, academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and professor at the Department of Physics, Fudan University. Professor Xin-Gao Gong will lead a panel of several senior experts in the field to oversee the evaluation and selection process. The Institute for Computational Physical Sciences at Fudan University (Shanghai, China), led by Professor Xin-Gao Gong, will serve as the supporting institute for the award. |
"We hope the Michele Parrinello Award will recognize scientists who have made significant contributions to the field of computational condensed matter physics and at the same time set a benchmark for the younger generation, providing clear direction for their pursuit—this is precisely the original intention behind establishing the award."
——Professor Xin-Gao Gong
The first edition of the award was officially launched on 1 November 2025. Nominations will be accepted before the end of March 2026. For further details, please visit mparrinelloaward.org.
About the MDPI Sustainability Foundation and MDPI Awards 
The Michele Parrinello Award is part of the MDPI Sustainability Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing sustainable development through scientific progress and global collaboration. The foundation also oversees the World Sustainability Award, the Emerging Sustainability Leader Award, and the Tu Youyou Award. The establishment of the Michele Parrinello Award will further enrich the existing award portfolio, providing continued and diversified financial support to outstanding professionals across various fields.
In addition to these foundation-level awards, MDPI journals also recognize outstanding contributions through a range of honors, including Best Paper Awards, Outstanding Reviewer Awards, Young Investigator Awards, Travel Awards, Best PhD Thesis Awards, Editor of Distinction Awards, and others. These initiatives aim to recognize excellence across disciplines and career stages, contributing to the long-term vitality and sustainability of scientific research.
Find more information on awards here.
5 March 2026
Meet Us Virtually at the 1st International Online Conference on Education Sciences (IOCES 2026)—Submission Deadline Extension
3 March 2026
Meet Us at the BSA Annual Conference 2026, 8–10 April 2026, Manchester, UK
28 February 2026
MDPI INSIGHTS: The CEO’s Letter #32 - MDPI China and Thailand, China Science Daily, 1,000 Partnerships, R2R
Welcome to the MDPI Insights: The CEO's Letter.
In these monthly letters, I will showcase two key aspects of our work at MDPI: our commitment to empowering researchers and our determination to facilitating open scientific exchange.
Opening Thoughts
Reflections from China: Year-End-Celebrations and Open Access Publishing
In February, I had the pleasure of joining over a thousand colleagues from our Tongzhou and Haidian offices at their end-of-year annual celebration in Beijing.
Spending time with our teams in China is also a powerful reminder of the scale and complexity of MDPI as a global organization. Our colleagues in Beijing, Wuhan, and across the country play a significant role in our day-to-day operations and long-term development. I’m grateful for the hospitality, collaboration, and commitment shown by our managers and teams in China, alongside colleagues worldwide, who have helped steadily build MDPI, brick by brick, over the years.
Below are some data on Open Access (OA) publishing in China and our collaboration in this important research market.
Open Access Publishing in China
China has been the world’s leading country in research and review article publication volume since 2019, exceeding one million publications in 2025. Over the past five years, the gap between China and the second-ranked country, the United States, has continued to widen.
In 2025:
- 47% of China’s research output was published Open Access
- Of those OA publications, 76% were Gold Open Access (approximately 382,930 articles)
- The overall OA distribution remained stable compared with 2024, with Gold OA increasing by 1%
Over the past five years (2021–2025):
- China published 4,398,050 research and review articles
- Approximately 48% of this output was OA
According to Dimensions, when comparing the top 20 countries by publication volume (2021–2025):
- China ranks 1st worldwide in publication volume
- China ranks 9th in citation performance within this group (for comparison, the US ranks 2nd in publication volume and 10th in citation ranking)
- Average citations per article: 12.51
Among the top 10 universities globally by publication volume, six are Chinese institutions, alongside Harvard University (USA), the University of São Paulo (Brazil), the University of Toronto (Canada), and the University of Oxford (UK).
MDPI and China
China is an important and long-standing part of MDPI’s global publishing ecosystem:
- In 2025, MDPI was the largest fully Open Access publisher in China
- MDPI published 22% of China’s Gold Open Access output (82,133 papers)
- We received 290,999 submissions from China-affiliated authors and published 82,133 articles
- There are 8,500+ active Editorial Board Members based in China
- 64% (5,438) have an H-index above 26
- MDPI works with:
- 117 Editors-in-Chief
- 103 Section Editors-in-Chief
- 71 China-based institutions currently hold IOAP agreements with MDPI, seven of which rank among the top 10 Chinese institutions by publication volume
China's scale in research output means that the publishing platforms chosen by Chinese scholars will continue to influence the direction of scholarly publishing. At the same time, MDPI’s strength comes from its international collaboration, with colleagues, editors, reviewers, and authors working together across regions and disciplines.
Thank you to all our colleagues in China, and around the world, who support MDPI’s publishing activities across departments and help advance open access research every day.
Impactful Research
“Progress in open science is built through trust, dialogue, and relationships”
Behind the Scenes: A Conversation with China Science Daily
During my trip to Beijing, I also had the opportunity to visit China Science Daily and take part in an interview and broader exchange with their team in Beijing. Visits like this matter because progress in open science is built not only through platforms and infrastructure, but also through trust, dialogue, and relationships across research communities and regions.
China Science Daily: History Museum
As part of the visit, I was given a tour of their History Museum, which offers a thorough perspective on the evolution of China’s first science and technology newspaper, established in 1959. The exhibition highlights how the organization developed into a trusted institution connecting research with the public and policymakers. It was a helpful reminder that at the core of publishing is stewardship, credibility, and long-term public engagement with science.
An Open Exchange on Open Science
During the visit, I met with Dr. Zhao Yan, Editor-in-Chief of ScienceNet. We had an open and engaging conversation about MDPI’s role in Open Access, the evolution of open science globally, and the potential for more collaboration going forward. He especially appreciated the candid and personal nature of our exchange, noting that this kind of dialogue feels important in a landscape where trust and transparency matter.
Interview on Open Access
I also participated in an interview with Ms. Yan Jie, from the Online Media Center and Editor-in-Chief of ScienceNet, China Science Daily. Our discussion covered the growth of Open Access over the past 30 years, MDPI’s mission and values, academic integrity, collaboration with the Chinese research community, and MDPI’s own 30th anniversary milestone. It was a great opportunity to reflect on how open science has matured, and where shared responsibility across publishers, institutions, and researchers continues to matter most.
“Progress in open science is built by more than scale and infrastructure”
I’m sharing a few photos from the visit as a glimpse behind the scenes. The full interview will be published by China Science Daily in due course, and I look forward to sharing it when it is available.
More broadly, visits like this reinforce something I’ve always believed in: progress in open science is built not only through scale and infrastructure, but also through continued dialogue, mutual respect, collaboration, and a willingness to listen across regions and perspectives. That remains central to our work, especially as MDPI reflects on 30 years of publishing, built together.
Inside MDPI
Bangkok Visit: Growth, Partnership, and Local Impact
In February, I also had the opportunity to visit our Bangkok office for the second time in two years to support their local meetings and deliver a training session on how we present MDPI at a corporate level.
It’s easy to spend time with our colleagues in Thailand. From Editorial and Production to Conferences, Marketing, Design, and our Regional Journal Relations Specialist (RJRS), the team continues to grow in scale and professionalism. I’d also like to recognize our local management and admin teams, who have been steadily expanding our office and supporting more than 500 colleagues on the ground.
Academic Partnerships
During the visit, we met with the Engineering Department at King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL). Our discussion focused on the recent MDPI developments, Institutional Open Access Program (IOAP) opportunities, Author Publishing Workshops (APW), and the potential use of JAMS to support their institutional journal.
“MDPI is the third-largest OA publisher in Thailand”
We also shared insights into the growth of Open Access (OA) in Thailand and KMITL’s own publishing trends. These conversations matter because institutions are looking for sustainable ways to support their researchers. Our IOAP agreements are one simple example of how we can provide value in this area while maintaining accessibility for authors.
Thailand and MDPI: 2025 Snapshot
Our Bangkok office, officially launched in 2022, has been growing to support over 500 staff members while continuing to expand its engagement in scholar visits, workshops, and conference collaborations. As at 2025, Thailand submissions to MDPI have increased about 21% and publications by about 25%, maintaining a rejection rate close to the company average. MDPI is the third-largest OA publisher in Thailand, publishing 15% of all Gold OA output in 2025.
Representing MDPI Externally
During the visit, I delivered a training session on how we present MDPI at external events.
This session covered topics related to:
- Our aim and guiding principles
- High-level company milestones and Indexing facts and figures
- Industry partnerships and collaborations
- Market trends in OA and subscription publishing
- Country-specific publishing data and collaborations with MDPI
- Insights from our Voice of Community report
I find that while many colleagues are very familiar with the specific journal for which they have responsibility, fewer have visibility into the broader MDPI ecosystem and the company’s global positioning. These sessions help build alignment, confidence, and consistency in how we represent the company.
What stands out most is that MDPI’s growth is not abstract: it’s visible in the people, the partnerships, and the professionalism developing across our offices.
Coming Together for Science
1,000 Institutional Partners: A Milestone Built on Trust
This month, we reached an important milestone: more than 1,000 institutions worldwide are now part of MDPI’s Institutional Open Access Program (IOAP). On paper, that is a number. In practice, it represents trust.
This milestone symbolizes thousands of conversations with libraries and institutions. It stands for negotiations, renewals, consortium expansions, and, most importantly, relationships built over time. It reflects the work of colleagues across publishing, institutional partnerships, marketing, editorial, finance, and many other teams who contribute to making these agreements operational.
In 2025 alone, more than 61,300 research articles benefited from article processing charge (APC) discounts through IOAP agreements. Tens of thousands of authors were able to publish through a simplified and structured process. At the same time, institutional administrators gained clearer oversight and streamlined workflows.
Why IOAP Matters
When we launched IOAP, the objective was straightforward: to reduce barriers for researchers while supporting institutions in navigating the evolving OA landscape. Over the past decade, the research ecosystem has changed. Funder mandates, national policies, and Plan S–aligned requirements have accelerated the transition to OA.
Institutions need publishing partners who provide transparency, scalability, and operational efficiency. IOAP was designed to support that reality.
For colleagues who would like to better understand the program, this blog-post overview of MDPI’s IOAP provides additional context, including common questions around the transition to OA and how our institutional partnerships are structured.
“Institutions need publishing partners who provide transparency, scalability, and operational efficiency”
Recent Examples
Our agreements continue to evolve across regions:
- In Sweden, MDPI signed a national Open Access publishing agreement with 96 institutions, enabling affiliated researchers to publish without managing individual APC payments.
- In Spain, we extended our flat-fee agreement with Universidad Católica de Valencia, reinforcing institutional support for OA publishing.
These examples show that institutions seek structured, predictable models that support their researchers at scale.
Looking Ahead
Crossing the threshold of 1,000 partners tells us that institutions see MDPI not just as a publisher but as a reliable operational partner in advancing open science. This milestone is not a finish line. It is a reminder that the work continues.
Thank you to the entire IOAP team and to all colleagues who contributed to reaching this achievement.
P.S. You can read about this milestone across industry outlets, including STM Publishing News, ALPSP, Research Information, EurekAlert, Brightsurf, among others. You can also read about the coverage in Poland (e.g., media-room, bomega) Korea (newstap), and Romania (EduLike).
Closing Thoughts
Reflections from the Researcher to Reader Conference
During 24–25 February, I attended the 2026 Researcher to Reader Conference in London, UK. Leaders from across scholarly publishing, research infrastructure, libraries, and technology gathered to discuss AI and research integrity, peer review reform, metadata and infrastructure, community engagement, open research policy, and the evolving role of publishers in a rapidly shifting ecosystem.
The conversations were open and honest, and at times uncomfortable – exactly what we need at times. Below are a few reflections that stayed with me.
The Battle for Knowledge: What Becomes Accepted as ‘True’?
One recurring theme was not whether science evolves but whether our infrastructure is resilient enough to sustain trust at scale. Science does not promise certainty: it promises process. As publishing systems grow more complex and become more technologically mediated, the question is how intentionally we design, monitor, and strengthen that process.
Peer Review: Speed, Credentials, and Structural Loops
Researchers consistently call for faster peer review. At the same time, reviewer credentials are often tied to publication records. This creates a structural loop. Publishing history opens reviewing opportunities, reviewing strengthens credentials, and those without early access remain outside the cycle.
There is a need for us to reflect on how opportunity circulates within our systems: we should ask how we create more inclusive pathways for researchers globally to participate in peer review.
Community Engagement Workshop
One of the highlights of R2R was the workshop format, whereby small groups met repeatedly over two days and moved from ideas to tangible strategies.
I joined the Community Engagement workshop led by Lou Peck (CEO at The International Bunch) and Godwyns Onwuchekwa (Principal Consultant at Global Tapestry Consulting). We explored two deceptively simple questions: What is a community? and What does engagement truly mean?
“Engagement requires shared design and shared responsibility”
Too often, organizations equate communication with engagement. The framework discussed mapped a maturity spectrum – from enablement (broadcasting, informing and consulting) to true engagement (collaborating and co-creating).
It was a useful reminder of the fact that if we want trust and loyalty, engagement must go beyond announcements and surveys. It requires shared design and shared responsibility.
AI: Democratization or Digital Colonialism?
I especially enjoyed the thought-provoking presentation from Nikesh Gosalia (Chief Partnership Officer at Cactus Communications), which highlighted an uncomfortable reality:
- 93% of AI-generated content is in English
- Approximately 2% is in French
- Approximately 2% is in German
- More than 7,000 languages are represented in less than 5% of the content within large AI systems
The implications are profound. Is AI democratizing access to scholarly publishing (making it easier for researchers everywhere to participate in global knowledge production)? Or are we encoding colonialism at scale (entrenching linguistic and structural hierarchies, and making it harder for voices from the Global South to be heard)?
AI is already reshaping how research is created, reviewed, discovered, and shared. Its potential is enormous. But its impact depends not only on capability, but on governance, design, and intentionality. Publishers, funders, and researchers all share responsibility in shaping how these systems evolve.
Ethicality in practice (Lightening Talk)
It was also great to have our colleague Dr Miloš Čučulović (Head of Technology Innovation at MDPI) present MDPI’s Ethicality platform during a lightning talk.
“Technology alone is not the answer”
Ethicality embeds AI-driven checks directly into the submission workflow, supporting editors proactively rather than reacting after publication. As we scale, tools like this help balance trust, efficiency, and research integrity.
This goes back into the underlying theme of the conference that technology alone is not the answer. However, technology embedded thoughtfully within clear governance frameworks can strengthen confidence in the editorial process.
Final thought
The question is no longer whether technology will transform research infrastructure: it is already doing so. The real question is what role each of us will play in shaping that transformation deliberately, with structural maturity, inclusive governance, and engagement that moves from informing to co-creating.
Science needs to evolve, responsibly. And that responsibility extends not only to what we publish, but also to how the systems behind publication are designed. Some important topics to continue reflecting on both internally and within our broader community.
Chief Executive Officer
MDPI AG
20 February 2026
MDPI Virtual Academic Publishing Workshop (New Harvest), 25 February 2026
This Academic Publishing Workshop will be led by MDPI Regional Journal Relations Specialist, Dr. Sally Wu, on “Author Training”. Participants will receive practical advice on essential aspects of writing academic articles. Participants will leave with a clearer understanding of the academic publishing landscape and how to successfully contribute to it.
Date: 25 February 2026
Time: 11:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m. EST
Schedule:
|
Speaker |
Program |
Time in EST |
|
Dr. Sally Wu |
Introduction |
11:30–11:40 a.m. |
|
Dr. Sally Wu |
Tips for Writing Great Research Papers
|
11:40 a.m.–12:15 p.m. |
|
Dr. Sally Wu |
How to Respond to Peer Reviewers
|
12:15–12:50 p.m. |
|
Dr. Sally Wu |
AI in Publishing: Challenges and Opportunities
|
12:50–13:30 p.m. |
Speakers:
|
|
Dr. Sally Wu received a PhD in medical science from the University of Toronto in the fall of 2025. She joined MDPI in February 2025 as an Assistant Editor for Cells. She was recently promoted to Regional Journal Relations Specialist position in August. In this role, she works with many journals, liaising with authors, board members, and EiCs. She has attended several conferences across North America, hosted scholar visits, and taken part in other outreach events. |
18 February 2026
MDPI’s Open Access Program Reaches 1,000 Institutions Worldwide
11 February 2026
Recruiting Early Career Editorial Board Members for Social Sciences
11 February 2026
Meet Us at the Population Association of America 2026 Annual Meeting, 6–9 May 2026, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
11 February 2026
International Day of Women and Girls in Science—“Synergizing AI, Social Science, STEM and Finance: Building Inclusive Futures for Women and Girls”, 11 February 2026
The International Day of Women and Girls in Science, observed annually on 11 February, celebrates the achievements of women and girls in STEM while advocating for equal opportunities in science and innovation. The 2026 theme, “Synergizing AI, Social Science, STEM and Finance: Building Inclusive Futures for Women and Girls”, highlights the importance of integrating these four pillars to address widening inequalities. By combining AI’s transformative potential with social science insights, technical expertise in STEM, and inclusive financial mechanisms, societies can ensure that innovation benefits women and girls and supports sustainable development.
In recognition of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, MDPI reaffirms its commitment to advancing inclusive and interdisciplinary research. Through open access publishing, we promote gender-responsive AI, women-led innovation, and equitable STEM participation—ensuring knowledge is accessible, and empowering women and girls to shape a more inclusive future in science and beyond.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“Financial Discrimination: Consumer Perceptions and Reactions”
by Miranda Reiter, Di Qing, Kenneth White and Morgen Nations
Int. J. Financial Stud. 2025, 13(3), 136; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs13030136
“Women in STEM in the Eastern Partnership: EU-Driven Initiatives and Challenges of External Europeanisation”
by Gabriela-Roxana Irod, Cristian Pîrvulescu and Marian Miculescu
Societies 2025, 15(7), 204; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15070204
“The Role of Digital Financial Services in Narrowing the Gender Gap in Low–Middle-Income Economies: A Bayesian Machine Learning Approach”
by Alicia Fernanda Galindo-Manrique and Nuria Patricia Rojas-Vargas
Risks 2025, 13(5), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/risks13050096
“Drivers for Women Entrepreneurship in Greece: A Case Analysis of Early-Stage Companies”
by Marcus Goncalves, Suela Papagelis and Daphne Nicolitsas
Businesses 2025, 5(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses5010001
“Empowering Women in Tech Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Qualitative Approach”
by Teresa Felgueira, Teresa Paiva, Catarina Alves and Natália Gomes
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 1127; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101127
“Advancing Women’s Leadership in United Arab Emirates Higher Education: Perspectives from Emirati Women”
by Shaikha Ali Al-Naqbi and Semiyu Adejare Aderibigbe
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 1002; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091002
“Empowering Female High School Students for STEM Futures: Career Exploration and Leadership Development at Scientella”
by Simon J. Ford, Raquel dos Santos and Ricardo dos Santos
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 955; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090955
“The Influence of Women on Boards on the Relationship between Executive and Employee Remuneration”
by María L. Gallén and Carlos Peraita
Int. J. Financial Stud. 2024, 12(3), 84; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs12030084
“Mentoring and Networking as the “Silver Lining” of Being Women Leaders: An Exploratory Study in Top World Forestry Schools”
by Pipiet Larasatie, Taylor Barnett and Eric Hansen
Trends High. Educ. 2024, 3(1), 169-179; https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu3010010
““I’m an Academic, Now What?”: Exploring Later-Career Women’s Academic Identities in Australian Higher Education Using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis”
by Matthew James Phillips and Peta Louise Dzidic
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(8), 442; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080442
| “Gender Equity in K-12 Education, Academia and Higher Education: A Global Perspective” Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. James Etim Deadline for submissions: 31 August 2026 |
“Teacher Education and Education for Sustainability” Guest Editors: Dr. María Teresa Fuertes Camacho, Dr. Sílvia Albareda-Tiana and Dr. María del Carmen Solís-Espallargas Deadline for submissions: 31 August 2026 |
 |
 |
6 February 2026
Prof. Dr. Daniel McCarthy Appointed Editor-in-Chief of Social Sciences
Prof. Dr. Daniel McCarthy is Head of Sociology and Professor in Criminology at the University of Surrey. His academic excellence has been recognized with several awards and grants, including funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and Nuffield Foundation. He has also received awards including the British Society of Criminology (Policing Network) award and the Vice Chancellor’s “Researcher of the Year” Award. He also was co-awarded the Faculty Teacher of the Year Prize.
His research focuses on policing, inter-agency collaboration, and the social impacts of incarceration, particularly on prisoner–family relationships. He employs cross-national comparative approaches in his work. Prof. Dr. McCarthy is the author of notable works such as “Soft Policing: The Collaborative Control of Anti-Social Behaviour” (2014) and the co-authored ”The Impact of Youth Imprisonment on the Lives of Parents” (2023).
Prof. Dr. McCarthy has developed extensive editorial experience within the academic publishing ecosystem. Effective January 2026, he will formally assume the role of Editor-in-Chief of the open access journal Social Sciences, providing strategic leadership to the publication. Prior to this promotion, he served as a member of the Editorial Board and later as the Editor-in-Chief for the “Crime and Justice” Section, contributing significantly to the journal’s development in his field of expertise.
The following is an interview with Prof. Dr. Daniel McCarthy:
1. Looking back at your career, was there a specific moment or a catalyst that drew you into the field of criminology and eventually led you to academic publishing?
After I graduated as an undergraduate student, I did a social science degree. Like many students, I needed money and I went off to find a job that paid reasonably well and allowed me to soak up some of the debt that I’d accumulated. I worked as a researcher in a local authority for about a year and a half or something like that, which was really insightful for me because it allowed me an opportunity to talk to policymakers, practitioners, and get an insight into the reality of life on the ground, so to speak.
There were people calling in, making complaints about criminal matters, civil matters, dealing with all different agencies, the police, probation services, youth offending teams and so on. So, it allowed me to have a hands-on insight into the inner workings of the system in a sense. And because I was just coming out of an undergrad degree, I was learning quickly. I was trying to keep my ears and eyes open just to understand everything. It allowed me to take a step back and think about some of the things I learned as a student.
And that’s when I had a bit of time to think about what I wanted to do next, because the PhD, if I’m honest, as an undergraduate, doing a PhD wasn’t even something I really understood. I had no idea what this was. I had no family members who had been near a university before. So, it was an opportunity for me to think about, given this experience that you’ve had, what is there about this experience that might then allow you to go back and study again and do a PhD?
So, I was fortunate enough to get a scholarship and started with an MSc in research methodology, and after that, I carried over into the PhD. So, I think looking back on it that year and a half out of academia, it was a real blessing for me in terms of just having the time to be able to see things differently. So that’s where my career started. Really. That was the moment. It wasn’t really a particular event as such. It was more a series of events or processes that happened that changed how I saw things. So that’s where it all started.
The publishing side of things was also something that, again, as an undergrad, I would look at papers and look at authors like superstars in a way. I was a bit starstruck. How can these amazing people write these papers and books? I felt very disconnected from the reality of who these people were until I got more in the system as a PhD student. I would attend conferences, and then when I got my first academic job, I was already publishing. So, I knew that the reality of academia was quite a lot different from this fictional representation that I’d created as an undergrad.
So, the first take-home message for me really was that academics are normal human beings. They’re very smart, they’re very capable, but at the same time we’re human, and that was something that I always tried to take through my career, really. We need to create an academic culture that can be honourable, respectful, caring, but critical and fair at the same time. And so that’s where I started to create my value system as an academic from those initial years in the Academy.
2. Regarding your background in criminology and more specifically, how has this background influenced the way you approach editorial decision making and the scientific regard that you employ?
It’s a really important question. The academic journey I’ve had, it’s been a strange one in many respects because I started off as somebody who was really interested in criminological theory, social theory, philosophy—very qualitative. A lot of the work I was doing was quite ethnographic, qualitative interview-based, and that informed my epistemological status, really, as a scholar. I was doing lots of work in that and publishing. But gradually I also recognised that my skill base was a bit broader than that and I wanted to learn different skills, which generally I think is quite rare for academics as they get through their careers. It’s generally something you do earlier on.
We had COVID in 2020 and I was sat at home and in this situation of being a qualitative researcher who didn’t really know what to do—I was a little bit lost, to be honest. I’m surrounded by some good friends and colleagues who are very numerically sound. And we had some conversations, and I decided to give the statistics a go. I’d learned it... I’d always had reasonable training in statistics and particularly regression modelling, things like that. But I properly put my head down during 2020 and started to learn things.
I spent a lot of time watching tutorials, making mistakes, learning things, trialing things, and so I ended up in a situation where I became reasonably competent with statistics. So, as a qualitative researcher, I could also understand and judge statistical research pretty well. I wouldn’t put myself in the category of some of my colleagues who are far more advanced than me, but certainly from the basis of being able to work and understand the principles of statistics and conduct analysis, looking back, I’ve made a lot of progress.
From the perspective of reviewing papers, it’s really important because I get papers across my desk that are from a whole multitude of different areas, subject matters, methodologies, and being able to understand and embrace those differences is important. I think something that I’ve taken really seriously in my career is to be able to properly review and understand the basis by which people are making their arguments, interpretations, inferences, etc.
3. How do you define the importance of Open Access specifically within the context of criminology and justice studies?
To define the importance of Open Access, I think the main thing to say really is that academia was, and has historically been, a fairly exclusive pastime that’s reserved only for like-minded fellows who live in the “ivory towers” of universities and other specialist organisations. And I think as I’ve gone from my career, we do a lot more work with policymakers, with practitioners, with charities and having work that’s accessible, that they can download, they can read, they can understand, is really important if we’re going to try and make those connections with policy and practice, especially.
Some of what I do, especially in United Kingdom—I’m not so confident about other countries—but there’s been a big drive in the UK in the last 20 years or so around research impact and that broadly involves research that should make a real-world difference in some way, shape or form. It might be changing opinions, it might be impacting practices, it might be trying to shape policy. But in order to do that, you need accessible ideas. They’re [practitioners, policy makers] not having to go to a dusty library and dig out a copy of a journal that might be hidden away there; it needs to be work that people can access.
And indeed, in the world we live in now, it’s such that so much of what we do is online and so much of what we do involves people doing quick desk-based searches, which includes charities, think tanks, NGOs and so on. And that work and the accessibility of that work is really important for that purpose.
4. Do you believe the move towards open science changes the relationship between the researcher and the public? If so, how should our journal adapt to facilitate this connection?
Yeah. There’s certainly different levels of adoption around open science. And I think scholars should be able to make decisions on the levels that they feel comfortable engaging in. And it does depend somewhat upon the kind of research that you undertake. But I think the principles of it are admirable in terms of, like I said before, having some kind of connection between research that’s transparent, clear, can be replicated, etc.
And again, that does depend somewhat on the type of work you’re doing. Let’s say, if you’re doing a meta-analysis—perhaps more common in psychology, medical sciences, etc.—then that’s a fairly normal process in terms of the transparency of the methodology, so it does depend. But I think it’s a principle. Again, going back to the points I raised about impact, it leads towards this argument that we need to have research that’s more transparent, open and accessible for people to scrutinize fairly.
5. Now that you have moved from an Editorial Board Member to a Section Editor-in-Chief and now to the Editor-in-Chief, what is the most valuable lesson that you learned running our “Crime and Justice” Section? And what will you bring with yourself in this role as Editor-in-Chief?
I think the first thing I learned quickly was just the processes involved in terms of reviewing and editing, I mean, knowing how the journal operates through its review process, knowing how the editorial teams work, learning a little bit about the mechanics of the journal and the systems that are used. So, that was the first thing. It’s just like any new immersion in a process; it’s about learning. It’s about learning what’s behind the mechanics, so that was something that I learned quickly, and that’s helped me a lot. So, while running the Section, I think I learned a lot.
With the types of articles that are coming in, you start to get a sense of the differences and the trends and the kind of areas that are being focused on perhaps more than others. The Special Issues were something that I placed quite a lot of emphasis upon because I think that’s where some of the really interesting ideas emerge from, because there’s usually a community of scholars that are talking, and when you’ve got that fairly open dialogue, that’s where you can start to problem solve, work on ideas, work through challenges and figure out, really...what’s the sort of movement, what’s the kind of core challenges within that particular subdiscipline that we can start to understand. So that was something that I really learned a lot from.
I think the other things that are important to recognise as well are, how do you work around some of the challenges that exist when you’ve got quite opposing perspectives from reviewers? And that’s something we need to look at really carefully, and we do look at it incredibly carefully. Some journals have operated from the basis of rejecting anything that dissents from the core message of a reviewer, which is to say, if there’s one opposing reviewer, you might reject the whole paper. There are some legitimate situations where that might happen. But I think one of the things we’ve taken quite carefully and cautiously as a journal is to look at the fairness of those processes. Has there been a fair process? Has there been a fair adjudication for our authors? And that’s something I think is really important to honour. So, there needs to be some level of transparency, but there also needs to be a level of understanding across our review team. So that’s something that we’ve tried to work quite hard on.
Going into the Editor-in-Chief post, I think the big thing that I bring to it is somebody who’s got a good understanding of the social sciences. I work in the Department of Sociology. I’m surrounded by people who do work across so many different areas from media and communications, different methodological areas, in areas of sociology, inequality, social media, criminology, and having that kind of eclectic base of experiences has allowed me to understand the differences within the social sciences, and also why interdisciplinarity is so important. Although throughout my career, I’ve published predominantly in the area of criminology, I’ve always been somebody who would regard themselves more as a social scientist. So, I think that helps me in terms of being able to recognise the rich diversity of work that gets submitted to the journal.
6. What are your immediate priorities for the journal in the coming year?
I’ve written up these in terms of the Annual Report that’s due to be released soon. There are three things.
The first thing is that we’re in an incredibly scary, turbulent world at the moment, and we’re facing all sorts of challenges as human beings navigating this world that we can’t really control. One of the best ways of controlling this in our own heads really is to understand and to be critical, including valuing the freedom to publish. By having accessibility in research, we can actually cut through some of the noise that’s all around us, whether it be misinformation, fake news, all these sorts of quite negative aspects of the world we live in, and that comes partly from the space, the pace of life being so quick—people don’t always have time to understand and deconstruct. But as scholars, we’ve got a duty, I think, to be critical and to be open, and to ask the difficult questions and to debate ideas. And that’s our role, really: to not just operate purely within our “ivory tower”, but do something that can actually help everyday people work through these challenges, work through this minefield of complexity when it comes to what’s going on in the world. So, I think our first priority as an academy, we’ve got a duty to be critical and to help understand and interpret this quite turbulent world that’s going on around us.
On a more local level, so to speak, I think one of the other things that I’m really keen to try and develop is the fact that, broadly speaking, the social sciences are, I would say, predominantly concentrated on what I would call Anglophone countries, for the most part. That is partly because that’s where the money is, and it’s also where the universities have had a stronger legacy over many years. So, it’s a product of these sorts of processes. But increasingly we’re starting to see research developed in other countries in the world, other continents in the world, and I think those ideas are really fascinating for us because we’ve traditionally created ideas on the back of research that’s been primarily undertaken in a handful of countries. And whilst it may be the case that there’s some replication of those trends and patterns in other countries that might be outside of those geopolitical territories, I think we also have this amazing opportunity to be able to build new theories, to challenge, deconstruct, unpack, assess if these theories apply, or do they not apply? What seems to be some of the ways we can interpret those differences or those similarities? So that comparative lens, and looking at countries which I, and other scholars, term the Global South, is something that I think is really important in terms of development of ideas, so that’s something I’m excited by, and let’s hope that that continues to progress.
The final thing is early-career academics. In the United Kingdom—I can comment on this with more authority—the university system has been quite up and down for the last few years. There have been challenges. It’s been tough. It’s been a tough place for many academics to operate in because of job cuts, because of the uncertainty of the system. But early-career scholars are a really important part of that story because their careers depend so heavily upon opportunities, and I’d like to be able to offer as many opportunities as we can to early-career scholars. Whether it be as Special Issue editors, whether it be as authors, reviewers—all sorts of opportunities hopefully lie ahead for us. When I’m long retired, they’re the people who are going to be coming through. So, I think we need to be able to offer an opportunity for such scholars to be able to develop from that supportive infrastructure.
7. How do you see yourself maintaining the journal’s traditions balanced with necessary innovations?
Obviously one of the core goals of the journal is to maintain its Open Access credentials and to develop that further, hopefully, more in the years to come. I think the other thing that’s also part of that too is to do with the quality and having high quality articles that can hopefully take us into the Q1 category. That will be fabulous for the journal obviously. And at the moment, I think we’re quite close to it, aren’t we? So hopefully that’s something we can get to in the next few years.
I think, going back to the points I just raised a moment ago, I think one is obviously the fact that we’re developing our journal to be more accessible to different corners of the world and doing our best to highlight that work and build bridges in terms of the ways it might offer insights into theory, practice and so on. So, that’s something I think is really important. The critical emphasis as well, it might be something that we look at with Special Issues, thematic type additions, etc. How can we really start to open up arguments around these important questions as social scientists and as human beings? Frankly, these are bigger than just our ideas. I think these, in many cases, are the matters of safety, of humanity, of our futures as humans, so there are profound questions to ask around that kind of work.
And I think there also needs to be a recognition of early-career researchers from what they offer. There are ideas that we’re looking at at the moment that I hope will develop some further opportunities for early-career scholars to be more involved in the journal, to develop their skills, etc.
8. What impact do you hope to leave on the journal and the community if you were ever to look at your tenure as Editor-in-Chief?
There’s bigger machinery than me operating. We’ve got a wonderful editorial team, we’ve got a team of reviewers who are fabulous, we’ve got great editorial assistants, journal managers, everything else. So, I’m just one part of that story. So, within the scope of that, I think one of the things I’d like to say I’d done would be to honour the things I mentioned already. I think we have developed a journal that can be open, critical, ask difficult questions, create debate, create connections with the public, and that might be where we look at the analytics of our submissions, what’s getting picked up by media, how is it informing media? And that’s not to say that every piece of research should do that, but it’s to say that if we can see an increase in that, then that means clearly that we’re doing something that’s getting to everyday people, which is a good thing, I think, for the most part.
The second thing is the importance of developing more ideas from other countries, a greater diversity of countries involved in development of research. And we’ve already seen that there have been some countries that have increased quite considerably in the take up; we talked about Spain earlier on. There are a few other countries as well that are starting to increase their submissions. So that kind of trend is something that’s encouraging, and we’d like to see more of that. We need richer ideas from other parts of the world because they are fundamentally quite different societies in some cases, and the social sciences is about understanding these sorts of questions around difference and comparability. And challenging some of the principles, some of the theories that we’ve developed as an academy. I think this is only going to happen when we start to do more of that really rich comparative research. So that’s something that I think I’d like to see at the end of my tenure, so to speak.
And then finally, I think just giving opportunities to early-career researchers as well, as I’ve already mentioned before. Speaking from a personal perspective as a former ECR (Early-Career Researcher), coming through, I’d love to have had more opportunities. I didn’t necessarily have all these until a bit later in my career, but I think they would have helped me enormously in terms of confidence, in terms of understanding the mechanics of a journal, how things work, how research works, how reviewing works, and so I think, given the fact that these are the people who are going to be hopefully taking over in the years to come, we need to do our best as scholars to be able to offer a fair, respectful, supportive platform for those people to be able to develop.
We wish Prof. Dr. Daniel McCarthy every success in his new position, and we look forward to his contributions to the journal.
