Interview with Dr. Luis Cunha—Nanomaterials Exceptional Reviewer

The following is a short interview with Dr. Luis Cunha:

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself to the readers? What are you currently researching, and why did you choose this research field?
I am a physicist, and my field of expertise is material science, focusing on experimental work. My students handle most of the hands-on lab work, but I continue to guide the research and oversee the projects. My primary focus is on producing thin films to coat materials for various applications. We primarily use magnetron sputtering as a way to produce films. The physical properties of these films are characterized and then, their effectiveness is tested for real-world applications.
Currently, I am leading a project funded by the Portugues Foundation for Science and Technology in which one of the consortium members is a branch of the largest Portuguese cork company (Amorim group). Our research aims to coat cork to enhance its durability and protect it from ultraviolet radiation, mechanical wear, and other environmental factors. Nowadays, cork is widely used for various products, from wine stoppers to bags, shoes, and dresses, and is even used in aerospace. However, as a soft material, it has some limitations, such as wear and discoloration when exposed to UV light. The goal of this ongoing project is to produce a transparent thin film that can protect the cork from aging without altering its natural appearance. Note: Portugal is the world’s largest producer and exporter of cork, making this project highly significant.

2. Which qualities do you think young researchers need?
Passion is essential. If you love what you are doing, it is much easier to stay motivated and overcome challenges. Curiosity is another crucial trait. You must be proactive in your work, not just wait for someone to ask you to explore something. If you are passionate, curious, and proactive, you are on the right path to becoming a good scientist. Research is tough, and the competition is fierce, but if you have the drive, you will succeed. Young researchers should also aim to be in a good research center if possible, but you need to keep fighting for that place. It is all about being serious in your work and persevering.

3. What do you think young researchers can learn from participating in conferences?
Conferences are very important for young researchers. They provide an opportunity to present their work, connect with others in related fields, and receive valuable feedback. It is a chance to exchange ideas and even discuss potential collaborations. My Ph.D. students have presented their work at several conferences, and we have received a lot of insightful feedback from other researchers. This helped them to improve their communication skills and broaden their networks. There is always someone at a conference who will offer you a suggestion or new perspectives on your research. I personally do not like online conferences; they lack the personal connection that in-person events offer. Face-to-face interaction is critical for building strong relationships and advancing scientific collaboration.

4. What qualities or characteristics define an effective and reliable peer reviewer in your opinion?
Firstly, they must have a deep understanding of the subject matter, ensuring that they can critically evaluate the research’s methodology, results, and significance. Attention to detail is crucial, as it allows the reviewer to identify any errors, inconsistencies, or areas needing clarification. Objectivity and impartiality are also essential traits, as a good reviewer must provide unbiased feedback, free from personal or professional biases. They should also be constructive in their criticism, offering suggestions for improvement rather than just pointing out flaws. This helps authors enhance the quality of their work. Timeliness is another important characteristic. A reliable reviewer respects deadlines and understands the importance of timely publication in the academic community. A good reviewer articulates their feedback clearly and concisely, ensuring that authors understand their comments and can act upon them.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Luis Cunha and all the other reviewers who have generously volunteered their time and expertise to assist in Nanomaterials’ peer review process. Their dedication and attention to detail in evaluating manuscripts, offering valuable feedback, and contributing to academic rigor are truly commendable.