Interview with Dr. Igor Vujović—Winner of the Applied Sciences 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award

The following is an interview with Dr. Igor Vujović:

Congratulations on being an outstanding reviewer for the year 2024! Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers and share a bit about your research interests? 
Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Igor Vujović, and I am an electrical engineer and full professor at the Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, Croatia. I obtained my Ph.D. in 2011 from the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Naval Architecture at the University of Split. Throughout my career, I have participated in several research projects and currently serve as the project leader for two of them. I am also involved in a project funded by the European Space Agency, as well as another project managed at the faculty level. I am a member of several Editorial Boards, including those of the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (MDPI), Electronics (MDPI), and Editor-in-Chief of Transactions on Maritime Science, which is our faculty’s journal indexed in both Web of Science and Scopus. In addition, I am serving as a Guest Editor for a Special Issue in Applied Sciences, focusing on biomedical signal processing and machine learning techniques. I have received the Rector’s Award for Science from the University of Split. I currently head two laboratories: the Signal Processing Analysis and Advanced Diagnostics Research Laboratory (SPADRAL) and the Laboratory for Electrical Engineering. I also lead the scientific research group New Technologies in Maritime. Previously, I was the head of the Ph.D. study program, and I am now the head of the Department for Marine Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies. Over the years, I have published more than 200 scientific papers, including journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and textbooks. I have also conducted over 700 peer reviews for journals, conferences, books, and research projects. My primary research interests lie in signal processing and analysis, with applications in biomedical engineering, video surveillance, and other advanced technologies relevant to the maritime field.

What motivated you to become a reviewer? 
I also serve as the Editor-in-Chief of my own journal. As I’ve mentioned before, I often face challenges when it comes to finding reviewers, as many of them decline the invitation to review. Because of this, I’m very sympathetic toward other editors who reach out to me for support. If someone believes I can help, and if I have the time and the topic is within my area of expertise, I always try to accept the invitation. Naturally, I won’t take on reviews in areas outside my field; for example, I wouldn’t review a paper in surgery. But if I feel confident in the subject matter, I do my best to contribute. My journey as a reviewer with MDPI started when I was first invited by the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. I believe they appreciated my performance, which led to further invitations from other MDPI journals. Ultimately, my motivation stems from my own experiences. Since I know how difficult it can be to find reliable reviewers, I try to support others in the same situation. In that sense, you could say it’s a bit of a sympathetic motivation.

How do you approach the peer review process to ensure fairness and constructive feedback? 
I’ve attended many seminars that discuss how to review scientific papers, but I often find that they drift into philosophy rather than practical advice. In reality, reviewing isn’t that abstract. I begin by scanning the manuscript to get a general impression. That first impression is important and in most cases, it turns out to be accurate. Of course, I’m not infallible, and there have been a few occasions where I’ve been mistaken. But generally, the initial feeling gives me a strong indication of the paper’s quality and relevance. Once I’ve formed that initial judgment, I try to verify it. I look through the paper to find evidence that either supports or contradicts my first impression. Sometimes, my assessment changes during this deeper review. For example, I might initially think the paper needs only minor revisions, but later decide that major revisions are necessary. There have even been cases where I’ve reconsidered a rejection and suggested a major revision instead. This process is far more complex than what can be explained in a single lecture or seminar. It requires a deep understanding of your own research area and a sensitivity to what the authors are trying to communicate. You need to develop a kind of intuition that only comes with experience. After reviewing more than 700 papers, I’ve learned to recognize the signs of a strong or weak manuscript very quickly, often at first glance. That doesn’t mean I skip the details, but rather that I’ve developed a sense for quality that helps guide the rest of the review process. Many younger colleagues ask me how to do this, and I try to explain it but it’s not something that can be easily taught. Reviewing is a nuanced, layered process. It’s about combining expertise, experience, and a careful reading of the manuscript to reach a fair and informed decision

What are the biggest challenges you face as a reviewer, and how do you handle them? 
One of the biggest challenges I face as a reviewer is dealing with the different review forms that journals use. Each journal tends to have its own format, with specific questions or notes they want addressed. While it's important to follow these structures, I sometimes find that they shift the focus away from the actual content and meaning of the paper. But the real emerging challenge is artificial intelligence. Right now, it's difficult, if not impossible, to be certain whether or not a manuscript was written, at least in part, using AI tools. Some authors might rely heavily on AI-generated content, while others may not use it at all. This isn’t a distant concern; it’s a near-future problem that we are already beginning to face. At the moment, I can often recognize AI-generated texts by certain patterns like excessive use of superlatives or oddly polished phrases that don’t match the rest of the paper. But AI is learning quickly. Eventually, it will adapt, and these cues may disappear. What then? Unfortunately, the tools we have for detecting AI-written content are still in the early stages of development. That, in my opinion, is one of the most urgent challenges we’ll need to address in the peer-review process. Of course, similarity detection remains a concern too. Different tools are excellent for spotting overlap, but even here, we need to be careful. A 20% similarity score doesn’t mean much without context. If that 20% comes from properly cited references, that’s perfectly fine. But if the overlap is found in the results or discussion sections, then there’s a serious issue. So, overall, I’d say the biggest challenges in peer review today are adapting to AI-generated content, interpreting similarity scores with care, and navigating the complexity of different journal review formats all while staying focused on the quality and originality of the science.

What is your experience with our service from the point of view of a reviewer? 
That’s an interesting question. Honestly, I’ve had a very positive experience with your services. I collaborate with various journals, and I find yours to be particularly well organized and efficient.
The review forms are clear, with straightforward questions that are easy to address. I especially appreciate the flexibility to add comments where necessary without being required to justify every minor detail. For example, including state-of-the-art references in the motivation section is a standard expectation in scientific writing, and your system respects that by not demanding unnecessary explanations. This makes the review process much smoother. One of the greatest advantages you offer is the speed of your process. For researchers or project coordinators who need to plan publication timelines for instance, in line with funding or project deadlines predictability and quick decisions are essential. Your fast turnaround enables better planning and decision-making. Of course, I understand that such timelines can be demanding for reviewers, especially when balancing multiple responsibilities. The review period is a little short, which can be challenging. However, from an author’s or project manager’s perspective, it’s extremely beneficial. Additionally, your online platform is very user-friendly. The ability to access the review directly through the email link without needing to log in each time makes the process even more convenient. I usually only log in when I need to claim vouchers or manage submissions. Overall, I greatly appreciate how seamless and efficient the entire process is.

What advice would you give to aspiring researchers looking to make a meaningful impact in their fields? 
When it comes to general advice, one of the big challenges I see today is how we share information, especially between generations of researchers. I often talk to both younger and more experienced researchers about this. For Ph.D. students, things are very different now compared to when I was in their shoes. As soon as they publish a paper, it becomes immediately accessible to anyone in the world. That means they have to work faster, and most importantly, they have to be original. So, while sharing information can be a good thing, it can also pose a risk for younger researchers who are still developing their ideas and trying to stand out. At the same time, that openness allows them to benefit from the experience of other researchers. They can learn from what's already out there but they still have to find their own unique angle and move quickly. For senior researchers like myself, the challenge is different. I’ve noticed that older generations like Gen X or even early millennials are generally better at focusing on a specific research direction. We’re used to setting long-term goals and sticking to them. But when I work with younger generations, like Gen Z and even the emerging Gen Alpha, I see a different pattern. Many of them seem to struggle with focus; they want to try everything, and that can be a problem. As a Ph.D. advisor, part of my job is to help them channel that energy. I try to guide them toward defining their goals early on. Do they want to be outstanding researchers, pushing the boundaries of science? Or are they aiming to finish their Ph.D. and move into industry to make money? Both paths are valid, but they require different mindsets and strategies. It's important they understand what they really want from the start.

Applied Sciences is an open access journal. How do you think open access publishing benefits authors and the broader research community? 
Yes, open access is actually a requirement now in Europe, largely due to the Open Science policy. And honestly, I think it’s a great thing, especially from the perspective of a reader or a scientist who needs quick access to research. The ability to share knowledge instantly is a huge advantage. Think about it: if publishing takes months and then your paper ends up behind a paywall, you either have to buy it or go through some complicated subscription process. With open access, it's simple: you just click and read. No barriers. That’s incredibly useful, especially when you're actively working on something and need information fast. So, I’m definitely in favor of open access from the user's point of view. I really appreciate the openness and speed it brings to modern science. Things are evolving quickly these days, and we can’t afford to wait months or even weeks to access new knowledge. Of course, the publishing side of the equation is a different story. There are real challenges around how to finance open access. That’s a separate issue that needs to be addressed. But as a scientist and a reader, I absolutely support it.

Do you have any suggestions on how our journal could further support researchers and the academic community?
I’ve been thinking about your awards like the Ph.D. awards, travel grants, and so on. Honestly, they’re great initiatives, but I don’t think they’re visible enough. One idea that came to mind is that you could try coordinating with Erasmus coordinators at universities. That could be a great way to connect your European-based awards with existing international exchange programs, which would make the awards more visible and promote international cooperation as well. At the end of the day, increasing visibility, whether for young or senior researchers, means more opportunities, more collaboration, and more impact. I believe that could really help extend the reach of your programs. Of course, I know some people have already suggested using social networks, and that’s totally valid—LinkedIn, ResearchGate, even Instagram in some cases. Visibility through those channels is crucial nowadays. The argument regarding publication speed does not fully hold and can, in fact, be presented as a positive aspect. It is important to maintain active communication with scientific communities in different countries to help them better understand MDPI’s commitment to open access and transparency in publishing. The aim is to make science accessible to everyone, regardless of their financial background. Through initiatives such as reviewer vouchers, MDPI supports researchers who may not have access to funding, ensuring they still have opportunities to publish. While many traditional journals operate within closed networks, MDPI provides an open and inclusive platform—an approach that is valuable and deserves greater promotion.