Interview with Dr. Qingyang Liu—Winner of Toxics Outstanding Reviewer Award

We want to congratulate Dr. Qingyang Liu on winning the Toxics 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award.

The following is an interview with Dr. Qingyang Liu:

1. Could you give a brief introduction of yourself to the readers?

I am currently an Associate Professor at Nanjing Forestry University, where I have been engaged in academic research and teaching since 2015. My work focuses primarily on environmental chemistry and air quality, with an emphasis on understanding the sources, transformation, and health impacts of air pollutants, particularly fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Over the years, my research has sought to bridge the gap between atmospheric science and public health, aiming to translate scientific findings into actionable policies. For instance, I have led pioneering studies that link PM₂.₅ chemical composition and source contributions to oxidative potential and inflammatory responses in lung cells—some of the first such work conducted in a developing country. These findings have helped identify key pollution sources, such as coal combustion and biomass burning, and their direct health effects, providing a scientific basis for health-oriented air quality management. Another significant aspect of my research involves the role of atmospheric dust in long-range transport, which has implications for both environmental quality and ecosystem health. By using advanced receptor modeling and isotopic tracing, my colleagues and I have contributed to a better understanding of dust origins and their influence on regional air quality. I have also been recognized as a World’s Top 2% Scientist (Career-long Impact 2023) and have received multiple awards for my contributions to the field. Beyond research, I have supervised over ten graduate and undergraduate students. I also actively serve on the editorial boards of some international journals and have reviewed nearly 500 manuscripts, supporting the scholarly community in advancing environmental science. Thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself.

2. What’s the focus of your current research, and why did you choose this research field?

My current research is focused on air pollution, specifically on understanding the sources, chemical composition, and health impacts of particulate matter (PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀), as well as the oxidative potential (OP) and inflammatory responses associated with different pollution sources. I also study the role of dust in nitrogen cycling and long-range transport and engage in policy-relevant research to bridge air quality management with climate mitigation strategies.

I chose this research field because air pollution is one of the most pressing environmental and public health challenges globally, especially in rapidly developing regions like China. Understanding the sources and health mechanisms of air pollutants enables the design of targeted and effective policies that not only improve air quality but also support climate goals and protect vulnerable ecosystems. My work aims to translate scientific insights into real-world solutions, contributing to sustainable development and healthier communities.

3. Could you please share with us your experience as a reviewer for Toxics?

Of course. It has been a true pleasure and a deeply rewarding aspect of my academic career to serve as a reviewer for Toxics. This role beautifully aligns with my research focus on atmospheric pollutants and their health impacts, allowing me to engage with cutting-edge science on topics from PM2.5-bound chemicals to emerging contaminants like microplastics. The process is a collaborative effort to uphold scientific integrity, where I meticulously assess each manuscript's methodological rigor, novelty, and the solidity of its conclusions. My goal is always to provide constructive and respectful feedback that helps authors strengthen their work. Beyond evaluating submissions, this responsibility is a profound learning experience that has sharpened my own critical thinking and writing, offering invaluable insight into the publishing process. Ultimately, it is a privilege to contribute to the scientific community in this way, helping to maintain the journal's high standards and advance the dissemination of robust, reliable research in our field.

4. Which qualities do you think reviewers need?

In my view, an effective peer reviewer serves a role analogous to that of an architect for scientific knowledge, requiring a discerning perspective, a robust methodological toolkit, and a constructive approach to fortifying research quality. The foundation of this process is objectivity, which necessitates setting aside personal inclinations to evaluate a manuscript solely on its scientific rigor, thereby upholding the fairness and credibility of scholarly discourse. However, astute judgment alone is insufficient; meticulous attention to detail is equally critical. This involves a thorough examination of methodological soundness, data validity, linguistic clarity, and adherence to technical guidelines, including formatting and citation conventions. Such diligence ensures that published findings are not only compelling but also replicable and trustworthy.

Equally important is the capacity for critical thinking, which enables the reviewer to acknowledge strengths while identifying limitations in a balanced manner. This entails posing incisive questions, recognizing conceptual or empirical gaps, and proposing feasible refinements. These analytical contributions must be coupled with proficient communication skills, whereby feedback is delivered clearly, respectfully, and constructively, fostering a supportive rather than adversarial dialogue.

Furthermore, efficient time management is essential to maintain the timeliness of the publication process, and reviewers are expected to honor deadlines and communicate proactively regarding any delays. Underlying all these competencies is a firm command of subject matter expertise, which permits a nuanced understanding of the research context, from broad theoretical implications to specific technical details.

Integral to the reviewer’s role are also confidentiality and ethical integrity, which require treating unpublished work with discretion and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. These principles are vital in preserving the trust and collaborative spirit of the academic community.