As part of MDPI’s Peer Review Week 2026 initiative, we are pleased to feature Dr. Ramalingam Manikandan, a 2025 MDPI Top 1000 Reviewer. Dr. Manikandan shares his perspectives on what motivates him to review and how his experience as a researcher and author shapes his approach to providing constructive and rigorous feedback. In this interview, he also reflects on what this recognition means to him and why supporting the quality and integrity of scientific publishing remains an important responsibility.

Dr. Ramalingam Manikandan is a research professor in the Department of Cogno-Mechatronics Engineering and the ERC for Color-Modulated Extra-Sensory Perception Technology at Pusan National University, Republic of Korea. His research focuses on electrochemical sensing platforms and functional nanomaterials for point-of-care diagnostics and environmental monitoring.

The following is an interview of Dr. Ramalingam Manikandan:

1. What first motivated you to start reviewing, and what keeps you doing it today?

I began reviewing manuscripts during my doctoral training, motivated in part by the valuable and constructive feedback I had received from reviewers on my own research. I viewed peer review as an opportunity to contribute in return to the scientific community. Over time, reviewing has also become an important way for me to remain engaged with emerging developments in electrochemical sensing and functional nanomaterials. Evaluating new studies encourages me to think critically about experimental design, data interpretation, and scientific rigor, while also helping me maintain high standards in my own research.

2. In one sentence, why does peer review matter today?

Peer review is essential because it provides an independent and critical assessment of scientific work, helping to ensure that published findings are rigorous, reliable, and meaningful to the wider research community.

3. As submission volumes rise, what human touch in peer review will technology never replace?

Technology can greatly assist peer review by identifying statistical inconsistencies, image duplication, plagiarism, and other technical issues. However, the interpretation of scientific significance, novelty, and broader relevance still requires experienced human judgment. A knowledgeable reviewer can evaluate whether an observed improvement represents a meaningful scientific advance, assess results within the context of the existing literature, and recognize potentially important findings even when they challenge conventional expectations. This combination of disciplinary experience, critical reasoning, and scientific perspective remains an essential human contribution to peer review.

4. Has being an author yourself changed how you review manuscripts for others?

Certainly. My experience as an author has made me more conscious of the importance of providing constructive, respectful, and scientifically justified feedback. I understand the considerable effort involved in conducting experiments, analyzing data, and preparing a manuscript, and I therefore try to ensure that my comments help authors improve their work rather than simply identify shortcomings. At the same time, empathy for authors should not compromise scientific rigor. I believe an effective reviewer should maintain high scientific standards while communicating concerns clearly, objectively, and respectfully.

5. What does being recognized as an MDPI Top Reviewer mean to you?

Being recognized as an MDPI Top Reviewer is a meaningful honor and an acknowledgment of the time and effort devoted to maintaining the quality of scientific publishing. Peer review is an important academic responsibility that often takes place behind the scenes, and I am grateful that this contribution has been recognized. I view this recognition not only as a personal achievement but also as encouragement to continue supporting the scientific community through careful, fair, and constructive peer review.