Latest Blogs

What is Open Access Publishing?

10 July 2025

The Latest in Global Science

What is Open Access Publishing?

Scholars have more options than ever when it comes to how they would like to publish their work, open access publishing is one of those options. In addition this, traditional publishing models exist. The growth of open access academic publishing, however, has become widely accepted across disciplines globally. Here we explain what open access publishing is and how it differs from traditional publishing models. The advantages and disadvantages of each are considered. It will also provide an overview of how OA benefits the work of scholars and academia more broadly. What is open access publishing? Over the past 25 years, open access (OA) publishing has been consistently growing, accelerating scientific communication and knowledge dissemination. OA makes scientific research more accessible to a wider readership by being published in online journals that are free to access. Open access, under the broader open science movement, aims to reduce financial or other barriers to publishing, reading, and reusing emerging research. The more author- and reader-friendly copyright and licensing regulations enable scholars to more easily share and use each other’s work. One of the most significant differences between the two models is the use of article processing charges (APCs). This requires authors, or their institution, to cover the cost of each publication. This replaces the paywall that exists with subscription-based journals. Open access versus traditional publishing So, why publish open access? How does open access compare to traditional publishing models? A big part of why OA publications are easier to access and distribute is that they are all published online. The acceleration of scholarly communications has helped to streamline various aspects of the publication process, including peer review and timelines to release. Historically, subscription-based journals put out hard copies, which by nature are more difficult to disseminate on a practical level. Many of these journals continue to produce printed copies, which are often in addition to the paywalled online version. Key factors to consider A good strategy for scholars is to pursue both open access and traditional subscription-based publications, depending on the specific context and situation. In order to make the best decision, there are various factors to keep in mind: Cost to publish Open access research is published with a required article processing charge (APC). Either the author or a sponsoring institution can pay the fee. Publication timeline The traditional publishing process has markedly longer timelines than open access academic publishing. Each journal has its own regulations, but, in general, OA takes weeks or months to publish, rather than the often years-long process of traditional publishing. Availability, sharing, and reuse Most open access journals aim to publish articles as quickly and widely as they can. In most cases, finalized papers are freely available to share and reuse upon publication. Authors can also post a preprint on an online repository before this, and then update it to the new version. Licensing and copyright Under most OA models, authors retain the copyright and licensing rights. If restrictions do exist, they are usually temporary or removed under an open license copyright. Types of OA The aim of open access academic publishing is to make publications as freely and easily accessible as possible to as many people as possible. The open science movement As you move through different parts of your career, certain forms of publishing might offer more benefits than others. This might include pursuing various forms of OA in line with your personal and professional goals. The types of open access are represented through a coded system, as briefly explored below. Gold Currently, gold OA is the standard for a lot of academic open access journals, including across MDPI’s catalogue of hundreds of publications. Under this model, an APC is paid, and the author retains full copyright over their work. Once the published article is released by the journal, it is immediately and permanently available to be used and reused for free. Green Scholars can upload their own work on an online depository with green OA, known as self-archiving. Authors can upload a preprint version of their work for the use of readers before updating it with the finalized peer-reviewed publication. The finalized publication is not made available right away, and the copyright is retained by the publisher. Hybrid This type offers a mixture of open and closed access. Some journal articles are available to those with a subscription, and some are made open access if an APC has been paid by the author or affiliated institution. Diamond or platinum Articles under this model are typically published fully OA, without requiring the author or the reader to pay a fee. This open access research is typically made possible by external funding from public or private institutions. Bronze These articles are not typically available for reuse, but they are free to read on the publisher’s official page. Black This includes making available unauthorized digital copies of closed access literature. This often involves the uploading and sharing of PDF versions of paywalled research. Gratis This type includes free online access to read, but not reuse, scientific research papers. Libre With this model, readers have free online access to read academic work, with some reuse rights. Ultimately, open access academic publishing has helped scholars to increase the reach and impact of their work. The opening up of academic research to more authors and readers has diversified engagement with scientific conversations. This continues to create more possibilities for collaborative and community-driven knowledge, which further the principles of open science. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Zoë GrossZoë Gross
Zoë Gross

2153

Typical Structure of A Manuscript

23 June 2025

Navigating Your Career

Typical Structure of A Manuscript

Every journal has specific policies for the preparation of a manuscript for submission and possible publication. However, a general, common structure is generally shared among publishers and journals. This article serves as a list of suggestions that I consider to be best practices. For this, I merged the instructions to authors of five high-impact journals in my research field (Hydrogeology Journal – Springer; Hydrology and Earth System Sciences – Copernicus; Journal of Hydrology – Elsevier; Water – MDPI; Water Resources Research – Wiley) with some suggestions and remarks of mine. Title page The title page includes the following. A concise but informative title. Abbreviations and formulae should be avoided if possible. Authors’ names. Different research groups use different policies, but my opinion is that the list of authors should include those who contributed significantly to the work. In other words, those whose work has not been essential to obtain the results shouldn’t appear in the author list. Also, different policies might be used for the list, For example, alphabetical order, authors who gave a major contribution first, etc. If the manuscript has been co-authored by a large team, the team name could be indicated in the author list on the title page and then a specific section can be added to provide the names and affiliations of all authors. The affiliations and addresses where the work was carried out should be included. Then, present or permanent address could be added if relevant. Clear indication of the corresponding author. This is the person who will handle correspondence for the article at all stages of the process (as well as post-publication). This responsibility includes answering any future queries about results, data, methodology, and materials. Highlights Highlights are a small collection of short bullet points, usually 3 to 5 points. These are usually less than 90 characters. They should capture the novel results of the research, as well as any innovative methods used. I recommend to avoid repeating sentences in the abstract. This isn’t as useful and doesn’t really help to attract the readers’ attention. Index terms and/or keywords Index terms, which refer to disciplinary lists, or free keywords can be given. These are often used for online searches. The maximum number of index terms or keywords usually varies according to the journal. Usually, it’s between five and seven. The best keywords are a good compromise between generic and specific keywords. Graphical abstract The inclusion of graphical abstracts depends on the format of the publication. It is usually optional. A graphical abstract should be a high-quality, well-designed, self-explaining picture that summarizes the content of the manuscript. Preparing a good graphical abstract is not easy. Most of the graphical abstracts are usually obtained by putting together a few pictures from the manuscript, but they do not grasp the attention of potential readers Abstract An abstract should be concise. It should be easily understood without needing to read the text. The abstract is not a summary of the manuscript. It should briefly state the research question, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract should not include references to figures and tables. While citations should be avoided, if the manuscript is heavily dependent on (or directly related to another paper) they might be needed. Abbreviations should not be included without the term in full. Main Text Coming to the main body of a manuscript, it is divided into sections and subsections. These are numbered, unless a journal does not permit this. Figures, tables, and equations will be addressed in a future article. Introduction This section should lead the readers to understand the research question. And its relevance in a relatively broad context. Discussing the general relevance of the work should be avoided. This is often trivial and not important from a scientific point of view. Scientists know the social and economical impacts of their research field, as do most well-educated stakeholders. As such, there is no need to spend time doing this. Instead, it is crucial to provide a good summary of the state-of-the-art. This way, the open research question can emerge in a clear way. The introduction should include a clear definition of the research question and of the methods used to address it. This should be done in such a way that the innovative content of the work is apparent. Materials and methods The second section is usually devoted to a description of materials and methods used. Here, the authors should provide all necessary information for other researchers to replicate the results. It is fundamental to clearly and thoroughly state the assumptions and the approximations upon which the work is based. This issue is often underestimated, but is crucial for a proper illustration of scientific results, especially in physical and natural sciences and in engineering. New methods and protocols should be described in detail. Well-established methods can be briefly described (and appropriately cited). In the latter case, references to textbooks are very appropriate. For experimental work, it is necessary to describe all the preparation steps and the conditions under which the tests were conducted. For modeling work, all the details about the computer codes and the input parameters should be given. This may yield a long list of technical information. As such, it is good practice to provide such information with a thorough description in an appendix or as supplementary material. Generally, many scholars strongly recommend to separate the methods from the results. In other words, the methodologies should be described in a way that is independent of the specific tests that were conducted. This allows to assess the validity of applied methods. Results This central section is devoted to a concise, but thorough and precise description and interpretation of the results. Discussion Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted under the light of previous studies. They should also discuss the working hypotheses and any assumptions and approximations introduced in the materials and methods section. This is crucial to emphasize the strength and weaknesses of the work. Conclusions This last section should highlight how the results are in agreement with the expectations. Namely, if the approach proposed solved the open research question or not. If yes, with which limitations. If not, why. Some authors tend to use this section also to suggest future research directions, but this often remains wishful thinking, and therefore I would discourage this. Appendices Appendices can be very useful to provide details about experimental methods, data, and mathematical manipulations, which could make it difficult to follow the workflow if left in the main text. These can include additional figures, tables, as well as technical and theoretical developments. They might not be critical in supporting the conclusions of the paper, but can provide extra details useful for replicating the results. References Different formats are given by different journals for citations and references. The following are only some general remarks. The list of references should include all papers that are cited in text or in captions of figures and tables. When well-established methods are used, I’d recommend references to the original works where the methods were proposed. Every reference must be available online or in print, and full details should be given in such a way that everybody can easily find the paper, the book, or the map (online or in libraries). For this, a DOI is strongly encouraged by many journals. Citations to papers in languages other than English should be limited, and the translation of the title in English should be added if necessary. There is no common format for web references currently. However, the minimum information is the full URL and the date of access. Further information may be less relevant. Author contributions For research articles with several authors, a section specifying individual contributions must be provided. Most journals recommend using the CRediT contributor roles taxonomy. In particular, the considered steps are the following, in alphabetical order: conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. A fair description of the roles played by each author is very important, as this is becoming crucial in enrollment procedures in the academic world. Funding All sources of funding of the research should be disclosed in a specific section or in the acknowledgements section, depending on the journal’s policy. It is very important to mention the funds received to cover any article processing charges (APC) and/or publication costs. Of course, the sentence “This research received no external funding” can be used if there is nothing to disclose. Open Science statements (data and software availability) The increasing role of open science causes many journals to request Open Science statements. These refer mostly to data and computer code availability. Details about where data supporting the results are stored and how they can be retrieved should be given. Basically, the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles should apply, unless there are strong reasons to keep a dataset confidential. Very similar principles also apply to software. If original software is developed in the work, it is also very important to provide tutorials, which can help other researchers to use the computer codes. Acknowledgments This section should be focused on acknowledging any support not covered by the author contributions or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or acknowledgement of discussions with colleagues who helped to trigger some of the ideas on which the work is based, but whose contributions are not so relevant to include them as authors. In the future, the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may become more relevant. I expect that a specific statement along one of two possible paths will be required. Authors may be asked to declare that no GenAI tool has been used in the research and in the preparation of the manuscript; otherwise the authors may need to specify where and how GenAI has been used (writing text; drawing graphics; data collection; analysis and interpretation of the results), and all the details should be given. When GenAI is accepted by publishers and used by authors, it will nevertheless be mandatory to include disclaimers stating that the authors have reviewed and edited the work and take full responsibility for its content. Acknowledgements could also include information on patents, submission for publication in special issues, submission by invitation, or other such things. Conflicts of Interest Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances or interest that may be perceived as influencing the representation or interpretation of reported research results. Particular care should be given when funding agencies or private companies supported the work and had some roles in the research design and realization—or worse, in address the conclusions. A statement of absence of conflicts of interest can apply in many cases. Something like, “the authors declare no conflict of interest” would be sufficient. If some authors are members of the editorial board of the journal to which the manuscript is submitted, this should be explicitly stated. Supplementary material Supplementary material can provide details which would make the text excessively long, or which could interrupt the flow. These are similar to appendices, it is very important for authors to consider what is more appropriate: appendices or supplementary materials? Remember that supplementary materials are available as additional material in the online version of papers, whereas appendices will be part of the published text. Therefore, appendices should strictly respect the lengths and formats required by a journal, whereas supplementary materials usually allow the author more freedom. Supplementary materials can also include audio and video materials. All supplementary files should be cited in the manuscript text. I hope that you have found some useful information that you can use in the preparation of a manuscript. In the future, we will discuss specific items like figures, tables, equations, measurement units, and significant digits. Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Mauro GiudiciMauro Giudici
Mauro Giudici

3328

Virtual Networking with Academics

15 May 2025

NetworkingNavigating Your Career

Virtual Networking with Academics

Networking has long been an important part of having a professional career. Today in 2026, virtual networking in particular has become an important part of building connections in academia. Virtual networking platforms help academics meet, share ideas, and stay connected with each other. An academic-focused site like SciProfiles provides scholars with a community gathering space. This article will explore virtual networking with academics. Why is it worth investing your time and putting yourself out there? We will discuss how online networking can facilitate engagement with other scholars and strengthen professional opportunities moving forward. From in-person to virtual academic networking In general, networking is a part of many different professions and industries. An academic career requires a significant commitment, with many teaching and research responsibilities and institutional obligations. Building professional networks both in person and on virtual networking platforms allows scholars to share their ideas with a wider audience. With an increase in scientific communication and open access publishing, a strong network can help to extend the reach and impact of academic work. Virtual platforms make it more possible to communicate with people from other institutions, different geographic locations, and in various time zones. It also facilitates the development of academic collaborations and creates interdisciplinary connections that otherwise might not be possible. A significant shift we have seen post-COVID-19 is the use of virtual tools and virtual networking platforms for professional activities like academic conferences. As a result, more opportunities now exist to meet and interact with scholars both other scholars in person and on virtual networking platforms. The advantages of academic networking online Virtual academic networking is a way to connect with other scholars that can positively impact your career. To be sure, online networking can create opportunities for people to meet that may not exist otherwise. These virtual networking platforms allow scholars to meet and discuss ideas in both formal and informal ways. There are advantages to virtual networking, which add to the opportunities already available in person. For scholars who are on the shy side or who may struggle to connect in person, virtual networking can equalize the field a bit. And for those who are more outgoing, online communication is quick and easy, with lots of options. Depending on your personality, academic experience, and comfort with technology, networking online can provide the space for you to share more about your work. And the practice of having an online or hybrid event offers more accessible spaces for those who cannot attend in person. Many in-person networking events can be adapted to an online version. Different aspects of virtual academic conferences, for example, can be organized for various group sizes. Another option is using breakout rooms for more personal engagement, like virtual editions of meet and greets, virtual coffee chats, or “speed” introductions. Hopefully some of these initial encounters will develop into a future collaboration. The more collegial and intentional you can be as you interact with others, the better chance you’ll have to make lasting relationships. No matter your level of engagement, there are always new and different ways to connect. And you are likely already networking in different ways, even if they may seem small. Establishing a virtual network Now that you better understand the question of “Why network?”, let’s consider how to establish an academic virtual network. Joining academic virtual platforms like SciProfiles is a good first step to online networking. Here, you can post content and interact with others. This helps to get a sense of the different ideas and perspectives in the field. It can also be a good place to make first contact or follow up with someone via direct message. Virtual academic networking complements and extends the impact and potential of in-person academic events. And there are plenty of other ways to connect with others through online networking. You can start by, for example, posting a comment on another academic’s page. Attend a virtual academic conference and formal networking events. At the next virtual panel or roundtable you attend, speak up during the Q&A and then follow up with a speaker whose work you are interested in. And more social events like virtual meet and greets or virtual coffee chats are a good way to introduce yourself. You can then arrange to have some one-on-one time at a later date, whether virtually or in person. You can also consider reaching out to your existing network about scholars you would like to connect with. It very well may be that someone you already know can make an introduction. After some initial virtual discussion, scholars could plan for a future opportunity to connect, like at an upcoming academic conference. The great thing about networking is that it can expand like a “snowball” as you connect with more people in different areas of academia. This means that one event or introduction can lead to more opportunities within that network of people. “Dos” and “Don’ts” As you continue on to different stages of your career, your relationships with colleagues will likely change and grow. During this time, there are a few things to keep in mind when pursuing online networking: Do: Pursue and be open to multiple opportunities. Reach out and follow up with connections. Be honest about your experience and capacity. Don’t: Let opportunities pass you by. Spam someone if they don’t reply or are not interested in connecting further. Inflate your skills, experience, and academic accomplishments. The more you interact with others in different ways, the more you will be able to share your work and have your ideas be heard. With so many professional obligations to juggle, it can be difficult to prioritize virtual networking. Allow yourself to start small and build toward bigger goals. Getting more connected with your academic community can enhance all aspects of your professional life. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Zoë GrossZoë Gross
Zoë Gross

2057

How to Promote your Academic Paper and Reach a Wider Audience?

12 May 2025

Navigating Your Career

How to Promote your Academic Paper and Reach a Wider Audience?

The publishing process transforms academic research from a potentially isolated endeavor into a publicly available and critically evaluated contribution to the collective knowledge of various domains. After publication, the research value should be powerfully confirmed by dissemination, validation, impact, and archival process. Starting your academic paper A high-quality academic paper represents a substantial investment of time, effort, and intellectual energy. It involves numerous aspects, as follows: Extensive research, thorough literature reviews, data collection, and analysis. Critical thinking by developing original ideas, formulating hypotheses, and constructing logical arguments. Rigorous methodology through designing and implementing research methods that meet the highest academic standards. Clear communication, by writing and editing, conveys complex ideas concisely and interestingly. Peer review, through passing the often challenging peer review process and addressing reviewer comments. Manage time, balance research activity and other professional responsibilities, and meet deadlines. Overcoming setbacks: research doesn’t always go as planned, and unexpected challenges can arise. Dealing with uncertainty: research often involves exploring the unknown, and there are no guarantees of success. Maintaining motivation: the long and often solitary nature of research can be demanding, and it’s essential to stay motivated. Publishing an academic paper is significant, representing an incontestable recognition of the authors’ efforts. After publication, promoting academic papers is essential to maximize the impact of their work and reach a wider audience. Promoting Academic Papers Strategies Promoting an academic paper requires a multi-faceted approach that focuses on increasing its visibility, ensuring its accessibility, communicating its key findings effectively, strategically engaging with relevant networks, and leveraging available institutional and journal resources. By addressing these needs, researchers can maximize the reach and impact of their valuable academic work. Several strategies for effectively promoting academic papers are displayed below. Optimizing online presence tools Different tools can have different impacts at different times. Understanding how these tools all work and how they can help you and your career can make a big difference. ORCID ID: Creating and maintaining an ORCID iD is necessary because this unique identifier ensures the accurate attribution of personal work. Google Scholar Profile: Setting up a Google Scholar profile is essential for showcasing academic publications and tracking citations. ResearchGate and Academia.edu: These platforms allow users to share their work, connect with researchers, and participate in discussions. LinkedIn: Sharing the most recent publications and communicating with professionals in the field is essential. SciProfiles: Developed by MDPI, it is a central hub for managing and displaying a researcher’s contributions and impact. Institutional Repository: Depositing the paper in the institution’s repository increases its visibility. Personal Website/Blog: Creating a website or blog could be another effective manner to highlight personal research and provide links to all publications. Leveraging social media Social media can be a powerful tool to help promote your work. Here are some ways to use them effectively: Twitter: Sharing the paper, using relevant hashtags, and engaging with other researchers. Other platforms: Facebook could be a practical choice. Video abstracts: Short video abstracts could be another way to present the currently published studies. Engaging with the academic community The academic community is very large, so there are many different ways in which you can connect with peers. Learning how to do this can help lead to success. Conferences: Presenting the research at conferences is essential to share the findings and network with peers. Email networking: Reaching out to colleagues and researchers for sharing the most recent work. Collaborations: Collaborating with other researchers may expand the academic network and reach a wider audience. Increasing discoverability As the internet evolves, new tools become available to everyone. Learning how to apply these tools can help your work reach more people. Keywords and metadata: Relevant keywords in the title, abstract, and metadata can improve search engine visibility. Open-access publishing: Publishing in open-access journals ensures the free availability of the scientific work. Lay summaries: Writing lay summaries of the research makes it accessible to a broader audience. Using institutional resources Your own institute may have many options that can assist you. Don’t forget to see which of these tools might be of benefit to you and your career. Press office: Contacting the institutional press office to promote the research to the media. Newsletters: Sharing the publications through the institution’s newsletters. Implementing these strategies can effectively promote an academic paper, increasing its impact within the scholar community and beyond. Social media usage in a nutshell Considering the professional platforms and social media networks as the most eligible tools to promote an academic paper, the most used ones are ResearchGate, LinkedIn, and Facebook. ResearchGate is the most effective platform for reaching fellow researchers and sharing publications. LinkedIn is preferred for building professional connections and connecting with the industry. Facebook can be a helpful tool for broader public outreach and for communicating research findings to a general audience. The best approach often involves combining these platforms to maximize the individual research reach and impact. However, their efforts sometimes appear insufficient, and researchers need more help to increase the discoverability and credibility of their work. At this point, SciProfiles can be a powerful, friendly, and helpful authority. I experienced the difference and was very impressed by the SciProfiles Editors’ work; now, I want to highlight some essential aspects of SciProfiles’ multifaceted role. SciProfiles Multifaceted Contribution to Promoting Academic Work SciProfiles promotes academic work in multiple ways, including as a digital stage and networking hub for researchers. The researchers’ profiles are integrated across MDPI’s journal publishing website, conference platform (Sciforum), preprint server (Preprints.org), encyclopedia (Encyclopedia.pub), book store, and literature database (Scilit). The publications can be automatically imported via ORCID, simplifying profile management. The key functions of SciProfiles are displayed below. SciProfiles enhances visibility and discoverability Centralized Showcase: It provides a dedicated online presence where researchers can consolidate and showcase their diverse academic outputs in one place. This makes their work more easily discoverable by other researchers, potential collaborators, and even individuals outside academia interested in their field. Beyond Publications: Unlike traditional academic profiles, which often focus solely on journal articles, SciProfiles allows researchers to highlight a broader range of contributions, such as conference presentations, book chapters, datasets, software, and even participation in editorial boards or organizing committees. This offers a more comprehensive view of their scholarly activity. Lay Summaries: Including lay summaries for publications makes complex research more accessible to a broader audience, potentially increasing its reach and impact beyond the immediate academic circle. Keyword and Subject Tagging: Researchers can tag their profiles and contributions with relevant keywords, improving their discoverability through searches within the platform and potentially even external search engines. SciProfiles facilitates networking and collaboration Social media is a tool that can help foster connections. Using SciProfiles to increase your chances to connect with new people and collaborate on new projects is a great idea. Connecting with Peers: SciProfiles makes it easier for researchers with shared interests to find and connect, fostering potential collaborations. Following Research Activities: Users can follow the profiles of researchers whose work they admire or work in related areas, staying updated on their latest publications, projects, and conference activities. Direct Communication: The platform likely offers features for direct communication between researchers, enabling them to discuss ideas, ask questions, and explore potential collaborations. Identifying Expertise: Researchers can easily identify experts in specific areas by browsing profiles, facilitating the formation of research teams, or seeking advice. SciProfiles aims to increase impact and recognition The goals of SciProfiles are to help authors increase their reach. With this powerful tool, users can showcase their work, track engagement, and increase their social reach. Endorsements and Recommendations: The endorsement system allows peers to recognize and recommend specific publications or the researcher themselves, adding a layer of community-driven validation and potentially increasing their work’s perceived authority and impact. Showcasing Reviewing Activities: Recognizing peer review contributions on a profile encourages and values this essential part of the academic process. SciProfiles provides a dynamic and updated platform Because SciProfiles is updated constantly, there are useful tools to help stay on top of changes. Real-time Updates: Researchers can easily update their profiles with new publications, projects, and activities, ensuring their online presence is current and reflects their ongoing work. News Feed: The personalized news feed keeps researchers informed about the latest work of their connections and developments in their fields, potentially inspiring new research directions or collaborations. SciProfiles and social media platforms Not all social media platforms are the same. SciProfiles leverages other platforms to help increase your reach. LinkedIn: The official SciProfile page can be found by searching for “SciProfiles MDPI” or using this link: https://www.linkedin.com/company/sciprofiles-mdpi/. Here, SciProfiles shares updates about the platform, new features, blog posts, and other relevant information about researchers’ profiles and their most recent works. Facebook: The official Facebook page is “SciProfiles MDPI” and can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/SciProfiles/. The page shares updates, highlights research, and engages a broader audience. X (formerly Twitter): SciProfiles also has a presence on X as “SciProfiles MDPI”; the link to Sciprofiles X profile can be found here: https://x.com/SciProfiles. Being present on these social media platforms, SciProfiles aims to: Facilitate networking and collaboration among academics. Share updates and news about the SciProfiles platform. Engage with a broader audience interested in scientific research. Increase the visibility of researchers and their work. MDPI also encourages authors to share their articles on various social media platforms to augment the reach and impact of their work. Therefore, SciProfiles’ intervention in promoting academic work has a powerful effect on social media platforms by confirming the authors’ credibility and significantly increasing the audience. Researchers can follow these pages to stay informed about the latest developments in SciProfiles and the broader academic community. Essential considerations Overall, SciProfiles is a valuable tool for researchers to build their professional online presence, connect with the global academic community, increase the visibility and impact of their work, and stay informed about the latest research trends. It successfully moves beyond traditional metrics factors by providing a more comprehensive and community-driven approach to showcasing and recognizing academic contributions. The SciProfiles Editors’ willing, warm, and friendly communication, ensures a more open, collaborative, and thorough way for researchers to connect and share their work. Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Violeta PopoviciVioleta Popovici
Violeta Popovici

7441

Embracing AI in Research: Opportunities, Ethics, and Evolving Practice

14 April 2025

The Latest in Global Science

Embracing AI in Research: Opportunities, Ethics, and Evolving Practice

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is quickly changing the research landscape—changing how we generate and process data, collaborate, and envision the future of academic practice. The rise of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude has opened new possibilities for literature synthesis, hypothesis generation, academic brainstorming, research summarization, and educational support. These tools assist researchers in navigating complex content, structuring arguments, and exploring novel ideas in the early stages of research development. Complementing these are AI-powered research discovery platforms like Research Rabbit, Connected Papers, and Litmaps, which facilitate dynamic literature mapping, enabling users to visualize scholarly networks and uncover relevant studies more intuitively. As a researcher in digital health and rehabilitation technologies, I’ve seen firsthand how these innovations can act as catalysts for academic inquiry—while also raising critical questions about ethics, integrity, and the responsible use of AI in research. From tool to thought partner AI tools today go far beyond automation. Natural Language Processing models like ChatGPT can assist with summarizing the literature, organizing arguments, refining writing, and even sparking new research ideas. For early-career researchers, these capabilities offer valuable support during the most time-intensive stages of academic work. In a recent crossover randomized controlled trial, published in 2024, my colleagues and I examined the usability and effectiveness of ChatGPT among health sciences students, particularly in chronic disease education. Students valued the tool’s accessibility and responsiveness, especially for tasks like initial drafting and exploring alternative phrasing. However, our findings also reinforced a key message for those just beginning their research careers: AI can complement, but not replace, critical thinking, academic judgment, or complex subject knowledge. Although it can streamline tasks and provide structure, the researcher’s comprehension and context give academic work depth and originality. For those navigating how to use AI thoughtfully in research, I have published a set of practical tips on the ethical and responsible use of AI, including in the Guidelines for Equitable Use of Artificial Intelligence developed as part of our protocol study on ChatGPT in health sciences education (Veras et al., 2023). These suggestions are intended to support, not substitute, the curiosity, creativity, and critical rigour that define strong academic practice. Ethics, bias, and digital equity As researchers begin integrating AI into their academic work, thinking beyond efficiency and convenience is essential. AI is powerful, but it’s not neutral. The outputs we get are only as good as the data and design behind our tools. That means it’s up to us to stay curious, critical, and intentional in applying them. One of the most important habits to develop is learning to question and validate AI-generated content. Whether you’re using an AI tool to draft a summary, brainstorm research questions, or format citations, always ask: Where did this information come from? Is it accurate? Whose perspective might be missing? At the same time, AI can potentially support more significant equity in research. AI tools can be a valuable resource for researchers without access to paid reference managers. For example, ChatGPT and similar models can help generate and format citations in APA, MLA, or Chicago style. This offers a solution for meeting journal requirements when conventional reference tools are unavailable. How is it useful? This is particularly useful for those working in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) or institutions with limited resources. AI-powered platforms such as Connected Papers, Research Rabbit, and Litmaps help researchers discover and visualize related work without needing costly subscriptions. Similarly, AI translation tools make it easier to engage with global research, expand access to the non-English literature, and contribute to international scholarly conversations. Still, the promise of AI depends on how it is used. Tools must be applied thoughtfully, with attention to diverse data sources, inclusive perspectives, and ethical standards. AI should amplify researchers’ voices, not erase them. It should be a means to bridge knowledge gaps, not widen them. AI won’t solve every problem for researchers navigating structural barriers. Be it limited infrastructure, funding, or mentorship, when used responsibly, it can help reduce inequities, broaden access, and empower more people to participate fully in academic life. Supporting, not replacing, academic practice For researchers, AI offers both opportunity and complexity. AI can enhance academic work, but ultimately, our values, methods, and critical reflections define its impact. While AI can accelerate tasks such as drafting, summarizing, or identifying connections across the literature, human insight ensures these tools are applied meaningfully and ethically. Responsible use requires active engagement, verifying sources, contextualizing outputs, and making thoughtful decisions about where and how AI is used in research. We are only beginning to understand AI’s long-term implications in research and education. What is clear, however, is that responsible integration, grounded in transparency, ethics, and equity, is essential. Researchers must move beyond simply adopting AI tools and instead focus on using them intentionally and reflectively. This means asking not only what AI can do but also why and how we should use it. It also means fostering a culture of openness, shared learning, and critical dialogue around these technologies. Empowering the future of research Although the world may not yet be fully prepared for the rapid evolution of AI in research, the academic community is uniquely positioned to lead with care and foresight. With curiosity, caution, and an intense commitment to equity, we can ensure that AI becomes not just a tool for efficiency but a force for a meaningful, inclusive, and responsible scholarship. As we prepare the next generation of scholars and practitioners, we must equip them with access to AI tools and the critical awareness to use them wisely and reflectively. I hope that continued dialogue and collaborative research, such as our recent trial on ChatGPT in health education, will help ensure that AI becomes a tool that empowers, rather than eclipses, human ingenuity. Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Mirella VerasMirella Veras
Mirella Veras

3912

Considerations for Writing and Submitting A Manuscript

19 March 2025

Navigating Your Career

Considerations for Writing and Submitting A Manuscript

This post is devoted to some thoughts and ideas about what one should think about before submitting a manuscript to an international scientific journal or a conference presentation. Why should I publish a paper? Historically, before the 20th century, the scientific community was quite small and almost entirely composed of men working in Europe or North America. At that time, scientists exchanged information and knowledge through personal letters, meetings at scientific academies, research visits, and printed books. Papers in scientific journals started to appear and gain relevance later. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is claimed to be the world’s first scientific journal (see, e.g., https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/history-philosophical-transactions/), launched in 1665. For at least a couple of centuries, scientific journals had been published by academies; the papers were mostly texts of lectures and conferences or were “presented” by one of the members of the academies. For instance, W.O. Kermack and A.G. McKendrick published their seminal paper “A Contribution to the Mathematical Theory of Epidemics”, which is the basis of many models of epidemic spread were successively developed, in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, on August 1, 1927. The subtitle of the paper states: “Communicated by Sir Gilbert Walker, F.R.S.-Received May 13, 1927”. Peer review started in the 20th century when the scientific community increased its size. For some decades, the peer review system had been forcing scholars to prepare manuscripts and submit them to international scientific journals, only if their results were innovative. In the last few decades, things have changed. Scientists are presently “obliged” to publish for different reasons, mostly related to their careers. Some universities require that Ph.D. students publish a minimum number of papers in international scientific journals before admitting them to the final defence of their Ph.D. thesis. Moreover, in several cases, Ph.D. theses are nothing but collections of published papers. Early-stage post-doc researchers are forced to publish their results because their career depends on the increase of the bibliometric indicators of their scientific production. Senior researchers are forced to keep the bibliometric indicators of their scientific production high enough in order to compete for research grants and to guarantee that the institutions where they work can be highly ranked. I am simplifying things here, but I think it is not too far from the truth of the remark that nowadays, the submission of manuscripts is aimed more at supporting researchers’ careers and institutions’ rankings than at disseminating innovative results among the scientific community. Which kind of paper should I publish? Different scientific journals publish diverse kinds of articles. Some types are very specific for some research fields, e.g., clinical tests in medical sciences, and case or law commentaries in legal science. But, if the focus is on natural or “hard” sciences, the following kinds of papers are generally published. Research articles are papers that convey innovative results of general interest. In particular, such papers should propose new methods to solve open scientific questions. Technical notes should be short articles that describe practical aspects for the application of a methodology or minor developments and improvements of an already published methodology. Reports show case studies, where conventional, well-established, or recently proposed methods are applied or tested, possibly in complex conditions. This is a kind of papers which could be promoted by international journals to disseminate experimental results or monitoring data that can provide insights (confirmation or possible rejection) on fenomenological laws or theories. Review papers provide a comprehensive description of a research field or theme. Recently, I have been asked to review manuscripts that were submitted to be published as review papers; unfortunately, they often were nothing but a list of papers on a relatively specific topic. Instead, review papers should provide an innovative view of the treated subject, or should clearly emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of the methods proposed for the solution of scientific problems. Essays propose authors’ views on scientific problems and approaches or topics related to science policies. Somehow, the content of this blog includes possible essay subjects! Finally, comments and replies are very short discussions related to an article published in scientific journals. It would be very important—I would say, mandatory—for every journal to provide an open discussion of published papers. There are several examples when such discussions led to the discovery of plagiarism, fixing formal or trivial mistakes, or enriching scientific knowledge, as well as providing different views on a research topic. Due to the continuous growth of scientific fields , it is very important that researchers, when preparing a manuscript, first of all, consider whether their work can be considered for publication as a research paper, or, rather, as a technical note or a report. My personal experience is that many, possibly most, of the manuscripts that I am asked to assess as a referee are indeed either technical notes (where the authors propose specific improvements of a methodology already developed) or reports (devoted to applications of well-established or even recently published methods to a specific data set, or to a specific study case). Therefore, it would be a good practice to carefully answer the following questions, before submitting a manuscript for publication: Is the manuscript describing a truly innovative approach? Is the work incremental? Is the work an application of consolidated methods? If the manuscript is intended to be a review paper, does it provide an original view on the topic, or is it merely a list of relevant papers? Sincere answers to these questions could help the authors to write manuscripts in a better way, submit them in the most appropriate form, and, as I discuss below, to the most appropriate journal. Where should I publish? Everybody wants to publish in high-quality journals. So, which tools or procedures should be applied to assess a scientific journal’s quality? Several bibliometric indicators are commonly used to rank scientific journals in different disciplines or among multidisciplinary journals. These indicators are often considered measures of the reputation of a journal. But, in a more rigorous sense, they are indicators of the exposure of journals in the scientific community. When I try to assess the quality of a journal, I check if the editorial board includes colleagues who I consider to be top scientists in our research field, and I check the quality of its published papers. Another aspect that should be considered when submitting a manuscript is the connection between the topic of the work and the scope of the journal. Unfortunately, I am often asked to review manuscripts that deal with topics in my research field or that apply methods and techniques that I know very well within particular conditions, but that are submitted to journals whose goals are quite far from that. In most of these cases, the manuscript is masked under the guise of being an interdisciplinary work. I strongly appreciate interdisciplinary research, but that is another story. Those papers often show that the authors either have a poor knowledge of the applied techniques or use those tools and methods in an uninformed way. Basically, those manuscripts would be rejected by high-quality journals that use researchers with strong experience and knowledge of the applied methods, but are submitted to other journals with the hope of finding referees who are indulgent or not very critical. Therefore, selecting the best journal to which a manuscript is submitted requires the following: Checking the aims and scope of the journal; Assessing the quality of the journal, based not only on the bibliometric indicators, but also on the quality of the published papers and the international recognition of the editorial board; Performing a sincere and genuine assessment of the innovative content of the work to be submitted; Checking the types of papers that are published by the journal. The best choice can be based on a serious and careful application of this procedure. Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Mauro GiudiciMauro Giudici
Mauro Giudici

3593

Scientific Publications through the Lens of a “Practical” Professor

21 February 2025

Navigating Your Career

Scientific Publications through the Lens of a “Practical” Professor

Some remarks about the effects that bibliometric indicators have on science advancement and communication. Early-stage researchers are often pushed to publish papers in international scientific journals so that their individual bibliometric indicators increase. Such indicators are often considered crucial aspects of a career in the academic and research sectors. They are used by panels for the assessment of candidates for the enrollment of researchers and professors at universities and research centers. Some PhD schools even require that a student publishes a minimum number of papers in international scientific journals before admitting him or her to the final exam. Bibliometric indicators are often examined also to evaluate the scientific curriculum of the PI of a research proposal or a funding application. Therefore, the number of submissions to international journals is increasing. Not only that. The number of scientific international journals is increasing. And many publishers offer open-access options to publish papers in their journals, a strategy that is expected to support “open science”. In my experience and opinion, this trend creates big problems for the advancement of science at the global level. The number of published papers is so big that it is becoming very difficult to complete bibliographic research and find the most relevant publications on a given scientific argument. It is more and more difficult to find good reviewers for submitted manuscripts. High-quality researchers are overwhelmed by research, teaching, and bureaucratic duties, so they can rarely serve as reviewers. Not to mention poor ethics of some reviewers: self-promotion through the request of citation of papers published by the reviewers, even if those papers have very limited relevance with the topic of the manuscript under revision; an excessively favorable attitude toward manuscripts written by authors who are considered to be leaders in their research field or who had past working relationships with the reviewers; an excessively negative attitude against authors who do not belong to the dominant circles or with whom the reviewer had dissenting opinions; etc. As a consequence, editors are sometimes obliged to rely on reviewers with limited experience or without enough time to carefully read and comment on a manuscript. As an effect, it is not uncommon to find imprecise statements, or even mistakes, in published papers. Notation, figures, use of measurement units, and many other formal aspects are often poorly considered and this dramatically reduces the quality of published papers. The pressure to publish induces many researchers to submit manuscripts that are nothing more than technical reports of case studies. In the last few years, I have been asked to review manuscripts that described works where standard techniques and methods were applied to specific case studies, without any innovative content. Sad to say, it is also quite common to review manuscripts that show that the authors have good skills in the use of technology and computer programs, but do have not a deep knowledge of the basics of the disciplines (physics and mathematics, in my research field) behind the applied methods and tools. When a paper with innovative results is published, the authors often submit a series of papers, which basically present modest or limited improvements with respect to the original work. Moreover, for research projects that require huge infrastructures, it is quite common that the results are published in papers with a long list of authors. The contribution of each author is rarely clear. Furthermore, bibliometric indicators increase in a much easier way for big research teams than for individual researchers. In other words, there is often a bias in bibliometric indicators in favor of researchers working in large teams. What you will read in future posts. In the next series of posts on this blog on SciProfiles, I intend to provide my view on these aspects. I will try to make a positive contribution through some personal opinions and suggestions for good-quality publications. I am not an expert in the history and philosophy of science. I am not an expert in the design of R&D projects. I am not an expert in scientific communication. I am a professor, who has been working at a University since 1991. So, in these posts, you will not find scientific results on the social impact of science. Nor on the development and strategies of the scientific publishing industry. You will not find a deep analysis of the best way to communicate scientific results. In these posts, you will read some opinions of mine about these topics. As such, they will be very debatable and open to discussion and criticism. In these posts, I will discuss best practices (or, at least, what I consider to be best practices) to write and review scientific manuscripts. My research field is geophysics. My research is focused on hydrology, mostly groundwater hydrology, with specific attention to the dynamics of fluids in porous media, mathematical modeling, and inverse problems. Of course, my academic background and my knowledge will mean that the opinions that I will share in these posts are biased. I hope that such opinions will nevertheless be useful for young researchers who are starting their scientific careers. Stay tuned! Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Mauro GiudiciMauro Giudici
Mauro Giudici

2742

How Does a Reviewer Provide Qualified Review Reports and Help the Authors Improve their Manuscripts?

10 February 2025

The Latest in Global Science

How Does a Reviewer Provide Qualified Review Reports and Help the Authors Improve their Manuscripts?

1. Introduction The invitation to share my insights and experiences as a peer reviewer on the SciProfiles blog challenged me. In 2020, I was invited to review a manuscript submitted to an international academic journal. I received the invitation enthusiastically and tried to write a good review report In 2022, I was invited to be a Reviewer Board Member of the MDPI journal Antibiotics, and a few weeks later, I was asked to participate in a webinar during peer reviewer week. Since then, I have decided to do my best as a reviewer, and my activity has significantly increased in the last 3 years. As a reward for my efforts, I received the Antibiotics Outstanding Reviewer Award in 2023 and 2024. My awareness has continuously increased with time, and my aim of providing high-quality review reports persists. I have reviewed over 135 papers in MDPI journals; my Web of Science Researcher profile records 237 peer-reviews of 161 manuscripts. They have an average of 392 words per review report, which is higher than the academic average (361). My experience continues to increase—I recently became a Section Board Member of another MDPI journal (Current Issues in Molecular Biology)—and, proportionally, I aim to improve the quality of my afferent activities. The peer reviewer skills I have developed are very helpful when I am invited to make an editorial decision. 2. Background A recent study analyzed the quality of 313 reviewer reports (within an average length of between 406.57 and 631.31 words) in a requested time range of 14-203 days. The results showed that the difference in quality between the shorter and longer reviews was not considerable [1]. The study demonstrates that efficient and high-quality peer review can be achieved without extensive time or lengthy reports. Reviewers’ age is also a significant predictor of review quality [2]. The increasing rate of manuscript submissions in various academic journals requires numerous reviewers to be available for the peer-review process. The most well-known academic journal platforms have experimented with implementing artificial intelligence (AI) in the peer-review process to efficiently address these challenges [3]. Despite AI’s minimal time requirements to produce a review report (2.5 ± 1.8 min) compared to humans (7.5 ± 2.8 weeks), human re-viewers achieved higher scores in Clarity of Feedback, Depth of Analysis, Literature Engagement, and Overall Quality. How, then, does a reviewer provide suitable review reports and help authors improve their manuscripts? Each academic journal has instructions for reviewers and describes the essential aspects point by point, but the reviewers’ understanding, motivation, and attitudes are essential to the peer-reviewing process. 3. Responsibility Understanding the reviewer’s key role as a link between editors, authors, and readers underlines a key aspect of the willingness to provide a high-quality review report. This involves the following objectives. 3.1. Ensuring the Quality Control of Manuscripts For editors: Peer reviewers assess a manuscript’s quality, validity, and significance. This helps editors make informed decisions about whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for a submission. For authors: Reviewers offer constructive feedback, highlighting strengths and weaknesses in the research, methodology, and writing. This helps authors improve their work before publication, increasing its impact and credibility. For readers: Peer reviewers act as a filter, ensuring that published research meets rigorous quality standards. This gives readers confidence in the information’s reliability and trustworthiness. 3.2. Maintaining Academic Integrity For editors: Reviewers help identify potential issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical concerns, safeguarding the publication’s integrity. For authors: Reviewers encourage authors to adhere to high ethical standards in their research and reporting. For readers: Peer reviewers ensure that published research is original, properly conducted, and free from significant flaws. 3.3. Promoting Scholarly Communication For editors: Reviewers often provide context and perspective on a study’s contribution to the field. These aspects help editors decide whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and direction. For authors: Peer review can be a valuable learning experience, exposing authors to different viewpoints and approaches within their field. For readers: Peer review ensures that published research is relevant and timely and contributes to the ongoing dialogue within a specific study area. 4. Empathy Many reviewers are concomitantly in the positions mentioned above: readers, authors, and editors. When they receive an invitation to review a manuscript, they should be aware of the trust that is put in them, the immense impact of their report on the authors, and their duty to provide valuable, well-written, and helpful articles to potential readers. They should also realize how lucky they are to be invited to contribute, develop their abilities, and gain experience and credibility in the academic world. Springer journals make the following request of reviewers: “Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it and put yourself in the place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would you find the tone courteous and professional?” Indeed, empathy is an essential condition for effective peer review. It fosters a positive environment, enhances the quality of reviews, and promotes fairness and objectivity. By approaching the review process with empathy, reviewers can play a vital role in helping authors improve their work and further advance knowledge in their field. 4.1. Fostering a Positive and Respectful Environment Understanding the author’s perspective Reviewers should remember that authors have put significant time and effort into their work. Approaching the review with empathy means recognizing the authors’ investment and providing feedback respectfully and encouragingly, even when pointing out flaws. Constructive criticism Empathetic reviewers focus on providing constructive criticism that helps authors improve their work. This means framing feedback in a specific, actionable way and avoiding personal attacks or harsh language. Open communication Empathy encourages open communication between reviewers and authors. When reviewers are empathetic, authors are more likely to be receptive to feedback and engage in a productive dialogue about their work. 4.2. Enhancing the Quality of Reviews Thoughtful feedback Empathetic reviewers are more likely to provide thoughtful and insightful feedback. They consider the authors’ goals and the broader context of the research, offering relevant and helpful suggestions. Balanced perspective Empathy helps reviewers strike a balance between identifying weaknesses and acknowledging strengths, providing authors with a more comprehensive and balanced assessment of their work. Clear and specific language Empathetic reviewers communicate their feedback using clear and specific language. This avoids ambiguity and helps authors understand precisely what needs improvement. 4.3. Promoting Fairness and Objectivity Minimizing bias Empathy can help reviewers mitigate their own biases and preconceptions. By trying to understand the author’s perspective, reviewers can provide a more objective and fair assessment of the work. Focusing on the science Empathy encourages reviewers to focus on the science itself rather than being influenced by factors such as the author’s reputation or affiliation. 4.3.1. Challenges and Considerations Maintaining objectivity While empathy is essential, reviewers must maintain objectivity and assess the work honestly. It is a delicate balance to strike. Time constraints Reviewers often have limited time, making providing detailed and empathetic feedback challenging. 5. Other Essential Qualities 5.1. Expertise and Knowledge Subject matter expertise A strong peer reviewer possesses deep knowledge and understanding of the subject matter relevant to the work being reviewed. This expertise allows them to accurately assess the methodology, results, and conclusions. Awareness of current research They should stay updated with the latest research, trends, and debates in the field. This ensures that the review considers the work’s contribution in the context of existing knowledge. 5.2. Objectivity and Impartiality Unbiased evaluation A good reviewer evaluates the work objectively, setting aside personal biases, preferences, or any potential conflicts of interest. Focus on merit They should focus on the work’s scientific merit, rigor, and significance rather than the author’s reputation or affiliation. 5.3. Constructive Feedback 5.3.1. Clear and Specific Comments Strong reviewers provide clear, specific, and actionable feedback. Instead of vague statements, they point out specific strengths and weaknesses with supporting evidence and examples. Balance of Positivity and Negativity: They should offer a balanced assessment, highlighting the positive aspects and areas for improvement. This helps authors understand their work’s strengths and where they can improve. 5.3.2. Respectful and Professional Tone Reviewers should communicate feedback respectfully, constructively, and professionally, even when pointing out significant flaws. They should avoid personal attacks or harsh language. 5.3.3. Thoroughness and Attention to Detail Careful reading and analysis Reviewers should thoroughly read and analyze the work, focusing on methodology, data analysis, interpretation, and presentation. Identification of errors and inconsistencies They can identify errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in the research, providing valuable input for improvement. 5.3.4. Communication Skills Clarity and conciseness Reviewers should express their feedback clearly, concisely, and logically. This ensures that authors understand the comments provided and can easily incorporate them. Well-organized review They should structure their review in a well-organized manner, making it easy for authors and editors to navigate and understand the feedback. 5.4. Ethical Conduct Confidentiality Reviewers should maintain privacy and never share the reviewed work with others without permission. Integrity They should conduct the review process with integrity, avoiding plagiarism or the misappropriation of ideas. 5.5. Timeliness and Efficiency Meeting deadlines Reviewers should adhere to deadlines and submit their reviews on time. This is vital for maintaining the review process’s efficiency. Respecting others’ time Reviewers should understand that authors and editors rely on their feedback and strive to complete reviews promptly. 6. Observations Delays are a significant source of frustration for authors and editors. However, many reviewers have overwhelming administrative, teaching, work, and research commitments that take precedence over reviews. Sometimes, a scholar has concomitantly 3-4 pending review invitations. Additionally, urgent matters may arise, such as a revised version review or an editor’s decision, and their priorities change in favor of the latter. The last few months have been the first time I was overwhelmed and delayed a few review reports. I communicated this to the Managing Editor and was grateful for their kind and understanding response: “We look forward to receiving your report at a time that is convenient for you.” References 1. Cabezas Del Fierro, P.; Sabaj Meruane, O.; Varas Espinoza, G.; González Herrera, V. Peering into Peer Review: Good Quality Reviews of Research Articles Require Neither Writing Too Much nor Taking Too Long. Transinformacao 2018, 30, doi:10.1590/2318-08892018000200006. 2. Evans, A.T.; Mcnutt, R.A.; Fletcher, S.W.; Fletcher, R.H. The Characteristics of Peer Reviewers Who Produce Good-Quality Reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993, 8, doi:10.1007/BF02599618. 3. Gatrell, C.; Muzio, D.; Post, C.; Wickert, C. Here, There and Everywhere: On the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Management Research and the Peer-Review Process. Journal of Management Studies 2024, 61. Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Violeta PopoviciVioleta Popovici
Violeta Popovici

3475

Selecting the Right Journal for Your Research

30 October 2024

Navigating Your Career

Selecting the Right Journal for Your Research

Publishing for the first time or getting back into it after not publishing for a while may make it difficult to navigate the journal selection process. One may find this task to be a burden since there are many different journals and options to choose from. Being able to determine the right journal for your research project requires some important considerations. It is important to first view the big picture, and this begins with a discussion of the tiered system. Since journals are ranked differently, there is a distinct top tier. The well-known journals forming this class include Science and Nature, among others, which all have strong impact factors. These journals have also been around for many years and are here to stay. To have an article accepted to these top-tier journals, authors are required to submit a manuscript showcasing research of very high impact in their field. The research must be original, the manuscript should be written for a wide readership, and the English language writing needs to be flawless. The peer-review process will then proceed through a critical assessment by expert reviewers. The middle tier encompasses a vast majority of highly respected journals that belong to the main publishing groups around the world. Their readership is usually emphasized to be within one’s specific field of research and involve a strong peer review. In these cases, the research is original and its impact is generally strong. I have typically noticed impact factors ranging from 2.0 to 14.0 for middle-tier journals and this may be field-specific. Two fields of research that I am part of are Medicinal Chemistry and Biochemistry. The lower tier of journals categorizes a vast number of journals, and they are in this category for various reasons. Firstly, they may not be very prestigious. Some journals in this category have articles published with very poor-quality figures and/or containing grammatical errors in the writing. I have also observed articles that report on findings that do not contribute much to science. Other journals may have excellent standards but they are simply too new to be judged by the impact factor scale. Impact factors for this tier are usually less than 2.0 or do not have an impact factor at all. The reality is that no one really desires to publish in the lower tier, but often, it may be unreasonable to expect to always publish in the top tier based on one’s research findings. Thus, I believe the middle tier is a starting ground for many researchers. I have read various LinkedIn posts about the importance of not embracing the impact factor as a true judgment of the tier of a journal, and I agree that one should not embrace it solely. I believe that the impact factor is a very good metric, though. Folks writing these posts usually focus on the fact that some journals that are not that prestigious have somehow become of high value. They also argue that low impact factor values could be assigned to a journal that has historically been prestigious. I know of some journals that used to be above a value of 2.0 but have now fallen below that number after the COVID-19 pandemic. One journal in particular still has high-quality editors on its editorial board but the reason they are below 2.0 seems to be rooted in the types of papers that are being accepted and that researchers in the community are simply not citing them that frequently. Or, it could be associated with the pandemic. These are some gray areas when we think of impact factors. It is very important to pay attention to the prestigious journals in your field and to be able to understand their impact factor values as well. First, I recommend reading through the journal’s scope to verify whether your study meets the criteria set forth by the editor-in-chief that are important to successfully publish with that journal. Then, I recommend skimming through various journals and taking a closer look at the kind of quality of articles that are being published. You should ask yourself if you can imagine your work being side by side with these kinds of research articles. Finally, it is also important to ascertain if the journal could possibly fold in the future. For new journals, this can certainly be a possibility and a lot of heavy thought should go into making this decision. One can submit their non-peer-reviewed manuscript to a preprint server, such as bioRxiv.org or preprints.org, to create a safety net in case a new journal may fold in the future. If this happens, you can send the preprint in for consideration to another journal. An open access movement has ramped up efforts in recent years, which differs from the subscription-based model. Historically, authors would submit their manuscript to a journal, and once it has been accepted, the journal would publish the article under the subscription model, where readers would need to pay for access. The open access model is more appealing in my opinion because, even though a premium must be paid upfront (by the authors), it enables anyone across the world to view the research. It can be frustrating to not have access to certain articles when performing an online literature search and then having to wait several days to obtain the article through an interlibrary loan. These options are controlled by the publisher and some publishers may offer one or both models. The cost for open access can vary depending on the journal as well. Usually, the fee increases when the journal is distributed to many online servers, such as Google Scholar, PubMed, etc., whereas the more affordable fees are assigned to journals that are not available on that many servers. This is where it becomes important to determine whether affordability matches good servers for distribution. In conclusion, the upper-tier, middle-tier, and lower-tier journals can be a publication home for the work produced by a given researcher. This determination circles back to the study itself and how impactful it will be in one’s field of research. As an example, in the Medicinal Chemistry field, I often study inhibition constant (Ki) values for enzyme–inhibitor interactions. In the case of finding strong inhibitor potency, if an inhibitor binds to an enzyme and has a Ki value in the hundreds of micromolar range (e.g., 500 μM), it is not considered that strong of an inhibitor. If the Ki value is in the tens of micromolar range (e.g., 50 μM), the inhibitor displays a modestly strong inhibition, but if the Ki value is found in the nanomolar range (e.g., 500 nM), it exhibits strong inhibition. In my field, I pay attention to this parameter because it is one criterion that helps me to determine which tier of journal I should publish in. Finally, another important factor is that if an article is published in a lower-tier journal, it should not be something to look down on. When an author publishes their work, they are showing that they have been able to carry out the study and reach conclusions in science. This has important implications for students who are applying to industry or higher levels of academia. Hiring managers are focused on whether job applicants have published because they understand that they could carry out a project in its entirety. Disclaimer The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of MDPI or its employees. MDPI takes no responsibility for the content or ideas expressed in this article. Last updated on: July 25, 2026
Edward L. D'AntonioEdward L. D'Antonio
Edward L. D'Antonio

2950

of 5