We are pleased to announce the winner of the Nanomaterials 2022 Outstanding Reviewer Award—Dr. Gueorgui Gueorguiev.

Name: Dr. Gueorgui Gueorguiev
Affiliation: Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (IFM), Linköping University, Sweden
Research Interests: carbon-based materials; inherently nanostructured thin films; group-III nitrides; group-III bismides; graphene; ultrathin films; protective coatings; 2D materials; ab-initio calculations; synthetic growth of thin films; molecular dynamics for nanostructured materials; magnetron sputtering; MOCVD; atomic layer deposition (ALD)

Dr. Gueorguiev completed his Ph.D. on the structural and electronic properties of carbon- and silicon-based clusters in 2003 at Coimbra University, Portugal, with the exceptional mark “Cum Laude” and following a fellowship at the prestigious Portuguese Instituto Camões.

Dr. Gueorguiev joined Linköping University, Sweden, in the year 2004 by establishing a new line of research on the theoretical design of nanostructured carbon-based thin films with pre-defined properties and with immediate experimental verification. By developing the DFT-based synthetic growth concept, he discovered and pioneered a new class of materials, that of fullerene-like thin solid films. His research interests then expanded towards 2D and van der Waals structures, layered compounds, and coatings with applications in aviation. The theoretical approaches to these include first principles and effective methods in computational materials science, synthesis techniques involving magnetron sputtering, MOCVD, and atomic layer deposition. The diversity and independence of his research activities and achievements are reflected in his publication profile.

For the past ten years, he has built a strong, competitive, and expansive research and education network in materials science, linking Linköping University (LiU) and the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA)—https://liu.se/en/research/liu-ufba-network. This network involves a dynamic team, the exchange of research visits, joint supervision of Ph.D. students, joint execution of graduate courses, joint publishing of findings in new material phenomena with international impact for a variety of applications, and jointly organized high-level professional events.

We would like to thank the award committee for their hard work in the difficult task of selecting a winner from such a large number of exceptional candidates. We will continue to reward reviewers with the Outstanding Reviewer Award to express our acknowledgment of their efforts in maintaining the high quality and quick turnaround time of the journal, and we wish them every success in their careers.

We hope you enjoy the interview.

1. Could you give a brief introduction of yourself to the readers?
I am an Associate Professor at Linköping University in Sweden. I am a theoretician with a strong interest in the immediate experimental verification of theoretical predictions in materials science and their subsequent applications. My topical research lines include emerging 2D group III nitrides and oxides, topological insulators, inherently nanostructured carbon-based thin films for protective coatings, including hard/elastic and self-healing coatings, 2D carbon-based systems for the nanoelectronics and metal-organic interfaces, 2D silicon-based and cluster-assembled materials including silicon boride, and working towards a metal-semiconductor transition in 2D.

2. What’s your current research focus, and why did you choose this research field? As a reviewer, what kind of manuscripts would you prefer to review in the future?
For my current research topics, please see the previous question. My research focus on nanostructured materials and low-dimensional materials evolved as a result of a complex combination of following my own research interests, participating in the development of the field, working intense on my own projects and proposals, and working as a team member on larger projects. As a reviewer, due to the progress of my research and my many skills, I would say that I am quite versatile, and I feel equally comfortable and competent when evaluating not only theoretical but also most experimental manuscripts in the field of nanostructured materials.

3. Which research topics do you think are of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
Low-dimensional and layered materials, heterostructures, and topological materials, to name just a few. Nanomaterials that are achievable by robust, repeatable, scalable, and industrially viable techniques will also be of particular interest (in contrast to those that rely on exotic, difficult-to-reproduce techniques).

4. What do you think you can learn from participating in conferences?
Well-planned, well-organized, topical scientific meetings, events, conferences, and workshops will always be important and significantly impact progress in most research fields. After the pandemic, most scientists have come to appreciate these opportunities even more so than before.

5. We are an Open Access journal. How do you think Open Access impacts authors?
Open Access publication has clearly become the paradigm in scientific publishing. In my opinion, its advantages are clear. The popularization of research, high numbers of citations of quality research, and in the end, quicker progress in most research fields are all reasons to support the increasing number of available Open Access journals.

6. Which qualities do you think reviewers need?
Scientific competence in the reviewed field and recent, updated knowledge are clearly and undoubtedly the necessary qualities for a reviewer. However, some other essential qualities of reviewers are frequently overlooked. A reviewer should be able to see the bigger picture, i.e., whether a given manuscript fits the recent trends and developments in impact and progress in the given field. The linguistic and stylistic competence of the reviewer cannot be neglected; they should be able to identify whether a manuscript is a good read, whether it is attractive to the audience, and whether it can inspire further work along similar research lines. The objectivity of reviewers is also frequently overlooked; a reviewer should not be guided by his/her own research inertia and preferences. Last but not least, a reviewer should be critical but positive, trying to help through advice and detailed comments on the publication of a manuscript that may exhibit good potential, even when this potential is accompanied by some errors or by insufficient presentation of results.

For more information about Nanomaterials awards, please refer to the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nanomaterials/awards.