Announcements

Name: Prof. Dr. Giorgio Sonnino

Affiliation: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Research interests: thermodynamics of irreversible processes; thermodynamical field theory; complex phenomena; plasma physics; thermonuclear fusion; physics of dynamical systems; fluid mechanics; population dynamics; cryptography; information theory; cosmology

The following is a short interview with Prof. Dr. Giorgio Sonnino:

1. Congratulations on being an outstanding reviewer for Q4! Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers and share a bit about your research interests?

I work in theoretical physics, with a focus on thermodynamics of irreversible processes. I began my research under the guidance of Prof. Ilya Prigogine, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. I earned my doctorate in his research group, specializing in thermodynamic processes.

This background allowed me to explore various fields, particularly nuclear and thermonuclear physics, where I spent nearly ten years. Later, I pursued another doctorate in hydrodynamics, focusing on hydrodynamical fluctuations, nonlinear systems, and complex phenomena—core topics within Prof. Prigogine’s research group.

More recently, I have expanded my research to cryptography, astrophysics, and cosmology, working with Prof. Remo Ruffini, who is well known for his contributions to the Einstein–Wheeler research group. I have also conducted studies in population dynamics, particularly on modeling the spread of COVID-19, and published a series of works with Oxford University Press and the European Medical Society.

For the past ten years, I have served as a certified scientific advisor to the European Union, working within its Central Advisory Board. My current research focuses on the thermodynamics of variable processes. Additionally, I have recently started a collaboration with the University of Nice on nanolasers, leading to the publication of two papers in Nanomaterials. My research interests are diverse, covering multiple disciplines within theoretical and applied physics.

2. What motivated you to become a reviewer?

I have been reviewing various scientific journals for many years, including Physical Review, The European Journal of Physics, and other publications under Springer Nature. My involvement with these journals has been occasional, but each experience has contributed to my growth as a reviewer.

What truly motivates me to work with MDPI is the dynamic and proactive nature of its editorial team. I appreciate that MDPI editors are committed to improving the quality of published papers, and I feel aligned with this mission. In my view, the role of a reviewer is not to judge authors but to help them enhance their work by offering constructive feedback and valuable insights.

When I review papers, I focus on providing meaningful suggestions rather than simply rejecting submissions. I always request revisions if I find areas that need improvement, question calculations and offer alternative perspectives to ensure accuracy. This approach reflects my dedication to maintaining high academic standards.

Working with MDPI has been particularly rewarding because I see the same level of motivation and dedication from its editors. Their commitment to quality and their willingness to engage with reviewers make MDPI an ideal place for me to contribute to the academic community.

3. How do you approach the peer review process to ensure fairness and constructive feedback?

My review process begins with a fundamental question: “Can I contribute constructively to this paper?” The first step is to carefully read the manuscript and determine whether I fully understand what the author aims to convey. I assess the key findings and the novelty of the paper, ensuring I grasp its contribution to the state of the art. If I can clearly identify these aspects, I proceed with the review.

The next step involves verifying the accuracy of the calculations. In some cases, I perform independent numerical checks to see if I can reproduce the reported results. This is not done to challenge the author’s correctness but rather to evaluate the ease of reproducing their findings. I then cross-check the results with existing literature to determine whether they are new or have already been addressed elsewhere.

Throughout my review, I aim to provide structured and constructive feedback. I identify vulnerable points, highlight areas that require clarification or improvement, and suggest additional citations when relevant. My focus is on helping authors refine their work rather than merely critiquing it.

In most cases, authors appreciate this collaborative approach, as it fosters a constructive dialog rather than a purely evaluative process. My ultimate goal is not to judge but to act as an interlocutor, working alongside the author to enhance the quality of their paper. Once all necessary improvements have been made, I submit my final approval to the editor, confident that the manuscript has been strengthened and the gaps have been addressed.

4. What are the biggest challenges you face as a reviewer, and how do you handle them?

The review process varies depending on the type of paper under evaluation. There are different categories of manuscripts, each requiring a distinct approach: review papers, top-level research papers, and more unconventional or “exotic” papers.

For review papers, the primary challenge is determining whether the author has successfully covered a broad range of relevant information. The key question I ask is: “What new insights does this review provide compared to existing literature?” While this process requires time, it is generally straightforward.

Top-level research papers demand greater caution, as the accuracy and validity of their findings must be rigorously verified. There is a significant risk in publishing work that is not yet well-established or contains errors. To ensure reliability, I often redo calculations independently and thoroughly check the methodology.

Exotic papers present a unique challenge. In some cases, they introduce novel and promising ideas; in others, they may not yet be ready for publication. It is not necessarily that the research is incorrect, but rather that it may be premature and require further study. In such cases, I prepare a detailed report for the editor and authors, providing constructive feedback in a professional and encouraging manner. I highlight the strengths of the paper while also specifying areas that need further development or additional evidence.

Given these varying approaches, the time required for a review can differ significantly. Some papers may take only a short time to evaluate, while others require extensive analysis, sometimes spanning several days. My goal is always to provide a thorough, fair, and constructive review to help improve the quality of the manuscript before publication.

5. What is your experience with our service from the point of view of a reviewer?

Throughout my academic career, I have had the opportunity to personally meet and interact with several editors, many of whom are highly motivated and dedicated to their work. A notable example is the Editor-in-Chief of Entropy, whom I know personally from attending the same workshops, such as those on entropy and related topics at the Max Planck Institutes.

These editors have been deeply committed to improving their journals from the very beginning. I have observed their efforts firsthand, particularly in increasing the impact factor of their journals. For instance, Entropy started with a modest impact factor of around 0.5, which gradually increased to 1.0, then 2.0, and later 2.5. Today, some MDPI review journals have impact factors exceeding 6, and several of their top-tier reviews are ranked in Q1.

This level of dedication is what drives me to actively contribute as a reviewer. I appreciate the rigorous editorial process at MDPI, and I feel a strong sense of commitment toward supporting its development. When I receive review invitations from MDPI, I am always inclined to accept, as I recognize the value of their work and want to contribute to maintaining and enhancing the quality of their publications. In contrast, I sometimes decline reviewing invitations from other publishers, as I do not feel the same level of engagement or motivation.

Ultimately, my decision to review is not just a professional responsibility but also a personal commitment to supporting a community that values quality, progress, and academic integrity.

6. What advice would you give to aspiring researchers looking to make a meaningful impact in their fields?

To stay at the forefront of scientific advancements, it is essential to follow emerging research fields. A notable example is the ongoing research on the quantization of entropy production in small systems. Currently, researchers are exploring new materials by incorporating quantum information principles into nanomaterials design. This represents a significant shift in the field, highlighting the importance of staying informed about novel developments.

A key recommendation is to actively participate in relevant workshops and conferences. These events provide valuable insights into the latest research trends and allow for direct engagement with experts. By attending such gatherings, one can better understand emerging topics and strategically invest time and energy in areas with significant future potential.

While publishing research within established domains remains important, it is equally crucial to explore and contribute to new and evolving fields. Those involved in journal management and academic publishing should consider attending workshops, not only to stay informed but also to identify promising research directions and opportunities for collaboration. Investing in these areas—through time, effort, and intellectual engagement—can help ensure that research remains relevant and impactful in an ever-evolving scientific landscape.

7. Applied Sciences is an open access journal. How do you think open access publishing benefits authors and the broader research community?

Open access is increasingly becoming the dominant model for academic publishing. While traditional journals and peer-reviewed publications have played a crucial role in the past, open access now provides the most effective way to disseminate new research rapidly and widely. This model ensures that scientific advancements are accessible to a broader audience without the barriers imposed by subscription-based systems.

However, a key challenge associated with open access publishing is securing financial support. Sustainable funding sources must be identified to maintain the quality and accessibility of publications. Despite this financial challenge, open access remains the most efficient method for sharing novel research findings in a timely manner.

8. Do you have any suggestions on how our journal could further support researchers and the academic community?

Supporting academic communities can be achieved through active engagement in workshops and by organizing them. For example, if a new method or emerging field—such as the quantization of information in nanomaterials—is identified, it is important to initiate discussions and propose workshops on the subject. Attracting top experts and offering financial support for a select number of papers, in collaboration with universities or other key institutions, can foster valuable insights.

Additionally, involving enterprises in such initiatives can enhance the overall impact. Enterprises can play a pivotal role in supporting publications, particularly those that bridge the gap between fundamental research and practical applications. By combining theoretical and industrial research, workshops can foster collaboration between academic and business sectors, creating a valuable synergy.

In particular, in Europe, the financial contribution of enterprises is essential for overcoming funding challenges. Workshops that integrate both fundamental and industrial-oriented research will not only promote academic knowledge but also have significant practical value. These efforts can lead to greater collaboration between academia and industry, benefiting both fields and contributing to meaningful advancements in research and innovation.