Announcements

MDPI is honored to announce the recipients of the 2025 Best Paper Awards, celebrating exceptional research for its scientific merit and broad impact. After a rigorous evaluation process conducted by Academic Editors, this year’s awards showcase papers that stand out for their innovation, relevance, and high-quality presentation.

Out of a highly competitive pool, 396 winning papers have been recognized for their exceptional contributions. We congratulate these authors for pushing the boundaries of their respective disciplines.

At MDPI, we are dedicated to broadening the reach of innovative science. To learn more about the award-winning papers and explore research projects in your field of study, please visit the following links:

• Biology and Life Sciences;
• Business and Economics;
• Chemistry and Materials Sciences;
• Computer Sciences and Mathematics;
• Engineering;
• Environmental and Earth Sciences;
• Medicine and Pharmacology;
• Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities;
• Physical Sciences;
• Public Health and Healthcare.

About MDPI Awards:

To reward the global research community and enhance academic dialogue, MDPI journals regularly host award programs across diverse scientific disciplines. These awards, serving as a source of inspiration and recognition, help raise the influence of talented individuals who have been credited with outstanding achievements and whose work drives the advancement of their fields.

Explore the Best Paper Awards open for participation, please click here.

We are pleased to announce the winners of the Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025 Outstanding Reviewer Award. The Journal of Clinical Medicine (JCM, ISSN: 2077-0383) Editorial Board and editorial team would like to gratefully acknowledge the time and energy dedicated by reviewers in checking the manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Clinical Medicine. It is due to their efforts that the high quality and rapid turnaround times of the journal are maintained.

Prize:

• CHF 500;
• A free voucher for article processing fees valid for one year;
• An electronic certificate.

Winners:
Name: Dr. Amritlal Mandal
Affiliation: The University of Arizona, USA

Name: Dr. Jorge Gutiérrez-Cuevas
Affiliation: University of Guadalajara, Mexico

Name: Dr. Domenik Popp
Affiliation: Medical University Vienna, Austria

Name: Dr. Giuseppe Basile
Affiliation: IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Italy

Name: Dr. Carlo Lavalle
Affiliation: Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Journal of Clinical Medicine Editorial Office

Journal of Clinical Medicine (JCM, ISSN: 2077-0383) publishes Special Issues to create collections of papers on specific topics, with the aim of building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas and research directions. We invite you to explore the Special Issues Reprints listed below, published in 2024 and 2025, with each Special Issue containing more than eight papers. The topics covered are not limited to cardiac imaging, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, heart failure, thyroid disease, and mental health. These Special Issues have attracted attention and achieved a high average rate of citations for their articles. We also invite you to follow the new editions of these Special Issues and other new Special Issues focused on similar topics. Furthermore, you can read more Special Issues Reprints published by JCM here.

In addition, the Journal Reprints service is exclusively available to Guest Editors of MDPI journals. A minimum of 8 published papers (excluding Editorials) is required for this service. Reprints are distributed globally and indexed in international databases. To explore more details, click here.

	1. “What We See through Cardiac Imaging” Guest Editors: Dr. Valeria Pergola and Dr. Martina Perazzolo Marra ISBN 978-3-7258-5811-8 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-5812-5 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-5812-5 Available online:  https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/11909-what-we-see-through-cardiac-imaging
	2. “Clinical Management of Chronic Pain” Guest Editor: Dr. Mariateresa Giglio ISBN 978-3-7258-2443-4 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-2444-1 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-2444-1 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/10082-clinical-management-of-chronic-pain
	3. “Inflammatory Bowel Disease: From Diagnosis to Treatment” Guest Editors: Dr. Laura Maria Minordi and Dr. Daniela Pugliese ISBN 978-3-7258-4819-5 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-4820-1 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-4820-1 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/11840-inflammatory-bowel-disease
	4. “Management of Dyslipidaemias: Enhancing Lipid Modification to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk” Guest Editors: Dr. Daniel Gaudet and Dr. Etienne Khoury ISBN 978-3-7258-5623-7 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-5624-4 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-5624-4 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/11789-management-of-dyslipidaemias
	5. “New Advances in Optic Nerve Diseases” Guest Editor: Dr. Livio Vitiello ISBN 978-3-7258-5333-5 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-5334-2 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-5334-2 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/11621-new-advances-in-optic-nerve-diseases
	6. “Rheumatoid Arthritis: Current Status and Future Challenges” Guest Editor: Dr. Blanca Hernández-Cruz ISBN 978-3-7258-3195-1 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-3196-8 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-3196-8 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/10501-rheumatoid-arthritis
	7. “Clinical Management of Patients with Heart Failure” Guest Editors: Dr. Cristina Tudoran and Dr. Larisa Anghel ISBN 978-3-7258-3301-6 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-3302-3 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-3302-3 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/10579-clinical-management-of-patients-with-heart-failure
	8. “Clinical Updates on the Aortic Aneurysm and Aortic Dissection” Guest Editors: Dr. Benedikt Reutersberg and Dr. Matthias Trenner ISBN 978-3-7258-3103-6 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-3104-3 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-3104-3 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/10491-clinical-updates-on-the-aortic-aneurysm-and-aortic-dissection
	9. “Thyroid Disease: Updates from Diagnosis to Treatment” Guest Editors: Prof. Dr. Luca Giovanella and Dr. Petra Petranović Ovčariček ISBN 978-3-7258-5865-1 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-5866-8 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-5866-8 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/11879-thyroid-disease
	10. “Effect of Long-Term Insomnia on Mental Health” Guest Editor: Dr. Aleksandra M. Rogowska ISBN 978-3-7258-4375-6 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-4376-3 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-4376-3 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/11093-effect-of-long-term-insomnia-on-mental-health
	11. “Clinical Risks and Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnancy and Childbirth” Guest Editors: Prof. Dr. Apostolos Mamopoulos and Dr. Ioannis Tsakiridis ISBN 978-3-7258-3651-2 (Hardback) ISBN 978-3-7258-3652-9 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-7258-3652-9 Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/books/reprint/10691-clinical-risks-and-perinatal-outcomes-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth

MDPI is excited to announce its participation as an exhibitor at the 2026 American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, taking place in Salt Lake City, UT, USA, from 26 to 29 May 2026.

In 2026, ACSM’s Annual Meeting Spotlight will focus on the powerful convergence of Physical Activity, Exercise, and Technology. Technology transforms how physical activity is studied, prescribed, and experienced—from wearable devices and AI-driven interventions to virtual platforms and advanced diagnostics. This year’s spotlight will explore the intersection of basic, applied, and/or clinical science as it relates to the collective impact of physical activity, exercise, and technological advancement. Sessions in this track should reflect how innovations in technology enhance scientific understanding, clinical outcomes, performance, or population health. Through this spotlight, ACSM aims to highlight research and initiatives that are not only shaping the future of the field but also advancing its mission to extend and enrich lives through the power of movement.

The following open access journals will be represented at the conference:

• Sports;
• JFMK;
• Physiologia;
• Obesities;
• JCM;
• JAPMA;
• Diabetology;
• IJERPH;
• Antioxidants;
• Biomechanics.

If you are planning to attend this conference, please get in touch with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at the booth and answering any questions that you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the following website: https://acsm.org/events-general/annual-meeting/exhibit-sponsor/.

Conference: 28th Asia-Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology Congress
Organization: APLAR Executive Committee and Korean College of Rheumatology
Date: 28 October–1 November 2026
Place: COEX Convention & Exhibition Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

The APLAR Congress brings together world-class research and thought-leadership from rheumatologists, internists, orthopedic surgeons, clinical immunologists, physiatrists, physical and occupational therapists, pediatricians and researchers from allied disciplines on a common platform that facilitates deliberations on all aspects of musculoskeletal diseases. The theme of the APLAR 2026 Congress will be reflected through the scientific program, harnessing amazing recent growth in the number of high-quality abstract submissions, pairing these advancements with the strengths of a local program supported by luminaries from the Korean College of Rheumatology.

The following open access journals will be represented:

• Gout, Urate, and Crystal Deposition Disease (GUCDD);
• Medicina;
• Rheumato;
• Sclerosis;
• Journal of Clinical Medicine (JCM);
• Diseases;
• Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM);
• Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology (JFMK);
• Therapeutics;
• COVID.

If you attend this conference, please feel free to visit our booth. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person and answering any questions that you may have.

We are delighted to announce that nominations are now open for the 2026 Tu Youyou Award. Named after Nobel Laureate Tu Youyou, whose discovery of artemisinin has saved millions of lives, this award recognizes researchers whose work advances the fields of natural products chemistry and medicinal chemistry, while also contributing to human health.

Prize

– CHF 100,000;
– A medal;
– A certificate.

The monetary prize will be shared equally should there be multiple recipients.

Who May Be Nominated?

– Scientists with outstanding achievements and contributions in the fields of natural products chemistry and medicinal chemistry.

Nominees must be individuals; team or group nominations are not permitted. Nominations are valid only for the current award cycle.

Who May Submit a Nomination?

– The director of the nominee’s host research institution or recognized scientists within the field.

Self-nominations will not be considered.

Nomination Materials

– A biographical sketch;
– A detailed description of the nominee’s contributions;
– 5–10 representative academic publications;
– A list of academic honors, awards, and funded projects;
– A nomination letter signed by two nominators.

How to Submit?

Submit nominations online via the following link: https://tuyouyouprize.org/nomination

Important Dates

– Nomination Deadline: 31 October 2026
– Winner Announcement: March 2027

For further information, please visit the Tu Youyou Award website (https://tuyouyouprize.org/). For any inquiries, please contact the Tu Youyou Award Team at tuyouyouaward@mdpi.com.

We are pleased to share an interview with Dr. Peter Wahl, who has been recognized as a JCM Exceptional Reviewer in 2025.

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your current research focus?
I am an orthopedic surgeon specialized in hip and pelvic surgery. I have always been passionate about teaching, as it forces one to truly understand and clearly explain fundamental principles, allowing to self-improve along the way. About half of my procedures have been performed in a teaching setting.
Teaching naturally raises questions for which answers are not always readily available, and this curiosity became the starting point of my scientific activity. Two decades later, I now dedicate part of my work time formally to research, focusing on revision hip arthroplasty. My earlier work centered on implant-related infection, while my current research focuses more on mechanical failure mechanisms.
I currently have the privilege of collaborating with an outstanding international group working on orthopedic polyethylene. It is a fascinating field, still full of unexpected findings, and I believe it will continue to generate important insights in the coming years.

2. What key aspects do you prioritize when reviewing a manuscript? How do you evaluate the validity and translational potential of a clinical study?
I usually begin by summarizing the manuscript in five sentences: one each for the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and overall relevance. This helps to assess whether the study is coherent, well structured, and relevant.
I then focus on the methodology, which must be transparent and reproducible. The conclusions drawn by the authors should be in adequacy to the methods. Beyond that, I evaluate key elements of scientific writing: a concise and engaging introduction, a clear and consistent presentation of methods and results, and a discussion that appropriately balances findings, limitations, and relevance. Ultimately, I aim to ensure that the manuscript is both scientifically sound and clearly communicated, allowing readers to understand and interpret the findings reliably.

3. How do you balance encouraging innovation with ensuring methodological rigor and ethical compliance? Could you share an example from your review experience?
A manuscript belongs to its authors. The reviewer’s role is to assess scientific soundness, consistency, and relevance, while respecting the authors’ creativity and perspective. In my experience, the review process is often highly technical. Methodological robustness is essential, as it forms the basis for any meaningful interpretation. At the same time, innovation should be encouraged, provided that ethical and scientific standards are met. If the data and methods are sound, the discussion about relevance and innovation becomes meaningful. If not, there is little foundation on which to build. Striking this balance is at the core of responsible peer review.

4. What advice would you give to early-career clinicians or researchers who are beginning to participate in peer review?
Be curious and benevolent. The goal of peer review is to assess whether a study is scientifically sound and relevant, not to rewrite the manuscript. Focus on methodology, structure, and reproducibility. Ensure that the study is clearly presented and that its conclusions are supported by the data. At the same time, avoid spending excessive effort on stylistic details, which remain the authors’ responsibility. A constructive and respectful approach benefits both authors and the scientific community.

5. Beyond correcting errors, what unique contribution do you think a strong peer review brings to clinical science and patient care?
Peer review provides authors with an independent and hopefully constructive evaluation of their work. If reviewers identify unclear points or inconsistencies, it is likely that readers would encounter similar difficulties. By addressing these issues, authors can improve the clarity and impact of their manuscript. More broadly, peer review serves as a safeguard for scientific quality, helping to ensure that published findings are reliable and appropriately interpreted. As many readers do not examine manuscripts in the same depth as reviewers, this responsibility is essential to prevent the dissemination of misleading conclusions.

6. Based on your review experience, which emerging topics or methodologies do you believe will be particularly influential in the coming years?
AI-based tools are increasingly used to filter the scientific literature, as reaching the necessary depth of understanding is becoming more challenging due to scientific knowledge expanding exponentially and research topics becoming increasingly specialized. However, their reliability is not yet sufficient to replace critical scientific judgment. Science is not driven by the most frequent opinion, but by accurate and verifiable findings. In the coming years, maintaining rigorous critical thinking alongside technological support will be essential.

7. JCM is an open access journal. How do you see open access shaping the dissemination and impact of clinical research?
Open access has profoundly reshaped scientific publishing, and its impact is multifaceted.
First, the transition from print to digital formats has removed many of the traditional constraints on publication volume. This has enabled a much broader and faster dissemination of research, reflecting the growing output of the scientific community.
Second, open access has often been associated with more efficient editorial and review processes. While not inherently linked, the evolution of digital platforms has facilitated faster communication, allowing research findings to become available in a more timely manner.
Third, the introduction of article processing charges has created new challenges. While open access improves accessibility for readers, it may also introduce barriers for authors with limited resources. This highlights the importance of maintaining a balance between accessibility, equity, and scientific quality.
Overall, open access represents a major step forward in knowledge dissemination, but continued attention is needed to ensure that it remains both inclusive and sustainable.

8. How do you manage your time between clinical duties, research, and peer review? What motivates you to continue contributing as a reviewer?
Balancing clinical work, research, and peer review is challenging. I contribute to peer review primarily because I value research and see it as a shared responsibility within the scientific community. Reviewing also provides an opportunity to think critically and remain engaged with methodology and scientific writing. It helps maintain analytical sharpness. In practice, I usually read each manuscript twice: once for an initial understanding, and a second time while writing the review. This process takes several hours per manuscript, particularly considering the time in between reading and writing, to think it through. Time is a limited resource, but I consider this contribution worthwhile. Reviewing just ends up as a task in addition to all my other activities, done in the evening or on days off.

9. How do you view the role of a reviewer in shaping the quality and integrity of published research?
Reviewers play a key role in safeguarding scientific quality. In my experience, many manuscripts benefit from improvements in structure, clarity, and methodological transparency. Simple aspects—such as a focused introduction, clearly described methods, and a well-structured presentation of results—can significantly enhance the impact of a study. At the same time, reviewers should remain constructive and avoid unnecessary delays. A balanced, curious, and benevolent approach is essential.

MDPI will attend the 41st Annual Meeting of Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control, which will take place from 9 July 2026, Yokohama, Japan.

This congress will be held at the PACIFICO Yokohama North – Exhibition Hall C + D, organized by the Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control.

The theme of this meeting is “Shaping the Future of Infection Control Together”. The Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control serves as a “hub” where professionals from diverse backgrounds—such as physicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical laboratory technologists, and those working in long-term care facilities—come together. By bringing together a wide range of healthcare professionals, the society provides opportunities to share experiences and perspectives, from which new approaches to infection prevention and control for tomorrow are expected to emerge.

The conference will feature programs that allow each participant to rediscover the value of learning about infectious diseases and infection prevention and control in an engaging way, while also offering sessions designed for thoughtful and in-depth discussion.

The following open access journals will be represented:

• Diseases;
• Reports;
• Epidemiologia;
• Infectious Disease Reports;
• Hygiene;
• IJERPH;
• ARM;
• TropicalMed;
• JMMS;
• Medicines;
• JCM.

If you plan to attend this event, we encourage you to visit our booth and speak to our representatives. We are eager to meet you in person and assist you with any queries that you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the official website: https://www.congre.co.jp/jsipc2026/index.html

We are pleased to share an interview with Dr. Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye, who has been recognized as a JCM Exceptional Reviewer 2025. In this interview, Dr. Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye discusses the benefits of open access publishing and shares his perspective on the peer review process. He also offers valuable insights into AI tools in peer review. We invite you to read the full interview and learn more about Dr. Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye’s perspectives on peer review and scientific publishing.

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your current research focus?

I am Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye, MD, PhD, a senior consultant pathologist at the Department of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway (UNN), in Tromsø, Norway. My work combines diagnostic pathology, cervical cancer prevention, and clinical research, with a particular focus on how pathology and laboratory medicine can support more precise and effective patient care.

My current research focuses mainly on HPV-related disease prevention and risk stratification in cervical screening. This includes studies on HPV testing, cervical cytology, histological assessment of cervical biopsies, post-treatment follow-up after conization, and the potential role of HPV vaccination in women treated for cervical precancer. I am also involved in projects evaluating genotype-specific HPV mRNA testing, real-world screening data, and the implementation of digital pathology and artificial intelligence in diagnostic practice. Across these areas, my main goal is to generate evidence that is clinically relevant, methodologically robust, and directly applicable to patient management and public health.

2. What key aspects do you prioritize when reviewing a manuscript? How do you evaluate the validity and translational potential of clinical study?

When I review a manuscript, I first look at whether the introduction clearly defines the clinical problem, the knowledge gap, and the study aim in the context of existing evidence. Many of the papers I assess are within my own field—HPV, cervical screening, precancer, and cancer prevention—so I pay close attention to whether the authors have framed the research question precisely and supported it with relevant primary references rather than relying too heavily on secondary citations.

To evaluate validity, I focus on whether the study design is appropriate for the research question, whether the inclusion criteria and endpoints are clearly defined, and whether the methods are sufficiently detailed and reproducible. I also consider sample size, risk of bias, confounding, follow-up completeness, and whether the statistical analyses match the design and data structure. Just as importantly, I examine whether the conclusions are proportional to the results.

For translational potential, I ask a simple question: Will these findings meaningfully improve clinical decision-making, patient stratification, diagnostic accuracy, treatment, or follow-up in real-world practice? A strong clinical study should not only be methodologically sound but also relevant, interpretable, and applicable beyond the study setting.

3. How do you balance encouraging innovation with ensuring methodological rigor and ethical compliance? Could you share an example from your review experience?

I try to balance innovation and rigor by being open to new ideas while applying the same core standards to every manuscript. Novelty alone is not enough. Study may be highly innovative, but it still needs a sound design, clearly defined endpoints, appropriate comparators, transparent methods, and conclusions that do not go beyond the data. I also look carefully at ethical aspects such as informed consent, patient confidentiality, approval by the relevant ethics committee, and whether the proposed clinical use is justified by the evidence presented.

In my view, the best reviews do not discourage innovation; they help make it more credible and clinically useful. For example, I have reviewed studies presenting new diagnostic or triage approaches with clear potential, but where the initial manuscript overstated the immediate clinical implications. In such cases, I typically encourage the authors to keep the innovative concept, while strengthening the methodological description, clarifying validation, acknowledging limitations more explicitly, and moderating the conclusions when implementation data are still limited. That way, promising research can move forward without compromising scientific integrity or patient trust.

4. What advice would you give to early career clinicians or researchers who are beginning to participate in peer review?

My advice to early career clinicians and researchers is to see peer review not only as a responsibility but also as an important part of academic development. If you want to publish scientific papers, you should also be willing to contribute to the review process. Peer review is one of the ways the scientific community maintains quality, credibility, and fairness.

It is also important to remember that you do not need to identify every weakness in a manuscript to provide a valuable review. Most papers are evaluated by two or more reviewers, and each reviewer may notice different strengths and limitations. Even if you focus on only some aspects—such as the clinical relevance, the clarity of the research question, the appropriateness of the methods, or the interpretation of the results—you may still identify something important that others have overlooked.

I would also encourage early career reviewers to treat peer review as a learning opportunity. I have found it very useful to compare my own review with the comments from the other reviewers and the editor’s decision. This helps refine judgment over time and improves both reviewing skills and one’s own scientific writing.

5. Beyond correcting errors, what unique contribution do you think a strong peer review brings to clinical science and patient care?

Beyond correcting errors, a strong peer review helps place a study in the right scientific and clinical context. This is especially important in clinical medicine, where the implications may affect guidelines, patient counseling, screening strategies, diagnostic pathways, or treatment decisions. A reviewer should not only assess whether the data are internally consistent but also whether the interpretation is aligned with the best available evidence and with how care is actually delivered in real-world settings.

In my own field—HPV vaccination, HPV testing, screening, triage, and cervical cancer prevention—I know the literature very well and can often help authors position their findings more accurately within previous research. Sometimes this means recommending additional key references or asking the authors to discuss their results in light of major evidence-based developments. For example, when a manuscript addresses cervical cancer screening, it should take into account that the WHO recommends HPV testing rather than cytology or VIA as the primary screening method. It is also important to consider implementation: organized call-recall screening programs, school-based HPV vaccination, and opt-out self-sampling strategies often have a greater public health impact than information campaigns alone. In that way, strong peer review improves not only the manuscript but also its relevance for patient care and public health.

6. Based on your review experience, which emerging topics or methodologies do you believe will be particularly influential in the coming years?

I can mainly answer from the perspective of my own field, cervical cancer prevention and screening. In primary screening, HPV DNA testing has very high sensitivity, but its specificity is more limited. Many countries that have adopted HPV-based screening still rely on cervical cytology for triage. However, cytology is subjective, labor-intensive, and has limited reproducibility, which means that both sensitivity and specificity can vary across settings and observers.

For that reason, I believe the most influential developments in the coming years will be objective molecular and biomarker-based triage methods. These include extended HPV genotyping, p16/Ki67 dual staining, genotype-specific HPV mRNA testing, and methylation markers. These approaches have the potential to provide more reproducible and clinically meaningful risk stratification than cytology alone.

I also think these methods will become particularly important in the era of self-sampling. As self-sampling expands, there is a growing need for triage strategies that do not depend on a conventional cytology sample or subjective microscopic interpretation. AI-based tools may improve cervical cytology, but in the longer term, I believe biomarker-based triage will have the greatest clinical impact.

7. JCM is an open access journal. How do you see open access shaping the dissemination and impact of clinical research?

I believe open access is very important because it makes scientific publications and new clinical research findings available to everyone, not only to readers at institutions with expensive journal subscriptions. In medicine, this matters greatly. Clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and sometimes even patients can benefit from direct access to new evidence.

Open access can also help reduce the gap between high-resource and lower-resource settings. If important studies on diagnostics, screening, treatment, or prevention are freely available, they are more likely to be read, discussed, and applied in practice across different healthcare systems. This can strengthen both scientific exchange and the real-world impact of research.

At its best, open access increases visibility, accelerates dissemination, and supports faster translation of evidence into patient care. Of course, accessibility alone is not enough. The quality of the research and the rigor of peer review remain essential. But when strong studies are made openly available, their potential to inform clinical decisions, guidelines, and future research is clearly greater.

8. How do you manage your time between clinical duties, research, and peer review? What motivates you to continue contributing as a reviewer?

Balancing clinical work, research, and peer review is challenging. I work as a pathologist in a public hospital with full-time diagnostic responsibilities, so most of my research and peer-review activities take place in my personal time, mainly in the evenings and on weekends. In practice, this means I have to prioritize carefully. At times, I need to focus on my own research projects and manuscripts, but I still try to contribute regularly as a reviewer and often complete one or two reviews on a weekend.

What motivates me is the sense that peer review is a meaningful contribution to a field where good science can make a real difference. Cervical cancer is largely preventable through HPV vaccination, screening, and treatment of precancerous lesions, yet it still causes a major global burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries. By helping improve the quality, clarity, and clinical relevance of submitted manuscripts, I feel that I can contribute—indirectly but genuinely—to better prevention and patient outcomes.

Peer review also helps me stay updated in a rapidly evolving field. Despite the time pressure, I continue reviewing because I see it as part of my professional responsibility as both a clinician and a researcher.

9. How do you view the role of a reviewer in shaping the quality and integrity of published research?

I view the reviewer as an important safeguard for both the quality and integrity of published research. Peer-reviewed manuscripts are still regarded as the gold standard in scientific publishing, not because the process is perfect, but because independent expert evaluation helps identify weaknesses before the work enters the literature and may influence clinical practice, future research, or health policy.

A good reviewer helps ensure that the research question is clear, the methods are appropriate, the analyses are sound, the conclusions are supported by the data, and the limitations are acknowledged honestly. Just as importantly, reviewers help detect overinterpretation, selective reporting, poor referencing, or claims that are not justified by the evidence.

I believe that my own contribution as a reviewer improves the overall quality of manuscripts by making them more accurate, more balanced, and more clinically relevant. In that way, peer review not only improves individual papers; it also helps protect trust in the scientific literature as a whole.

10. What are your perspectives on the impact of AI tools on integrity, efficiency, and future of peer review?

AI tools can improve both the efficiency and the consistency of scientific publishing, especially if journals integrate them in a structured and transparent way. I believe journals should offer authors AI-based support during submission to help with formatting, spelling, grammar, clarity, flow, and compliance with formal journal requirements. Such tools could also check whether in-text citations match the reference list and whether the references are formatted correctly. If authors could use these tools directly on the journal’s submission platform before final submission, the process from submission to review, acceptance, and publication could become faster and more efficient.

As a non-native English-speaking researcher, I have experienced how useful AI can be for improving scientific writing. In the past, professional copyediting was often necessary before submission. Today, tools such as ChatGPT can greatly reduce that need. As a reviewer, I therefore increasingly expect manuscripts to be written in clear and polished English.

At the same time, AI should support, not replace, human scientific judgment. It can improve efficiency, but integrity still depends on authors, reviewers, and editors who critically assess the science, the interpretation, and the ethical standards behind the manuscript. AI tools must also be used with caution, because they may introduce fabricated references, miss clinical nuance, or raise confidentiality concerns if unpublished manuscripts are uploaded to external systems.