Announcing the 2025 Outstanding Reviewer Award Winner

Once again, it is time to acknowledge our top reviewer for the past year. Annually, we recognize one reviewer for his/her contributions to the journal, in honor of Manfred Kroger. Dr. Kroger was a long-term editor for Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, well known for his diligence in making sure manuscripts were top notch. Much of the credit for the early success of CRFSFS goes to Dr. Kroger.

To select the Manfred Kroger Outstanding Reviewer Award winner, the Associate Editors first nominate a reviewer who has done exceptional review work for them in the past few years. The Scientific Editors then vote as to which candidate should receive the award. The award is based on a number of factors; the number of reviews is important, but also the timeliness and quality of the reviews.

This year's Outstanding Reviewer award goes to Dr. Jianglong Kong of Zhejiang University, College of Biosystems Engineering and Food Science in Hangzhou, China.

We always ask the winner a few questions about their thoughts on peer review. Here are Dr. Kong's responses:

Q1) Can you briefly share your process for reviewing a manuscript?

I typically begin by reading the abstract and conclusion to grasp the overall message of the paper. Next, I review the figures and their captions to get a clearer understanding of the key data. Finally, I go through the entire manuscript, carefully examining how the experimental design aligns with the results, and identifying potential areas for improvement.

Q2) What motivates you most about reviewing manuscripts?

What motivates me most about reviewing manuscripts is the opportunity to deepen my understanding of food science, particularly through engaging with the introduction sections of various studies. This process allows me to continuously enhance my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, both of which are essential for my research and professional growth.

Q3) Do you have any advice for young scientists about the rewards of being a reviewer?

My advice for young scientists is that reviewing manuscripts can be highly rewarding, both intellectually and professionally. It offers the opportunity to deepen your knowledge of the field and stay updated on the latest research, while also helping you develop critical thinking and scientific writing skills. Additionally, serving as a reviewer increases your visibility within the academic community, and many journals provide recognition for your contributions.

Q4) Any other thoughts or comments about reviewing manuscripts?

One aspect worth considering is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to assist in the manuscript review process. AI can aid in the initial screening of low-quality or unsuitable manuscripts, as well as identify potential issues such as plagiarism, missing citations, or statistical errors, ultimately making the review process more efficient and comprehensive.

Thank you for these comments, Dr. Kong. These are some interesting insights. However, your last comment prompts me to remind reviewers about our current guidelines for using AI tools in peer review. Journal of Food Science has a policy on record already, stated in the reviewer form:

“If you used any AI tools to help with your review, please declare the tool(s) and describe how it was used. Please note that copying or uploading any part of a manuscript to an external system breaches confidentiality and is not allowed.”

We also follow Wiley Ethics Guidelines policies on use of AI:

“Peer Review: AI Technology should be used only on a limited basis in connection with peer review. A GenAI tool can be used by an editor or peer reviewer to improve the quality of the written feedback in a peer review report. This use must be transparently declared upon submission of the peer review report to the manuscript's handling editor. Independent of this limited use case, editors or peer reviewers should not upload manuscripts (or any parts of manuscripts including figures and tables) into AI Technology. AI Technology may use input data for training or other purposes, which could violate the confidentiality of the peer review process, privacy of authors and reviewers, and the copyright of the manuscript under review. Moreover, the peer review process is a human endeavor and responsibility and accountability for submitting a peer review report, in line with a journal's editorial polices and peer review model, sits with those individuals who have accepted an invitation from a journal to undertake the peer review of a submitted manuscript. This process should not be delegated to a GenAI tool.”

This specifically states that manuscripts should not be uploaded to AI programs that could save them for model training, but other applications of this technology to improve peer review comments may be helpful and allowable. However, as with most AI applications, its use for peer review is still rapidly evolving. Nevertheless, we must still adhere to the principles stated above at this time.

Again, congratulations to Dr. Kong.

Sincerely,

Rich Hartel, PhD

Editor in Chief, Journal of Food

Science

Professor, University of

Wisconsin–Madison

Richard Hartel: Writing – original draft.

The author declares no conflicts of interest.