What do you like most about being an Editorial Board Member for Scientific Reports?

Being an Editorial Board Member of Scientific Reports has been an invaluable experience in shaping how I approach and manage different aspects of my own research, including the writing of scientific articles. I particularly enjoy gaining insight into the inner workings of a leading Open Access journal and participating in ongoing training on best practices, publication and research ethics, and scientific conduct. Above all, I am strongly committed to promoting Open Access, recognizing its essential role in making scientific knowledge widely available.

We know that finding reviewers is one of the hardest parts of an editorial role. Do you have any tricks on finding reviewers? 

When an assignment falls within my field of research, I try to select reviewers best suited to the specific study, drawing on the community of specialists I know through my research experience. After this initial selection, I complement it with candidates suggested by the SN Reviewer Finder tool. However, when a submission does not fully align with my discipline, I usually consider at least one of the reviewers recommended by the authors, examine the manuscript’s references, explore related articles and their citations, and, as in the previous case, use the SN Reviewer Finder tool by entering the article’s keywords.

If you were to give a piece of advice to other Editors, what would that be?

Above all, I would advise being thorough and rigorous in selecting reviewers, as the right choice often determines the quality and excellence of a study. This process requires dedication and time, but peer review is essential for assessing the validity of the research and its suitability for the journal’s scope and aims. And from a more personal perspective, I believe that editors should enjoy reading papers from diverse areas, which continually broaden our knowledge and, in some way, inspire future work. Approaching the role with curiosity and care makes the editorial process both effective and rewarding.

You are leading for the second time a Guest-Edited Collection. What interested you about becoming a Guest Editor? What is your most recent Collection focused on?

I was interested in becoming a Guest Editor because it offers the opportunity to shape a thematic Collection that highlights cutting-edge research in my field and fosters collaboration among researchers. The first one was about Quaternary taphonomy and was published in 2022.  The most recent Collection is on Forensic and experimental archaeology and focuses on two subfields of archaeology, aiming to bring together studies that advance our understanding of archaeological sites and ancient cultures, encourage interdisciplinary dialogue, and promote high standards of scientific reporting.

What would you like to share with your fellow researchers on publishing in an inclusive journal? 

Publishing in an inclusive journal means contributing to a scientific environment that values diversity, transparency, and equal opportunity for all researchers. I would encourage fellow researchers to be thorough and transparent in reporting their methods and results, share data when possible, and respect ethical standards. Inclusive journals, like Scientific Reports, welcome research from diverse disciplines, backgrounds, and perspectives, ensuring that all scientifically valid work can reach a broad audience. By engaging with such journals, researchers not only increase the visibility and impact of their work but also help foster a more equitable and collaborative scientific community.

Do you think Scientific Reports helps reduce publication bias, and if yes – how?

Yes, I believe that Scientific Reports plays a key role in reducing publication bias. By evaluating studies based on scientific validity rather than perceived novelty or impact, the journal encourages the publication of null or negative results that might otherwise remain unpublished. Its broad and interdisciplinary scope also helps mitigate topic-related bias by welcoming research from diverse fields. As an Editorial Board Member, I strive to support authors in presenting their results transparently and rigorously, with a focus on methodological quality rather than only positive or novel findings, contributing to a more balanced and reliable scientific record.

Looking to the future, how can we further promote inclusivity, diversity and rigor in scientific publishing?

I believe that promoting inclusivity, diversity, and rigor in scientific publishing requires concrete actions. In my view, journals could implement open calls for editors and reviewers to ensure a more diverse representation in decision-making. Mentorship programs for underrepresented groups, especially in STEM, can help bridge existing gaps, while transparent editorial policies reduce bias in peer review. Personally, I see these initiatives as essential for creating a scientific environment where all voices are heard, collaboration is encouraged, and rigorous, high-quality research can thrive across disciplines and regions.

Home page: https://www.iphes.cat/blasco-l%C3%B3pez-ruth

ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9804-739X

Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4q1CfEUAAAAJ&hl=es

Clarivate: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AAG-8200-2019