Editor Spotlight: Claudia Trindade Mattos

Dr. Claudia Trindade Mattos shares with us how to select reviewers, her career in dental research and clinical practice, and her role as a mentor to students and early-career researchers.

Claudia Trindade Mattos is an Associate Professor of Orthodontics at Fluminense Federal University at Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She earned her Master’s degree and PhD in Orthodontics from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and completed a Post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan. She has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles and has mentored numerous undergraduate and graduate students in their research projects.

As a mentor, I emphasize that successful scientific publishing begins with meticulous research planning… I consistently remind early-career researchers that research quality should take precedence over publication quantity.

Claudia Trindade Mattos

As PLOS One Academic Editor, you have facilitated fair and thorough peer review processes for manuscripts. What is your approach in selecting reviewers and evaluating their comments?

As an Academic Editor, managing the peer review process requires both expertise and careful judgment. The increasing challenge of securing qualified reviewers arises from the substantial time commitment and intellectual rigor required for thorough manuscript evaluation. Indeed, quality peer review deserves greater recognition within the academic community.

My approach to reviewer selection focuses on identifying subject matter experts with strong publication records in reputable scientific journals, particularly those with expertise in both the research topic and methodologies employed. When evaluating reviewer comments, I follow a systematic process: First, I carefully analyze each reviewer’s feedback independently, conducting my own assessment of the manuscript. Then, I identify any contradictions or inconsistencies between reviewers’ recommendations. Finally, I synthesize the most critical points that align with my evaluation to provide clear, actionable guidance for authors.

The revision phase presents its own challenges, as authors sometimes struggle to adequately address reviewer concerns. This can extend the review process significantly. To manage this, I ensure my editorial decisions clearly communicate which revisions are essential and provide specific guidance on how authors can satisfactorily address reviewer feedback.

In addition to your research, you also oversee and maintain dental practice at your university. How do these roles complement each other?

Clinical practice and research in dentistry share a symbiotic relationship that strengthens both areas. My involvement in direct patient care and clinical supervision at the university provides firsthand insights into clinical challenges that merit scientific investigation. This practical experience is invaluable in developing research questions with genuine clinical relevance and potential to improve patient outcomes.

Conversely, my research background strengthens my clinical practice by ensuring treatment decisions are grounded in current evidence-based principles. This scientific foundation enables me to critically evaluate new techniques and technologies, implement proven protocols, and provide optimal care for patients.

The integration of these roles creates a continuous cycle of improvement: clinical observations inform research directions, while research findings enhance clinical practice.

You teach biostatistics to graduate students at your university. What makes you passionate about teaching biostatistics? Why is it important for researchers to learn biostatistics?

What drives my passion for teaching biostatistics is its power to transform raw data into meaningful insights that influence clinical practice and decision-making. When proper methodology is applied—particularly in managing bias and confounding factors—biostatistical analysis becomes an essential connection between research findings and practical applications.

While many researchers initially find biostatistics challenging, mastering these concepts is essential for understanding the scope and generalizability of research findings. Contemporary tools have made statistical analysis more accessible, from interactive tutorials for test selection to user-friendly software and AI-assisted platforms. However, expert guidance remains essential to ensure appropriate methodological choices and accurate interpretation of results. This combination of modern tools and experienced oversight helps researchers develop the confidence and competence needed to conduct robust statistical analyses.

As a mentor, what guidance do you offer to early-career researchers about scientific publishing?

As a mentor, I emphasize that successful scientific publishing begins with meticulous research planning. This includes conducting thorough literature reviews to identify research gaps and future directions from existing publications. A well-designed research protocol is essential—it guides the entire process and helps anticipate potential challenges. Critical elements include selecting appropriate study design, calculating adequate sample size, and ensuring compliance with ethical requirements. I consistently remind early-career researchers that research quality should take precedence over publication quantity.

Strategic journal selection is another important aspect. Researchers should identify their target journal early in the process and thoroughly understand its scope, audience, and submission requirements. This early decision helps shape the manuscript’s format and content appropriately from the outset.

I also stress the importance of becoming an avid consumer of scientific literature. Regular engagement with high-quality published research develops critical thinking skills, sparks original ideas, and provides insights into effective methodological approaches. This immersion in the literature helps researchers design more robust studies and construct more compelling manuscripts.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.