Editorial Spotlight: Luísa Borges

This interview and blog post was prepared by Editorial Research Associate Marcus Pawson.

Dr. Luísa Borges is a Marine Biologist and the Director of L³ Scientific Solutions, a company she founded in 2015. She earned her bachelor’s degree in Biology from the University of the Azores, Portugal, and her PhD in Marine Molluscs and Crustacean wood borers from the University of Portsmouth, UK. Her research spans bioinformatics, biogeography, molecular taxonomy, and phylogeny of marine organisms with a strong focus on bivalve wood borers of the family Teredinidae. Recently, she published her first popular science book, How to Do More for the Environment with a Little Help from Science.

Here, she discusses her research in marine biology, the importance of Open Science in her field, and her approach to facilitating fair and thorough peer review processes.

I particularly value including reviewers with diverse backgrounds, as this provides authors with more rounded feedback. Whenever possible, I also try to involve both early-career and retired scientists.

Your research is focused on using molecular markers to monitor marine communities. What drew you to this area of research, and why is it important to you?

Some of my research, such as my biogeography studies, relies on robust taxonomy to draw meaningful conclusions on the distribution of species. During my PhD on marine wood-boring organisms, I found that morphology alone is insufficient to distinguish some species. For example, many invertebrates once considered cosmopolitan are now recognised as cryptic species complexes. This motivated me to apply integrative taxonomy to delineate species more precisely and thereby improve our understanding of their geographical distribution. Moreover, molecular markers are also crucial for research on the phylogeny and evolution of species, two areas that particularly interest me.

What aspects of Open Science do you feel are most important in your field, and where do you see the next steps for openness in this research area?

The use of molecular markers in marine biology is a burgeoning field, and Open Science has a crucial role in advancing it. This is important for all scientists, but, in particular, for those working in institutions that cannot afford articles’ costs. Further steps could enhance openness, such as waiving publication fees for researchers in institutions unable to cover these costs. While PLOS One is already committed to democratising the publication system through initiatives like Research4Life, extending this commitment could further mitigate the disadvantages faced by researchers in lower-income countries where more research is needed.

As an Academic Editor for PLOS One, you have facilitated fair and thorough peer review processes for manuscripts. How do you approach selecting appropriate reviewers and evaluating their comments?

For some of the articles I have handled as Editor, I already knew colleagues working in the area, which made it easier to identify suitable reviewers. When that is not the case, I use keywords from the article to search for potential reviewers through platforms such as Google Scholar or ResearchGate. This allows me to review researchers’ work and assess their suitability as reviewers. I particularly value including reviewers with diverse backgrounds, as this provides authors with more rounded feedback. Whenever possible, I also try to involve both early-career and retired scientists. Early-career researchers are often eager to gain experience in peer review and typically strive to provide thorough feedback, while retired scientists are usually very knowledgeable and often contribute detailed and constructive reviews.

I always read the reviews carefully, weigh the comments, and then reach a decision. However, it is not uncommon to receive conflicting opinions. In such cases, I try to find a balanced approach that allows authors, whenever possible, the opportunity to improve their work.

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