Interview with Professor Fabio Tosti - founding Editor-in-Chief of NDT

We recently had the opportunity to interview Prof. Dr. Fabio Tosti, founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), at the 2025 MDPI UK Summit in London.

Prof. Tosti is a professor of civil engineering at the School of Computing and Engineering at the University of West London, UK; Director of The Faringdon Research Centre for Non-Destructive Testing and Remote Sensing; and a registered chartered engineer. He received his PhD in Civil Engineering in 2014 from Roma Tre University, Italy, and has been an academic at the University of West London since 2016.

Prof. Tosti’s research focuses on the development of new algorithms, methodologies, and models for geoscience applications, as well as on the application of emerging technologies – including non-destructive testing (NDT), remote sensing, and immersive tech – for the assessment, repair, and maintenance of civil and green infrastructure, and the conservation of heritage assets.

He has participated in national (Italy and UK) and European projects as a Principal Investigator, Co-Investigator, and team member. He has authored or co-authored over 250 research publications in international journals, conferences, and books and delivered numerous keynote and invited lectures worldwide. He has been an associate editor for various international peer-reviewed journals, including the International Journal of Pavement Engineering (IJPE).

Prof. Tosti has also received numerous awards, such as the Division Outstanding Early Career Scientist Award from the European Geosciences Union (EGU) in 2017 and Best Paper Awards at various international conferences, including the GIRST 2023, IEEE AGERS 2021, and IEEE TSP 2020.

In 2023, Prof. Tosti founded NDT, an open access journal within MDPI, providing a new scientific framework for the dissemination of international peer-reviewed research on non-destructive testing science and technology, and their applications.

In our interview with Prof. Tosti, we spoke about his presentation during the London Summit 2025, which focused on his experiences founding and promoting the journal, his role as Editor-in-Chief, his plans for the journal going forward, and his perspective on the impact of Artificial Intelligence on peer review.

Since our interview, MDPI UK has maintained a close working relationship with the University of West London.

In November, our Office Manager Jaime Anderson and CEO Stefan Tochev visited Prof. Tosti at the Faringdon Research Centre in order to discuss the ongoing and future collaborations between MDPI and the University of West London.

The visit was incredibly productive and we look forward to our future collaborations with both the university and Prof. Tosti.

Please find our interview with Prof. Dr. Fabio Tosti below.

What was your experience like founding NDT and what was your inspiration for its creation?

The main inspiration and reasons for founding NDT were primarily to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and to help grow the culture of non-destructive testing science, technology and their applications among both the scientific and professional communities. It also stemmed from the observation that, in existing literature, there was a clear need for more interdisciplinary research to advance the NDT field.

There was also a personal motivation in founding NDT: as an academic, I have always been deeply interested in editorial work.

I think it started off as any standard involvement in editorial work, with Special Issues, serving as Guest Editor and then taking on Associate Editor roles. Through these experiences, I could appreciate the full editorial pathway in academia, and I found it deeply fulfilling. I believe this remains one of the most stimulating areas in which I continue to invest my academic interest and efforts.

Becoming an Editor-in-Chief felt like a natural next step. It was an opportunity to help shape the field and pursue academic publishing and leadership, areas I consider both meaningful and impactful.

How has your experience as Editor-in-Chief been in comparison to your experience as a Guest Editor and Associate Editor?

It is very different. Having been the founding Editor-in-Chief, I started with no prior structure or reference point, which meant I had to take responsibility for setting up a vision for the journal, identifying areas of growth and expansion, and building the overall structure and project from the ground up.

Now, I can more clearly identify the core of the journal’s mission with myself. As Editor-in-Chief, that sense of ownership and accountability is much stronger. Although the responsibilities are greater, so is the satisfaction in seeing the journal evolve and progress. Before, it was gratifying to contribute as a Guest or Associate Editor; now, it’s truly rewarding to help guide its direction.

That said, one of the strongest aspects of this transition is the editorial support that MDPI provides. From the Managing Editor to the Assistant Editors, everyone contributes to an efficient and smooth process. Thanks to this support, an Editor-in-Chief can focus primarily on the scientific and academic aspects of the journal, with minimal distractions from administrative tasks.

How do you prioritize authors during the submission and peer review process?

The journal is still in the early stages of its development, meaning that, in essence, I am able to still be closely involved with submissions and the peer-review process.

Of course, as submission numbers grow, maintaining this level of oversight will become more challenging.

My role is to ensure that high standards are maintained and that authors receive constructive feedback throughout.

Looking ahead, the focus will shift towards building a strong and accountable editorial board that can maintain these standards, ensuring the journal continues to develop a solid reputation.

How do you plan on maintaining a quality editorial board as your journal grows?

My plan is to encourage engagement with knowledgeable, well prepared and enthusiastic editorial board candidates.

Currently, when we receive a new candidate, I ask the journal relations specialist and the managing editor to meet with them. The purpose is not to judge, but to foster mutual understanding and ensure alignment with the journal’s vision and goals.

Why do you think it is important for an Editor-in-Chief to be involved in the marketing and promotion of their journal?

Promoting the journal, especially in its early stages, is a crucial responsibility for the Editor-in-Chief. Raising awareness of the journal’s mission and development within the scientific community, through conferences, workshops and outreach events, is instrumental for the journal’s growth and a key factor in its long-term success.

This also helps to promote a culture of engagement and shared commitment within the editorial board. By being actively involved in outreach and promotion, an Editor-in-Chief can support and encourage the board and the community in contributing to the journal’s development.

Why do you think it’s important to have events such as the MDPI UK Summit?

Events like the annual MDPI UK Summit are essential for capacity and community building among peer Editors-in-Chief.

At the most basic level, these events provide a platform for the sharing of experiences and best practices, helping individuals feel connected and supported. Being part of such a community naturally enhances the likelihood of performing effectively in one’s role.

Of course, there are practical constraints to meeting face-to-face; you need time to commute and funding etc. But when the publisher recognises the value of these activities and supports them, it creates a unique opportunity for the community to grow, collaborate and strengthen the overall quality of the journals.

What have you found most useful from the sessions in the UK Summit?

The UK Summit was extremely valuable for all of us in editorial and leadership roles.

It provided excellent opportunities to exchange experiences, reflect on different approaches, and learn from one another. Even for those of us with extensive experience in journal publishing, it is always beneficial to gain fresh perspectives and insights into how others tackle similar challenges.

What is the value of peer review in scholarly and especially open access publishing?

Peer review is the cornerstone of quality assurance in scholarly communication. It validates scientific integrity and builds trust in the research we publish, serving as a foundational asset for the entire publication process

At the same time, the peer-review system is under significant strain. The rapid growth in submissions and the increasing demands on reviewers make it more challenging to maintain the same level of rigor and engagement.

Looking ahead, peer review must evolve to become more sustainable for both individual reviewers and institutions. But this must be done without compromising on the quality of reviews and the integrity of the process.  

Do you think the future of Peer Review revolves around AI?

AI is likely to play an important role in the future of peer review. Of course, when it comes to AI and the use of AI for peer review, we must not forget the importance of the human element. The judgment, experience, and critical thinking that reviewers bring to the process simply can’t be replaced by algorithms.

That said, AI can be a valuable support tool if used responsibly. For example, it could help reviewers identify relevant background literature, check references, or assist with technical verifications, making the process more efficient and consistent.

The key to its adoption is an ethical and transparent use, what I would call “Responsible AI”. AI should assist, not replace, human evaluation, and contribute to enhance it, by helping reviewers to focus their time and expertise where it matters most.

Are there any aspects of the peer review process you think AI cannot, or should not, replace?

Absolutely. The human element is indispensable in the peer review process.

I think one of the main challenges in the future will be establishing rules and frameworks that position AI as a supportive tool, rather than a threat.

There should always be a final human final check. A more responsible approach could be to use AI in a limited, complementary way — for example, to help reviewers quickly locate references, check data consistency, or summarising background material. But the core of the review, the judgment, interpretation, and critical assessment, must always come from a human expert. That’s the essence of peer review, and it should remain unchanged.

How do you think MDPI helps to maintain excellence in the peer review process?

MDPI’s peer review process is clear, effective, efficient, and user-friendly.

It allows Editors-in-Chief and academic editors to focus primarily on evaluating the scientific quality of submissions, rather than being distracted by administrative or procedural matters that can shift attention away from the research itself.

In the peer review process, as the Editor-in-Chief of NDT, I ensure that I take the necessary time to make fair and well-considered decisions. Efficiency should never come at the cost of quality or fairness. 

Based on my experience, MDPI has developed a model that I am confident in and comfortable working with.