This interview is part of a series of conversations with key stakeholders in scholarly publishing, designed to better understand who truly works behind the scenes of publishing and science communication, and who actively engages with innovation, authors, research communities, and the evolving ecosystem of scholarly communication.
Alessandro Gallo: Roberto, let’s start from the beginning. Can you briefly trace your path into scientific publishing and introduce your current role?
Roberto Garbero
Roberto Garbero: I currently work as an Executive Publisher within the BMC Academic Journals team at Springer Nature. I lead an international team, with people based in London, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, and New York, who are responsible for managing portfolios of journals in the applied life sciences. The team is truly global, with colleagues based across Europe, North America, China, Japan, and South Korea.
My path into scientific publishing started somewhat unexpectedly. I had always assumed publishing was just trade books and magazines, so the field of scientific publishing was something I barely knew existed. My first role in a small medical communications company—working on projects with pharmaceutical clients and a free‑press magazine for pharmacists—was really my first exposure to that world. It helped me understand the broader landscape and became the bridge that drew me closer to an industry I had never considered before. From there, I joined Springer to cover a maternity leave in the books division, and that opened the door to opportunities I hadn’t anticipated. Once you get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in scientific publishing, it’s surprisingly easy to want to stay.
Alessandro Gallo: You now work within BMC, which was acquired by Springer in 2008. What do you think has driven BMC’s success, and what still works today?
Roberto Garbero: BMC—originally BioMed Central—was founded in 2000, with a very experimental and, at the time, almost radical idea: that Open Access could be a sustainable publishing model.
When Springer acquired BiomedCentral in 2008, what had already become clear was that BMC had succeeded in doing something unprecedented—being the first fully Open Access publisher operating successfully for profit, while maintaining strong standards of research quality, transparency, and ethics.
Its greatest achievement was probably setting the industry standard for Open Access publishing. That model has not fundamentally changed since then and has been followed by many others.
BMC has also always had a pioneering spirit, especially in innovation around peer review: open peer review, transparent peer review, registered reports. All these initiatives aim to improve research quality and trust, and that mindset continues today.
Alessandro Gallo: Which journals do you currently oversee, and what connects them scientifically?
Roberto Garbero: The journals I oversee broadly fall within the biological sciences, with a strong applied focus. They span areas such as agriculture, animal sciences, biotechnology, and environmental sciences.
What connects them is precisely this applied angle. Compared with BMC’s more established clinical or biomedical journals, this portfolio is somewhat younger and less historically known, but it addresses areas of growing relevance and impact, and serves a clear need for such journals from the research community.
Alessandro Gallo: To put this into context, Springer Nature publishes around 3,000 journals overall. How does BMC fit within this ecosystem?
Roberto Garbero: Within Springer Nature, the BMC imprint includes close to 300 journals. This also includes around 60 BMC Series journals, which feature both selective and inclusive journals designed to reach wider and inter-disciplinary audiences, like biotechnology or immunology. The BMC Series journals are guided by professional in-house lead editors who collaborate with editorial board members. In contrast, the rest of the BMC-branded journals (called BMC Academic journals) are led by expert editors-in-chief who are embedded in their scientific communities, which includes journals published in partnership with scholarly societies and institutions, and with BMC publishing staff focusing on journal health and strategic development, not on scientific decisions.
Alessandro Gallo: Are there emerging fields that particularly excite you?
Roberto Garbero: Yes, several. Biotechnology and biomedical engineering are growing rapidly, both on the industrial and medical sides—especially in areas such as medical materials science, drug delivery systems, and biosensing. Nanotechnology remains extremely dynamic, and BMC publishes one of the leading journals in this field, . I am also very interested in applied plant sciences, agriculture, and food production—areas closely linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and global sustainability challenges.
Alessandro Gallo: This connects well with the One Health concept. Do you see this as a strategic area for BMC?
Roberto Garbero: Absolutely. One Health has been part of my professional journey for some time. I was directly involved in launching in 2018, just before COVID-19. The interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health is now impossible to ignore. Across microbiology, animal sciences, and environmental sciences, this continuum is central. BMC is very well positioned here, also thanks to leading titles such as the Microbiome family of journals, which helped shape the field. We actively collaborate across portfolios to support this integrated perspective.
Alessandro Gallo: What energises you most in your day-to-day work?
Roberto Garbero: What I enjoy most is supporting scientists—directly or through my team—in making their work accessible and better. This includes improving workflows but also experimenting with innovative content types and thinking creatively about how journals can evolve. That combination of service, innovation, and impact is very motivating.
Alessandro Gallo: Authors are sometimes unsure which journal to submit to. What practical advice would you give them?
Roberto Garbero: First, authors should carefully read a journal’s aims, scope, and content-type requirements, even though it is time-consuming.
We also offer journal suggestion tools that analyse abstracts and propose suitable options. Additionally, Springer Nature has a strong manuscript transfer service. If a paper is not suitable for one journal, it can be quickly redirected to a more appropriate one within the portfolio, without restarting the process from scratch.
Alessandro Gallo: Most BMC journals are now on the SNAPP submission system. Why is this transition important?
Roberto Garbero: SNAPP (the name of Springer Nature’s Article Processing Platform) is an innovative in-house system used to manage the submission and peer-review process for research manuscripts destined for journals within the Springer Nature portfolio. This new Springer Nature platform includes AI-assisted tools and peer-review enhancements. Journals that migrate benefit from faster transfers, improved reviewer tools, and more efficient workflows. The majority of BMC journals are already on SNAPP, and several other fully Open Access titles under other Springer Nature imprints have also migrated, such as Scientific Reports.
Alessandro Gallo: How has AI-assisted writing changed manuscript quality?
Roberto Garbero: Used responsibly, AI has significantly improved readability and language quality, especially for non-native English speakers. Abstracts are often clearer, and plain-language summaries are easier to produce, which benefits policymakers and broader audiences.
This type of use is fully accepted within editorial policies and has clearly levelled the playing field.
Alessandro Gallo: On the other hand, integrity challenges are growing. How does BMC address issues such as paper mills and image manipulation?
Roberto Garbero: These are among the most difficult challenges. Paper mills and image manipulation can be extremely sophisticated. BMC benefits from working closely with Springer Nature’s , which develops advanced screening tools, network-based detection methods, and enhanced submission checks. These systems support editors in early assessment and ongoing monitoring, and they are continuously being improved.
Alessandro Gallo: Peer reviewers are increasingly overloaded. What defines a good reviewer today?
Roberto Garbero: The best reviewers are motivated, realistic about their workload, and engaged with the journal community. Declining a review is perfectly acceptable—ideally with suggestions for alternative reviewers. Strong peer review relies on a trusted ecosystem of authors, reviewers, and editors who share scientific interests and aim to improve research through constructive feedback.
Alessandro Gallo. Finally, you started in Milan, moved to London, and then returned to Italy in a global role. What drove those decisions?
Roberto Garbero: I moved to London in 2016 to transition into Open Access journal publishing. At the time, many of those roles were concentrated in the UK, which has been at the forefront of Open Access policy and development. Over time, teams became more international and location-independent, and for both professional and family reasons, returning to Italy made sense. The UK remains a key hub for scholarly publishing, but today global collaboration makes it possible to contribute at the same level from many locations.
In a rapidly evolving landscape, Roberto’s clarity, enthusiasm, and ability to connect the dots stand out. Gifted in his relationship with people, he transforms complexity into direction through a balanced mix of insight, empathy, and action—an approach that will continue to define his impact. Innovation is driven by technology but primarily guided by bright minds like Roberto.
