19 April 2024
Interview with Dr. Coral Ortiz—Winner of the Horticulturae 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award

Join us as we engage with our Horticulturae 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award winner, Dr. Coral Ortiz, to discuss her scholarly insights and journey as a reviewer for Horticulturae (ISSN: 2311-7524).

Name: Dr. Coral Ortiz
Affiliation: Rural and Agri-Food Engineering Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
Research Interests: post harvest technology; postharvest handling

The following is an interview with Dr. Coral Ortiz:

1. Could you please tell us a little more about yourself and your current research?
I graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in agricultural engineering from the Polytechnic University of Madrid (Spain) in 1996 and earned a Ph.D. in agricultural engineering from UPM in 2000. Since then, I have been working as a Lecturer in the Rural and Agri-food Engineering Department at the Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain). Currently, my research focuses on smart sprayers, and harvest and postharvest machinery, with an emphasis on designing and utilizing technology for sustainable agriculture. Additionally, I serve as the Secretary for the Spanish Society of Agricultural Engineering.

2. Could you please share your sentiments about winning the award with us?
I am very grateful for receiving this award. I consider the task of being a scientific reviewer to be crucial for a researcher.

3. What initially drew you to become a reviewer for MDPI’s Horticulturae?
When conducting a literature review on a research topic, I often come across many very interesting articles in Horticulturae. I consider reviewing as a way to enhance one's knowledge about their research area.

4. In your opinion, what are some key qualities that make a review outstanding?
I think it is important to confront the reviewing process with the aim of improving the manuscript to obtain the highest possible quality based on the research carried out by the authors.

5. What do you think are the main criteria in the process of reviewing manuscripts?
From my point of view, the main criteria should be the rigor of the experiment. My question is always based on whether a completely rigorous experiment has been designed, conducted, and statistically analyzed to obtain useful results for solving an existing problem.

6. Could you share some insights into your approach to reviewing manuscripts? How do you balance thoroughness with efficiency?
I always begin by conducting a comprehensive literature review of the subject and ensure that the introduction is well structured and concludes with clear objectives for the study. Then, I verify that the experimental design has been clearly explained and that it would be possible to reproduce the protocol followed. I also review whether the results are consistent with the methodology explained earlier, ensuring they are not confusing and that a statistical analysis has been used and described. Finally, I examine whether an interesting discussion, based on previous results, has been presented, and whether the conclusions are aligned with the proposed objectives.

Back to TopTop