22 April 2024
Interview with Dr. László Csambalik—Winner of the Horticulturae 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess.
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Recently, we reached out to Dr. László Csambalik, winner of the Horticulturae 2023 Outstanding Reviewer Award, as we were eager to hear his perspectives on Horticulturae (ISSN: 2311-7524).
Name: Dr. László Csambalik
Affiliation: Department of Agroecology and Organic Farming, Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable Production, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Hungary
Research interests: organic farming; plant production
The following is an interview with Dr. László Csambalik:
1. Could you please tell us a little more about yourself and your current research?
I graduated as a horticultural engineer and have been working as a researcher since 2018. My main research focus is on the practical aspects of organic vegetable production, covering a broad spectrum starting from the re-utilization of old landraces to the involvement of high-tech LED light treatments in sustainable crop production.
2. Could you please share your sentiments about winning the award with us?
I would like to express my gratitude to the Editorial Board and the editorial team for this award. I feel honored to have been selected.
3. What initially drew you to become a reviewer for MDPI’s Horticulturae?
I was first invited to become a reviewer for Horticulturae after preparing several reviews for other journals at MDPI. I think that due to the excellent reputation of the journal, it is a privilege for young researchers to review papers for Horticulturae. Reviewing is a great opportunity to keep myself up to date with the scientific field and to get to know different approaches to certain problems.
4. In your opinion, what are some key qualities that make a review outstanding?
Objectivity, clean structure, and logical, constructive, and easily understandable suggestions for the authors.
5. What do you think are the main criteria in the process of reviewing manuscripts?
Reviewers always must keep in mind that their primary role is to ensure the easy scientific information flow between the authors and the readers, not more or less. The reviewer has to support the authors in expressing the value of their work within the formal requirements of a scientific publication. Obviously, if the manuscript is below a certain scientific level, the reviewer’s task is to communicate this as well, in a very clear way.
6. Could you share some insights into your approach to reviewing manuscripts? How do you balance thoroughness with efficiency?
The first task of the reviewer, in my mind, is to decide whether the content of the manuscript meets the scientific requirements of the journal. When the answer is no, the reviewer has to be able to support the decision with well-founded reasons, and communication with the authors has to be very straightforward. If the manuscript needs further improvements, the reviewer needs to point out the problematic parts and justify the issues as well, without providing exact answers, as this is the task of the authors.
I always take manuscripts with me wherever I travel, this allows me to utilize my time accordingly. I use abbreviations or signs on the printed/electronic version of the manuscript for common mistakes.