We are delighted to share some key insights from our recent interview with Dr. Konstantinos Soulis, an Editorial Board Member of Remote Sensing (ISSN: 2072-4292), who reflected on his role, the peer-review process, and commitment to scholarly quality. 

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and share some information about your journey as an Editorial Board Member for Remote Sensing?
I am an agricultural engineer, and I work as an Assistant Professor at the Agricultural University of Athens in Greece, with a focus on geoinformatics and spatial analysis in agriculture and the environment. My research and teaching combine my passion for geospatial technologies with hydrology and agriculture.
I started serving Remote Sensing and other environmental and earth science journals as a reviewer about 10 years ago. I already had an experience of reviewing manuscripts with many journals. I quickly noticed MDPI journals’ emphasis on expediting the peer-review process, a strategy I readily embraced. My personal philosophy has always been to provide timely, constructive, and fair reviews, treating every manuscript with the same respect and rigor I'd expect for my own work. This alignment made it seamless for me to adapt to a system that prioritizes both speed and quality for authors.
As I gained more experience, I took on roles as a Guest Editor for several successful Special Issues and Topic Collections, approaching each with the same dedication. Being invited to serve as a Section Board Member for Remote Sensing was a truly welcome development. This role, while demanding, has been incredibly rewarding. The excellent support provided by the Assistant Editors throughout the review process has made the work more efficient and effective. While making decisions about others’ research is a significant responsibility and can indeed be a psychological load, I navigate this by consistently upholding the highest standards of integrity and care, ensuring every manuscript receives the thoughtful consideration it deserves. 

2. How has your experience as an Editorial Board Member shaped your approach to ensuring the quality of manuscripts?
My diverse experience in academic publishing, encompassing roles as an author, reviewer, and Academic Editor, has profoundly shaped my approach to ensuring manuscript quality. As an author, I understand the desire to present research with a unique perspective, but I also recognize the inherent difficulty—and sometimes impossibility—of objectively judging one’s own work. This is where the reviewer’s role becomes critical: it’s not just about safeguarding the credibility of published research; it’s about actively helping authors identify and address weaknesses, ultimately leading to significant improvements and greater impact.
Having the opportunity to see all facets of the review process as an Academic Editor has been particularly illuminating. This holistic view has not only refined my own writing and my ability to navigate the review process effectively, but has also fundamentally shifted my understanding of an editor’s responsibilities.
I've learned that an Academic Editor’s role extends far beyond simply inviting reviewers or deferring to the majority opinion. It begins with a thorough initial assessment to grasp the authors’ perspective, discern the manuscript’s merits, and pinpoint its core weaknesses. Identifying suitable reviewers is then paramount. “Suitable” doesn’t just mean qualified; it means finding individuals who are genuinely dedicated to providing constructive feedback that will genuinely help authors elevate their work to a high standard of quality and clarity.
Furthermore, an editor must be ready to critically engage with reviewer feedback, even if it challenges initial impressions. It’s crucial to not just render a decision, but to provide clear, actionable guidance to authors, especially when faced with conflicting reviews. My experience has taught me the delicate balance between identifying areas for improvement and imposing my own perspective. The goal is to empower authors to enhance their work, not to dictate their approach. This nuanced understanding is central to my commitment to upholding the highest standards of quality in the manuscripts I oversee.
Above all, I consistently keep in mind that the editor is the only individual who assumes eponymous responsibility for the integrity and credibility of the entire review process and ensures the trust placed in the journal. 

3. During the precheck stage, how do you exercise balance when recommending reviewers? What criteria are prioritized in this process?
During the precheck stage, recommending reviewers is a critical task that goes far beyond simply identifying subject matter experts. My approach is to exercise a careful balance, prioritizing several key criteria to ensure a robust, fair, and unbiased peer-review process.
Firstly, while qualifications and direct relevance to the studied topic are foundational, they are not the sole criteria. I look for reviewers whose expertise aligns precisely with the manuscript’s specific methodologies, datasets, or theoretical frameworks.
Secondly, previous review work and reliability are highly valued. I assess a potential reviewer’s history of providing constructive, timely, and insightful feedback, where available. A consistent track record demonstrates not only their expertise, but also their dedication to the peer-review process.
Thirdly, diversity in reviewer origin and affiliation is crucial to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure a broad range of perspectives. This includes considering geographical diversity and avoiding having too many reviewers from the same institution or research group as the authors, or from institutions that have a direct competitive interest.
Fourthly, I strive for a balance between young researchers and more experienced academics. Young researchers often bring fresh perspectives and innovative insights, but sometimes tend to be very strict, while senior experts provide depth of knowledge and a broader understanding of the field’s historical context and future directions and can more easily accept different perspectives. This mix can lead to a more comprehensive and well-rounded evaluation.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I understand that my role doesn’t end with inviting reviewers. I must critically judge the reviews once they are submitted. If reviews are contradictory, unclear, or appear to miss critical aspects of the manuscript, I am prepared to seek additional opinions, invite further discussion among reviewers, or, if necessary, even provide my own expert review to ensure that authors receive clear, actionable, and fair guidance. This ultimate oversight is vital for upholding the quality and integrity of the published work. 

4. When a manuscript is rejected, Academic Editors are expected to provide substantive feedback. How can editors ensure these comments genuinely help authors improve their work, despite its rejected status?
When a manuscript is rejected, the Academic Editor’s feedback is arguably even more critical than for accepted papers. My aim is to ensure these comments genuinely help authors improve their work, even though it won’t be published in Remote Sensing. This requires a nuanced and constructive approach.
Firstly, the feedback must be substantive and actionable. It should not merely enumerate the weak points, but actively suggest concrete ways these can be addressed. I focus on guiding authors on how to overcome the identified difficulties, whether that involves refining methodologies, strengthening the discussion, clarifying the narrative, or broadening the literature review. The goal is to provide a clear roadmap for significant improvement.
Secondly, it’s crucial to convey that all efforts were made to assess the manuscript in an impartial and credible manner. The decision is a result of a thorough peer-review process, reflecting the collective assessment of experts. However, it’s equally important to make it explicit that a negative decision from Remote Sensing does not invalidate the research itself. Authors need to understand that the study often can proceed further.
Finally, I emphasize that opinions and editorial scope can differ between journals. What might not be suitable for Remote Sensing could very well find a home in another journal after targeted improvements. By providing constructive guidance, a clear rationale for the rejection, and a positive outlook on future submission possibilities, editors can transform a potentially discouraging rejection into a valuable learning opportunity, empowering authors to revise and successfully publish their work elsewhere. 

5. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
I’d like to offer a final comment regarding the evolving landscape of academic publishing, particularly in the era of Artificial Intelligence. We are undoubtedly in a transformative period where AI is beginning to reshape how manuscripts are written, how research is conducted, and even how peer review is approached.
This presents both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, sophisticated AI tools could make detecting plagiarism more complex and there’s a potential risk that over-reliance on AI might, at times, restrict truly innovative human thinking or expression.
However, I believe the proper and ethical use of AI also offers significant opportunities. For authors, especially non-native English speakers, AI tools can be incredibly beneficial in helping them to convey their ideas more clearly, precisely, and effectively, thereby reducing language barriers and giving their valuable research a wider audience and greater impact. It’s about leveraging these tools responsibly to enhance, rather than replace, human intellect and scientific rigor. As an editor, staying abreast of these developments and adapting review strategies accordingly will be paramount to maintaining the integrity and accessibility of published research.

Why This Matters

At Remote Sensing, we value the expertise of our Editorial Board Members in upholding rigorous standards of quality and fairness. Their insights reinforce our mission to support authors in advancing high-impact research while maintaining the highest ethical standards.
We extend our gratitude to Dr. Konstantinos Soulis and all our Editorial Board Members for their invaluable contributions to the journal and the scholarly community.