Announcements

We are pleased to announce that Dr. Fernando França Cunha is one of the winners of the Agronomy 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award. The Award is presented annually to recognize reviewers who contribute their time to reviewing papers and display thoroughness, professionalism, and timeliness while doing so.

We are honored to have had the opportunity to interview Dr. Fernando França Cunha, providing an opportunity to delve deeper into his research journey and his insights into being a reviewer.

1. Congratulations on being an Outstanding Reviewer for 2024! Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers and share a bit about your research interests?
I hold a bachelor’s degree in agronomy (2003), a master's degree (2005), and a Ph.D. (2009) in agricultural engineering from the Federal University of Viçosa (UFV), Brazil. I am currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Engineering (DEA) at UFV, where I teach undergraduate and graduate courses. I am an active member of the Graduate Program in agricultural engineering (PPGEA), advising both master's and doctoral students. My research focuses on irrigation management and engineering, with an emphasis on efficient water use in agriculture, fertigation, water and energy sustainability, and the application of technologies such as sensors, modeling, and alternative materials in irrigation systems.

2. What factors motivate you to be a reviewer for Agronomy, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer review process?
Serving as a reviewer for Agronomy is a way of contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge by helping to ensure the quality of published research. Since many reviewers also contribute by evaluating my manuscripts, I feel I have to give back to the scientific community by actively participating in the review process. Moreover, I consider this activity an excellent learning opportunity. Reading submitted manuscripts carefully motivates me to conduct further research and reading, which broadens my knowledge. As a native speaker of Portuguese, I also see peer review as a valuable opportunity to improve my use of English, the predominant language in scientific communication. What I find most rewarding is realizing that through constructive and well-founded suggestions, it is possible to substantially improve the clarity, methodological robustness, and relevance of a manuscript, thereby contributing ethically and meaningfully to the advancement of science.

3. As a reviewer, how do you balance the encouragement for research innovation with the strict requirements for method reliability? Can you give an example?
I believe that innovation and methodological rigor must go hand in hand. An innovative idea only has real scientific value if it is supported by a robust, well-described, and replicable method. When reviewing a manuscript, I try to identify whether the study provides an original and relevant contribution to the field, while also carefully evaluating whether the experimental procedures are well-controlled, the variables appropriately monitored, and the data able to support the conclusions drawn. For instance, in a recent review of a study on the use of ozone in irrigation water, an innovative approach, I recognized the potential of the topic but highlighted the need for clearer methodological descriptions and stricter control of variables such as ozone concentration, exposure time, and the physicochemical characteristics of the water to ensure result reliability. Additionally, I consider it important how authors contextualize their innovation. Excessive self-citation, for example, may suggest a weak theoretical foundation or an attempt to overvalue their work, which can bias scientific analysis. I encourage authors to use diverse, updated, and high-quality references from different research groups to enhance the credibility of their work and demonstrate genuine integration into the scientific community.

4. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share some common problems that authors face?
The most frequent issues I observe are related to the structure and scientific consistency of the manuscripts. It is common to find poorly developed introductions that lack a clear focus or compelling justification for the problem addressed, and that fail to formulate specific hypotheses. Another critical point is the insufficient methodological description, which compromises the reproducibility of the study. Limited discussions are also frequent, where authors merely compare their results to other studies without adequately interpreting their data. Furthermore, conclusions often do not respond to the objectives outlined at the beginning of the work or lack sufficient depth. Formal issues also stand out, such as poor graphic presentation of figures and tables, the use of outdated or low-quality references, and inadequate or redundant titles and keywords, which can impair the visibility and indexing of the article in scientific databases. Paying greater attention to these aspects can significantly improve the quality and impact of the publications.

5. What are the biggest challenges you face as a reviewer, and what are your tips for preparing a high-quality review report?
One of the greatest challenges I face as a reviewer is time constraints. As a university professor, I divide my time between teaching undergraduate and graduate courses, advising students, participating in extension activities, conducting research, and handling administrative duties. Producing a high-quality review requires dedication, careful reading, and critical analysis of the entire manuscript, all of which takes time. Only after a thorough reading is it possible to fully understand the study and accurately identify its strengths, methodological flaws, gaps in reasoning, or opportunities for improvement. Another challenge is maintaining a balance between rigorous criticism and a constructive tone. A good review should not only point out problems but also offer feasible suggestions for improvement. To achieve this, I usually organize my reviews by sections (such as title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions), highlighting positive aspects and identifying the points that need improvement, always with technical justification. My advice is that reviewers should strive to be objective, consistent, and respectful. A good review contributes to the development of the manuscript and, consequently, to the advancement of science. It is also important to remember that the reviewer’s role is not merely to judge but to collaborate with authors in building a more robust and relevant scientific work.

6. We hope that the Outstanding Reviewer Award will open new opportunities for you. How does an award like this help to support the career of a researcher such as yourself?
Receiving the Outstanding Reviewer Award is a great source of joy and reinforces my sense of meaningfully contributing to science. This recognition boosts my self-esteem and motivates me to continue working with dedication and integrity in the evaluation of scientific manuscripts. It also confirms that I am on the right path and strengthens my commitment to research quality and academic integrity. Awards like this have a direct impact on an academic career, as they enhance the researcher’s visibility within the scientific community, reinforce their credibility, and open doors to new opportunities such as international collaborations, invitations to join editorial boards, and participation in broader research networks. Without a doubt, it is a valuable incentive to continue contributing actively to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

7. Do you have any suggestions on how our journal could further support researchers and the academic community?
Agronomy already plays an important role in promoting high-quality science and in recognizing the efforts of its reviewers, such as through the voucher system, which I consider an excellent initiative. However, as a professor in a developing country, one of the greatest challenges I face is the limited availability of resources, both for conducting research and for covering publication fees. In this context, expanding financial support policies for authors from developing countries, through progressive discounts or waivers based on scientific quality, would be a major contribution. Furthermore, I believe Agronomy could expand its initiative by promoting more special thematic issues with open calls, encouraging review articles by invited authors, and offering short, targeted training for new reviewers. Creating discussion forums or webinars focused on emerging topics could also strengthen interactions among authors, reviewers, and editors, thereby enhancing the journal's impact and fostering integration within the scientific community.