Announcements

Name: Dr. Itzhak Aviv
Affiliation: MTA and University of Haifa, Israel
Research interests: open architecture; cloud computing; IoT; blockchain; cybersecurity

The following is a short interview with Dr. Itzhak Aviv:

1. Congratulations on being an outstanding reviewer for Q3 2024! Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers and share a bit about your research interests? 
I am the Chief of the Data Science Program at MTA in Israel and an affiliated researcher at Vienna University. My specialization includes cybersecurity, Web3, and blockchain. Lastly, I work hard on various topics in artificial intelligence.

2. What motivated you to become a reviewer? 
I enjoy doing reviews for journals because it gives me exposure to high-quality research. Applied Sciences is a high-quality journal, so a lot of works that I review for the journal are pretty good, have pretty good quality, and when doing a review, it takes me deep into research and I’m accomplishing two objectives—a deep dive into research and helping a journal to reveal the best papers to publish.

3. How do you approach the peer-review process to ensure fairness and constructive feedback?
First of all, I have a checklist to prepare my review. For example, I’m first looking for a research gap. I try to understand if research closes any existing gap and if research will be interesting for readers, because not all research innovates something new. Secondly, I’m working hard on the methodology section because I’m looking for research that provides structured methodologies, and for me, what is very interesting is the reproducibility issue.
So, if I judge research that is not reproducible from the results, I believe it’s not good for a Q1 or Q2 journal. These two points involving a research gap, a structured methodology comes first, and if the research passes the requirements, then I will read the results, research, and discussion and try to understand if the researchers succeeded in telling a story.

4. What are the biggest challenges you face as a reviewer, and how do you handle them? 
My specialty is in cybersecurity and Web3; the field is vast, and occasionally I have to review topics outside my direct expertise. However, this is an opportunity to update my knowledge and skills despite the time demands.

5. What is your experience with our service from the point of view of a reviewer? 
The logistics of the journal’s review system is simple and user-friendly, making the process comfortable. I also appreciate that when I recommend rejecting a paper, the journal often follows my suggestions, helping maintain high standards.

6. What advice would you give to aspiring researchers looking to make a meaningful impact in their fields?
I think that as a reviewer, I have a structured recommendation on how to review papers.
In terms of what journals are looking for from the methodology, innovation, reproducibility, results, demonstration, and discussion, I believe most researchers must perfectly learn the requirements of a specific journal or in general. I would advise researchers to carefully follow a journal’s specific requirements, ensuring their research is structured and reproducible. It is important to create research that is generalizable and can be applied in various contexts.

7. Applied Sciences is an open access journal. How do you think open access publishing benefits authors and the broader research community?
I believe open access publishing enhances the visibility and accessibility of research, allowing a wider audience to benefit. However, it is not cheap, and, in recent years, MDPI has a balanced system and offers some discounts and programs to address the cost of publishing, which is great.

8. Do you have any suggestions on how our journal could further support researchers and the academic community? 
I suggest that the journal could improve the process of choosing the right journal for a research paper. I propose implementing an AI system where authors can ask questions in natural language to help identify the best journal for their work, simplifying the decision-making process. It’s not easy to navigate and to decide which journal is most suitable for specific research.