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.
