Water | Interview with the Reviewer—Dr. Enric Bonet

What has your experience been of reviewing for the journal Water?
My overall experience with the review process has been generally positive. I found the submission and review workflow to be straightforward and easy to follow. Academic workloads fluctuate throughout the year, and teaching responsibilities, administrative duties, supervising PhD students, as well as exam periods, frequently make it difficult to allocate dedicated time for reviews. Due to my heavy workload, I typically complete reviews during my personal or free time rather than within regular working hours. A 15-day review period could be sufficient in most cases, but flexibility regarding the review timeline is key, and extensions are welcome.
Ideally, how many times do you review each month?
The acceptable number of reviews per month for me depends heavily on my academic workload. During quieter summer months, I can generally handle one or two manuscripts per month. However, during exam periods, completing reviews becomes significantly more challenging.
Are you ever willing to reassess a manuscript that you initially rejected?
It depends on the other side. If a manuscript is initially rejected due to substantial issues, but the authors subsequently address all concerns thoroughly—providing well-considered revisions and clear responses to each point—then it may certainly be worthy of reconsideration. However, if the revised version returns with only superficial changes and fails to engage meaningfully with the feedback, it can feel like a repeated use of time.
What do you think about AI being used in reviews or manuscript writing?
AI tools are acceptable and even helpful for tasks like language editing, grammar correction, and improving textual clarity—especially for researchers who are non-native English speakers. However, I believe that the core scientific reasoning and interpretation should remain the responsibility of the researcher.
What do you think about plagiarism and similarity in manuscripts?
Similarity scores can be misleading, especially when authors appropriately reference their own prior work due to methodological continuity. This type of overlap does not necessarily indicate plagiarism. In my view, relying solely on similarity percentages without a thorough assessment can create unnecessary challenges, forcing authors to alter text that may in fact be legitimately reused.
What do you think about open access publishing?
I do prefer open access publishing. In my view, it makes research more widely accessible and may also contribute to higher citation potential.
What do you think about the reviewer contribution recognition in MDPI journals?
Reviewer vouchers and general certificates provided by MDPI are good ways of recognizing reviewer contributions and work. However, in the case of certificates, I suggest that offering more details on them—specifying the manuscript title, journal, and the reviewer’s specific contribution—would be even more valuable for academic career progression and institutional recognition.
Additionally, I believe that long-term, active reviewers and authors could occasionally be rewarded with the opportunity to publish for free. This could be particularly helpful during periods of limited research funding and may encourage sustained engagement in the peer-review process.