Interview with Dr. Seyed Kourosh Mahjour—Winner of the Processes Outstanding Reviewer Award
Name: Dr. Seyed Kourosh Mahjour
Affiliations: 1 Everglades University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA; 2 Railroad Commission of Texas, Austin, TX, USA
Research interests: petroleum engineering; carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS); environmental sustainability
The following is a short interview with Dr. Seyed Kourosh Mahjour:
1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your field of research?
I am an Adjunct Professor at Everglades University and an Engineering Specialist at the Railroad Commission of Texas. My research bridges petroleum engineering and data science, focusing on computational workflows that improve decision-making under uncertainty in subsurface energy systems. I specialize in carbon capture and storage (CCS), reservoir characterization, and the use of AI and machine learning for energy and environmental applications.
2. What key aspects do you typically focus on during the review process?
I mainly focus on novelty, methodological rigor, and clarity. The study must provide a meaningful scientific contribution, apply sound and reproducible methods, and present results that are logically supported by data. Clear structure, accurate analysis, and adherence to ethical standards are essential for a high-quality manuscript.
3. In your opinion, what qualities are essential for a reviewer to possess?
A reviewer should combine expertise, objectivity, and diligence. Deep knowledge of the field ensures meaningful evaluation, while fairness and constructive feedback help authors improve their work. Timeliness and professionalism are equally vital to maintaining an efficient and credible review process.
4. As the recipient of the 2025 outstanding reward for MDPI, do you have any tips or experiences to share that could help other reviewers improve the quality of their reviews?
A good review is both systematic and constructive. Read the manuscript more than once—first for overall understanding, then for details—and provide specific, actionable feedback rather than general remarks. Finally, stay updated with current research and always consider the journal’s scope when assessing suitability.
5. Based on your experience reviewing manuscripts, what advice would you give to authors?
Ensure your work aligns with the journal’s scope and is clearly written and well-structured. Describe your methodology transparently, present results effectively with clear visuals, and carefully proofread your manuscript. A concise, compelling abstract and proper formatting also make a strong first impression.
I strongly support open access as it promotes equitable knowledge sharing and increases research visibility and impact. By removing paywalls, it accelerates innovation and allows broader audiences—academics, policymakers, and the public—to access scientific advances. Open access is, in my view, the future of scholarly communication.