Interview with Dr. Yang Zhou—Winner of the AgriEngineering Outstanding Reviewer Award

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?

Certainly. I am a researcher in agricultural engineering, with research interests spanning precision agriculture, sensing systems, automation technologies, and the application of deep learning in agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to serve as a reviewer for AgriEngineering.

2. What motivates you to serve as a reviewer for AgriEngineering, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer-review process? 

I am motivated by a desire to help maintain and improve the quality of published research. The most rewarding part is seeing a manuscript become clearer and more rigorous through constructive feedback.

3. When reviewing manuscripts, what aspects do you typically focus on (e.g., originality, methodological rigour, logical structure, ethical compliance, etc.)?

I focus mainly on methodological rigour, originality, logical structure, and ethical compliance. Among these, sound methodology is the most critical foundation for acceptance.

4. Based on your experience reviewing manuscripts, what suggestions do you have for authors to make their manuscripts more readable and engaging? 

Three practical tips: write a concrete abstract with key numbers, use clear and self-explanatory figures, and focus the discussion on interpretation rather than repetition. A quick read by a colleague outside the research group also helps.

5. How do you see the role of reviewers evolving with advancements in artificial intelligence and automated tools in research publishing?

AI will handle routine checks like formatting, basic statistics, and plagiarism. Reviewers will focus more on conceptual novelty, real-world applicability, and detecting AI-generated errors or fabricated data. The role will become more strategic and less clerical. 

6. How has your experience been with AgriEngineering as a reviewer? What kind of support would you like to see from the journal?

My experience has been positive—the editorial team is responsive and the review forms are clear. I would appreciate structured forms separating “required revisions” from “suggestions”, modest recognition (e.g., APC discounts), and clear journal policies on AI-assisted submissions.

7. For young scholars who are just beginning to participate in peer review, what specific advice would you offer?

Start as a co-reviewer with a senior colleague. Review only within your expertise. Be polite, specific, and constructive—for example, suggest how to improve, rather than just pointing out flaws.