Archive for May, 2026

Industrial Chemistry & Materials Reviewer Spotlight-Part 2

20 May 2026

To celebrate the 2025 Outstanding Reviewers of Industrial Chemistry & Materials and gain deeper insights into the perspectives of our reviewers, we invited them to share their views on peer review, advice for authors, and their experiences with ICM.

 

This time, we are pleased to highlight Dr. Juan Coronado, Prof. Maria Goula, Prof. Yi Gao, Jin-Kyun Lee, and Prof. Feng Yan. We sincerely thank them for their generous contributions and continued support of the journal. We hope their insights will provide valuable guidance and inspiration for both reviewers and authors.

 

Juan Coronado is a scientific investigator of Instituto de Catalisis y Petroleoquimica. He obtained his Ph.D. from Universidad Complutense de Madrid in 1995. His research focuses on the development of advanced catalysts for the production of sustainable fuels, the generation of hydrogen and the valorisation of CO2.
Maria Goula is a Professor and Director of the Laboratory of Fuels and Environmental Catalysis, at the University of Western Macedonia. She obtained her Ph.D. from University of Patras in 1993. Her research focuses on Heterogeneous Catalysis, especially in materials synthesis and characterization, catalyst development and evaluation, and investigation of reaction kinetics and mechanisms.
Yi Gao is a Professor at Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He received his Ph.D. from Nanjing University in 2002. His research focuses on the dynamic analysis of catalytic conversion processes of small carbon-based molecules, the nucleation mechanisms and structural evolution behaviours of nanomaterials, as well as machine learning-driven simulation and design of catalytic materials.
Jin-Kyun Lee is a professor at Inha University. He received his Ph.D. from University of Cambridge in 2005. His research interests focus on photoresists, fluorinated materials, organic and polymer synthesis, EUV lithography materials, and micro/nanofabrication-related polymer materials.
Feng Yan is an Associate Professor at Southern University of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. from Tsinghua University in 2018. His research focuses on the resource utilization of industrial solid waste, energy conversion of biomass waste, carbon dioxide capture and utilization, and pollution control from municipal solid waste incineration.

What motivated you to review for ICM, and what keeps you engaged with the journal?

 

Maria Goula: ICM’s scope aligns closely with my research interests in industrial chemistry and materials, and I appreciate its emphasis on rigorous, application-oriented science. Reviewing lets me contribute to improving manuscript quality, stay current with new developments, and support a fair peer-review culture — those factors keep me engaged.

 

Yi Gao: I was motivated to review for ICM because it offers a transparent, efficient, and fair platform for disseminating cutting-edge research in industrial chemistry, catalysis, and related process technologies. The journal’s commitment to scientific rigor and timely publication aligns closely with my own values as a researcher. What continues to keep me engaged is the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of high-quality science while engaging with innovative work from colleagues across the global research community.

 

Feng Yan: My motivation to review for ICM comes from my strong interest in the journal’s focus on the intersection of fundamental chemistry and industrial application. My research mainly centres on CO2 capture materials and low-carbon utilization of solid waste, which aligns closely with the journal’s scope. The high quality of submissions and the journal’s emphasis on practical and impactful research have kept me actively engaged as a reviewer.

 

Jin-Kyun Lee: Having spent several years in process development research at a fine chemical company, with experiences in the large-scale production of pharmaceutical intermediates, I have become especially interested in research that is closely connected to commercialization, particularly new organic chemical processes and materials with important practical applications. For this reason, I was very happy to learn that the RSC publishes such a wonderful journal in this field, and I truly appreciated the opportunity to review a manuscript for it. I would be delighted to review more manuscripts in the future and continue learning from research with strong practical importance. I also sincerely hope to conduct impactful studies of my own and submit our work to ICM.

 

From a reviewer’s perspective, what makes a manuscript truly stand out during peer review?

 

Maria Goula: Clarity of hypothesis and objectives, rigorous and reproducible methods, well-supported conclusions, and clear presentation of data (including proper controls and error analysis). Novelty and relevance to the field, combined with transparent discussion of limitations, make a manuscript stand out.

 

Yi Gao: The novelty in concepts, methodologies, and/or instruments can guarantee a manuscript truly stand out.

 

Juan Coronado: Although, as an author, I am fully aware that being truly original in every publication is challenging, as a reviewer I am particularly drawn to papers that offer a distinct perspective. This originality need not lie in the central topic itself, but it may emerge in specific aspects of the work, such as the way a problem is framed or how a well-established analytical technique finds a new use.

Obviously, rigorous and competently executed research that follows established methodologies is essential. Such contributions are generally straightforward to evaluate and this is surely well-received by the always busy reviewers trying to do their share. However, the studies that really make a more durable impression are those that introduce fresh and original viewpoints. Reviewing those works is more stimulating and intellectually rewarding experience that can contribute to reshape one’s own perspectives.

 

What advice would you give to early-career researchers or first-time authors to improve their chances of a successful peer review?

 

Maria Goula: Focus on a clear research question, thorough and reproducible methods, and transparent data presentation. Write a concise introduction and discussion that tie results to the broader field. Carefully follow journal guidelines, and have colleagues review the manuscript for clarity before submission.

 

Yi Gao: An abstract with clear and concise information of the motivation, key problem, innovative methodology, and novel discovery will improve the chances of a successful peer review.

 

What is the most valuable insight or lesson you have gained through reviewing manuscripts?

 

Maria Goula: Good peer review often hinges on constructive feedback that identifies specific, actionable improvements rather than only pointing out flaws. Reviewing has taught me to evaluate both scientific rigor and clarity of communication, and to appreciate incremental advances alongside breakthroughs.

 

Yi Gao: Occasionally I will find some authors (not noticed before) sharing similar interests with me while reviewing manuscripts. I will check and follow their work to help my own research.

 

Has your experience reviewing for ICM influenced your interest in submitting your own work to the journal?

 

Maria Goula: Yes. Positive experiences with the journal’s fair and constructive review process, and the relevance of its audience to my research, make ICM an attractive venue for submitting my work.

 

Yi Gao: Yes. ICM is an ideal home to publish my studies in catalysis and materials.

 

Feng Yan: My experience reviewing for the journal has further strengthened my interest in submitting my own work. I believe that Industrial Chemistry & Materials provides an excellent platform for disseminating research with both scientific depth and industrial relevance, and I plan to submit my future work to the journal.

 

Contact us: icm@rsc.org

Visit our website: rsc.li/icm

Find all the latest developments, research and news from across our portfolio on X, LinkedIn, and sign-up to our e-alerts.

Comments Off on Industrial Chemistry & Materials Reviewer Spotlight-Part 2

Industrial Chemistry & Materials Reviewer Spotlight-Part 1

12 May 2026

To celebrate the 2025 Outstanding Reviewers of Industrial Chemistry & Materials and gain deeper insights into the perspectives of our reviewers, we invited them to share their views on peer review, advice for authors, and their experiences with ICM.

 

This time, we are pleased to highlight Prof. Mariana Conceicao da Costa, Prof. Ying Zhang and Prof. Xiaoxin Zou. We sincerely thank them for their generous contributions and continued support of the journal. We hope their insights will provide valuable guidance and inspiration for both reviewers and authors.

 

Mariana Conceicao da Costa is an assistant professor at Universidade Estadual de Campinas. She received her PhD from the School of Engineering of Lorena, University of São Paulo, in 2008. Her research is focused on thermodynamics, particularly on the study of phase equilibria, including solid–liquid equilibrium (SLE), liquid–liquid equilibrium (LLE), and vapor–liquid equilibrium (VLE).
Ying Zhang is an Associate Professor at University of Science and Technology of China. She received her PhD from the University of Connecticut in 2006. Her research focuses on the green catalytic conversion of biomass-derived organic molecules and multisource waste gases. Her main research interests include: (1) the design and application of efficient multifunctional catalysts; (2) the catalytic conversion and high-value utilization of biomass and organic solid wastes; and (3) catalytic purification technologies for multisource waste gases.
Xiaoxin Zou is a Professor at Jilin University. He received his PhD from Jilin University and has long been engaged in research on energy conversion and catalytic materials, with a particular focus on the intersection of structural chemistry, synthetic chemistry, and catalytic chemistry of inorganic solid materials.

 

What motivated you to review for ICM, and what keeps you engaged with the journal?

 

Mariana Conceicao da Costa: My motivation was based on the journal’s commitment, seriousness, and the excellence of the work it publishes. In addition, the topics covered are closely aligned with my research interests.

 

Ying Zhang: I was motivated to review for ICM because it occupies a very meaningful position in the field: it bridges the gap between fundamental research and industrial requirements. This focus is especially valuable in industrial chemistry and materials science, where the real impact of research depends not only on scientific novelty, but also on practicality, scalability, and relevance to application. I also appreciate that ICM is a high-ranking professional journal with a clear vision for publishing work that is both academically rigorous and industrially meaningful.

What keeps me engaged is the consistently professional editorial process. The editors demonstrate strong scientific judgment, efficient communication, and respect for reviewers’ time and expertise. I also find the manuscripts submitted to ICM to be highly relevant to current challenges in catalysis, materials design, process development, and sustainable chemistry. Reviewing for the journal gives me the opportunity to contribute to maintaining high standards in a field that is increasingly shaped by the integration of fundamental understanding with real-world industrial needs.

 

From a reviewer’s perspective, what makes a manuscript truly stand out during peer review?

 

Xiaoxin Zou: A manuscript stands out when it clearly articulates a novel and significant advance in the field, supported by robust and well-designed experiments or methodologies. Beyond the scientific content, clarity in presentation is key. A well-structured manuscript with logical flow, concise language, and compelling figures not only makes the reviewer’s task more efficient but also demonstrates the authors’ respect for the readers’ time and understanding. It reflects a thoughtful effort to communicate complex ideas effectively.

 

Ying Zhang: A manuscript truly stands out when it combines clear originality with solid scientific execution and practical significance. Novelty alone is not enough; the work should also be logically designed, supported by convincing evidence, and presented in a way that allows readers to understand why the findings matter.

For a journal like ICM, particularly strong manuscripts usually do three things well: first, they identify an important scientific or technological problem; second, they provide a rigorous and well-supported solution; and third, they explain the broader relevance of the work, especially in relation to industrial applicability, process feasibility, or materials performance. I am always impressed by papers in which the authors not only report strong results, but also demonstrate deep mechanistic understanding, careful control experiments, and honest discussion of limitations. Clarity of writing also makes a major difference, because it reflects the authors’ command of their own work.

 

What advice would you give to early-career researchers or first-time authors to improve their chances of a successful peer review?

 

Ying Zhang: My first advice is to focus on the scientific question before focusing on the manuscript itself. A well-written paper cannot compensate for an unclear research objective or insufficient evidence. Authors should ask themselves: What is the key advance? Why is it important? And have I provided enough data to support each major claim?

Second, authors should pay close attention to structure and logic. Reviewers respond positively to manuscripts that are easy to follow, where the motivation, experimental design, results, and conclusions are all well connected. It is also important to avoid overstating significance. A balanced and evidence-based presentation is always more persuasive than exaggerated claims.

I would also emphasize an important point: if authors already know at the time of submission that their work has fundamental weaknesses, it is almost impossible to rely on “luck” to pass peer review. Reviewers are invited precisely because they are experts in the field, and they are usually able to identify critical flaws in experimental design, interpretation, or evidence very quickly. Peer review is a process for evaluating and improving solid research, not for rescuing work with known major defects.

Finally, I would encourage first-time authors to think from the reviewer’s perspective. Anticipate likely questions, include appropriate controls, explain methodology clearly, and make sure figures are informative and consistent. A manuscript that is careful, transparent, and intellectually honest already has a much stronger foundation for successful peer review.

 

What is the most valuable insight or lesson you have gained through reviewing manuscripts?

 

Mariana Conceicao da Costa: The review process demands many hours of work, but it provides an opportunity to closely engage with the work of colleagues worldwide, as reviewing a manuscript requires carefully examining it to understand the methodology and the results presented, as I do with my own work.

 

Ying Zhang: One of the most valuable lessons I have gained is that strong science is not defined only by positive results or complex techniques, but by the quality of the reasoning behind the work. Reviewing has reinforced for me how important it is to build a coherent scientific story in which every major conclusion is supported by appropriate evidence.

It has also taught me the importance of fairness and balance in evaluation. Even manuscripts with weaknesses often contain useful ideas, and the role of peer review is not only to judge, but also to help improve the quality and clarity of the work. In that sense, reviewing is a process of scientific dialogue. It has made me more thoughtful both as a reviewer and as an author.

 

Has your experience reviewing for ICM influenced your interest in submitting your own work to the journal?

 

Ying Zhang: Yes, definitely. My experience reviewing for ICM has strengthened my interest in submitting my own work to the journal. Through the review process, I have seen that ICM is committed to publishing research that is scientifically rigorous, relevant to industrial chemistry and materials science, and meaningful beyond purely academic curiosity.

This impression is also supported by my own publishing experience with the journal. My main research area is biomass catalysis, and a review article I published in Industrial Chemistry & Materials in May 2023 has already been cited more than 140 times by peers. I have also seen our work and figures cited in publicly available conference presentations. More recently, I co-published a study with industrial collaborators in the area of low-temperature SCR, which has led to multiple invitations to academic conferences as well as invitations related to standards development. These experiences suggest to me that ICM reaches a broad readership across both academia and industry.

I also value the professionalism of the editorial team and the journal’s clear positioning in the community. For researchers working at the interface of fundamental understanding and practical application, ICM provides an attractive platform. Based on both my reviewing and publishing experience, I would strongly encourage researchers to consider submitting their high-quality work to ICM.

 

Contact us: icm@rsc.org

Visit our website: rsc.li/icm

Find all the latest developments, research and news from across our portfolio on X, LinkedIn, and sign-up to our e-alerts.

Comments Off on Industrial Chemistry & Materials Reviewer Spotlight-Part 1

Celebrating the 2025 Outstanding Reviewers of Industrial Chemistry & Materials

08 May 2026

In 2025, reviewers from 39 countries and regions generously contributed their time and expertise to Industrial Chemistry & Materials (ICM), collectively supporting the journal in advancing the internationalization, fairness, and transparency of the peer-review process. Based on the quantity, quality, and timeliness of reviews, ICM is pleased to recognize 2025 Outstanding Reviewers for their exceptional contributions. We sincerely thank them for their dedication in upholding the scientific rigor and integrity of the journal.

 

ICM 2025 Outstanding Reviewers:

Dr. Jonathan Bloh, DECHEMA-Forschungsinsitut, Germany, ORCID 0000-0002-3814-1875

Dr. Lukas Buelens, Ghent University, Belgium, ORCID 0000-0002-4896-1498

Dr. Shih-Yuan Chen, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan, ORCID 0000-0002-7093-2511

Dr. Yousi Chen, Dalian University of Technology, China, ORCID 0000-0002-9087-235X

Dr. Juan Coronado, Instituto de Catalisis y Petroleoquimica, Spain, ORCID 0000-0003-1919-8371

Prof. Mariana Conceicao da Costa, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil, ORCID 0000-0003-1710-7202

Prof. Robert Farrauto, Columbia University, United States, ORCID 0000-0001-8127-1424

Prof. Qingsheng Gao, Jinan University, China, ORCID 0000-0002-4273-8500

Dr. Yi Gao, Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences , China, ORCID 0000-0001-6015-5694

Prof. Maria Goula, University of Western Macedonia, Greece, ORCID 0000-0002-6188-4095

Prof. Simelys Hernandez, Politecnico di Torino, Italy, ORCID 0000-0002-6722-0273

Prof. Dominik Janczewski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland, ORCID 0000-0002-5466-6444

Prof. Ho Won Jang, Seoul National University, South Korea, ORCID 0000-0002-6952-7359

Prof. Ji Bong Joo, Konkuk University, South Korea, ORCID 0000-0002-4950-6278

Prof. Taku Kitanosono, The University of Tokyo, Japan, ORCID 0000-0003-0743-1420

Prof. Rajamani Krishna, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands, ORCID 0000-0002-4784-8530

Prof. Jin-Kyun Lee, Inha University, South Korea, ORCID 0000-0001-9468-5749

Dr. Luciana Lisi, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy, ORCID 0000-0002-7837-4294

Prof. Chang-Yong Nam, Brookhaven National Laboratory, United States, ORCID 0000-0002-9093-4063

Prof. Salvador Ordóñez, University of Oviedo, Spain, ORCID 0000-0002-6529-7066

Prof. Chong Peng, Dalian University of Technology, China, ORCID 0000-0002-0593-3083

Prof. Kandasamy Prabakar, Pusan National University, South Korea, ORCID 0000-0001-7582-0765

Prof. Lu Shang, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, China, ORCID 0000-0001-5701-5017

Prof. Seung Uk Son, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, ORCID 0000-0002-4779-9302

Prof. Atsushi Urakawa, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, ORCID 0000-0001-7778-4008

Prof. Casey Wade, Ohio State University, United States, ORCID 0000-0002-7044-9749

Dr. Ke Wang, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, ORCID 0000-0003-4508-1302

Prof. Yapei Wang, Renmin University of China, China, ORCID 0000-0001-5420-0364

Prof. Feng Yan, Southern University of science and Technology, China, ORCID 0000-0002-9603-2968

Prof. Feng Yan, Soochow University, China, ORCID 0000-0001-9269-7025

Prof. Ying Zhang, University of Science and Technology of China , China, ORCID 0000-0003-2519-7359

Prof. Xiaoxin Zou, Jilin University, China, ORCID 0000-0003-4143-9274

 

We warmly congratulate the ICM 2025 Outstanding Reviewers and sincerely thank them for their continued support and invaluable contributions!

Contact us: icm@rsc.org

Visit our website: rsc.li/icm

Find all the latest developments, research and news from across our portfolio on X, LinkedIn, and sign-up to our e-alerts.

Comments Off on Celebrating the 2025 Outstanding Reviewers of Industrial Chemistry & Materials

ICM at the 35th CCS Congress: Connecting, Supporting, and Celebrating Innovation

06 May 2026

The 35th Chinese Chemical Society (CCS) Congress was held in Chongqing, China, April 10-14, 2026. Industrial Chemistry & Materials (ICM) participated in the congress and actively engaged with the vibrant chemistry community.

 

During the conference, the ICM Editorial Office organized a face-to-face “Meet the Editors” activity, facilitating discussions with scholars, publishing professionals, and readers. These in-person exchanges provided a valuable opportunity to share ideas, discuss publishing perspectives, and strengthen our ties with the community.

In addition, ICM was proud to support early-career scientists by sponsoring the Outstanding Poster Awards. These awards aim to recognize excellent research contributions and support the growth of early-career scientists.

 

ICM remains committed to promoting academic exchange and supporting the development of the research community, and will continue to support emerging talents in the field of industrial chemistry and materials worldwide.

 

Highlight of ICM’s Participation in the last CCS Congress (2024, Guangzhou)

 

Contact us: icm@rsc.org

Visit our website: rsc.li/icm

Find all the latest developments, research and news from across our portfolio on X, LinkedIn, and sign-up to our e-alerts.

Comments Off on ICM at the 35th CCS Congress: Connecting, Supporting, and Celebrating Innovation