Professor Philip Egberts,  Outstanding Reviewers

University of Calgary, Canada

Philip Egberts obtained his Ph.D. from the McGill University in 2011. Following his PhD studies, he joined the Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics department at the University of Pennsylvania where he held a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship.  He joined the University of Calgary as an Assistant Professor in 2013 and from 2019-2020 he was a visiting professor and Humboldt Fellow at the University of Hamburg. In 2022-2023, he was appointed Acting Head of the Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering and then to Associate Dean – Engineering Physics in 2024, and was promoted to Professor in 2023. His current research interests focus on atomic and nanoscale investigation of adhesion, friction, and wear. Linking fundamental study of friction and lubrication with application, for example in nanoparticle enhanced lubricants and tribocorrosion has been a focus while at the University of Calgary.

I am interested in supporting new journals that publish great work, particularly in my field of nanotechnology. I feel that contributing as a reviewer is really important to ensure that the work published is excellent, misinformation or clearly false science is avoided as much as possible, and I hope that I can help my colleagues in the field improve their work by supporting them.

2 ) What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

I really enjoy reading papers as an expert in the field, but also as someone who is more on the outside of the field and expanding my perspective on what my research impacts. I think that this is the most interesting aspect of working in a research role – no matter how well you develop your own skills or background, someone will always know something you didn’t or you can learn something new and interesting from your colleagues. Reviewing is an important and integral part of this experience and I am happy to support the journal.

See some of Philip’s work here: 

Blowing-inspired ex situ preparation of ultrathin hydrogel coatings for visibly monitoring humidity and alkaline gas

Xiao He, Ruijie Yang, Chaochen Xu, Ziqian Zhao, Y. Frank Cheng, Philip Egberts, Hongbo Zeng and Qingye Lu

Nanoscale, 2023, 15, 13952–13964, DOI: 10.1039/D3NR02821F

Michael J. Sailor , Outstanding Reviewer

University of California, United States

Michael J. Sailor is Distinguished Professor at the University of California, San Diego, Director of the UC San Diego Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (an NSF MRSEC), and Director of the UC San Diego Institute for Materials Discovery & Design. He holds Affiliate Appointments in the UC San Diego Bioengineering Department, the Nanoengineering Department, and the Materials Science and Engineering program. He was trained at Harvey Mudd College (BS Chemistry), Northwestern University (PhD Chemistry), Stanford (Post-doctoral), and Caltech (Post-doctoral). He has supervised more than 160 undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral students, he is the author of more than 260 peer-reviewed research publications, one book, and 39 issued patents. He has an H-Index (Google Scholar) of 103.  He has founded or co-founded four companies. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. National Academy of Inventors, and the Royal Society of Chemistry.

I have been impressed with the quality of work published in the Nanoscale series, and Nanoscale Horizons is a standout. My attraction to RSC in general is that, more than most professional societies I have encountered, it seems to have maintained a strong focus on supporting the members it serves. This includes, in particular, the junior members who will be the future leaders of our scientific community.  I have seen that this dedication to the membership also permeates the publishing arm of the RSC.

2)    Do you have any advice to first-time authors seeking publication in the journal?

Oh boy there are a lot.  The best advice I have ever been given is “Work on important problems.”

Other bits of more specific advice:

Go over the experimental section of your paper carefully, to be sure that even a relative newcomer to the field will be able to reproduce your experiments.  Interpretations come and go, but the data should be here to stay.

Be sure that other approaches and complementary studies are well referenced and that your results are benchmarked against competing technologies/studies.

Don’t take the reviews personally.  If one reviewer seems to be coming out of left field on your manuscript, it is likely that other readers will have that same thought—think carefully about the reviewer’s comment and take that as an opportunity to revise your manuscript to better communicate your idea.

Don’t just repeat the abstract of your paper in your cover letter to the editor-give an honest (and brief!) assessment of where the work sits in the broader context of the field.  This should also come out in the introduction or discussion section of your manuscript.

It is great to highlight the impact of your work, but it is also OK to point out the limitations of your study.

Don’t recommend a parochial set of reviewers—former coworkers, colleagues, collaborators, people from nearby institutions should not be given. People who you believe are international leaders in the field, who would be able to give authoritative reviews of your paper should be suggested. When you suggest a set of reviewers only from your region of the world, it sends a message to the editor that your paper will have limited appeal within a small geographic region, or it indicates a lack of knowledge on your part of the competing groups working in that research area worldwide.

See some of Michael ‘s work here: 

Stable “snow lantern-like” aggregates of silicon nanoparticles suitable as a drug delivery platform

Helene M. Johnsen, Samira Hossaini Nasr, Rainer De Luna, Willy Filtvedt, Michael J. Sailor, Jon Klaveness and Marianne Hiorth

Nanoscale, 2024, 16, 9899–9910, DOI: 10.1039/D3NR05655D

Mei Chee Tan, Outstanding Reviewer

Singapore University of Technology and Design,

Singapore

Mei Chee Tan is an associate professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. She graduated with her bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, and earned her master and doctorate degrees with the Singapore-MIT Alliance at the National University of Singapore.

Mei Chee’s research focuses on the study and engineering of tailored interfaces of nanomaterials to synthesize first-in-class multifunctional composites for a myriad of applications ranging from rapid diagnostics and CO2 removal from dilute sources.

1)  What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

One of the biggest learning points achieved by serving as a peer reviewer was the various approaches to provide constructive feedback that addresses technical gaps to improve the overall quality of the submitted manuscript.

2) Has being a reviewer affected how you approach the preparation of your recent manuscripts?

Besides ensuring that the studies are rigorously conducted, the experience as reviewer has influenced the manuscript’s narrative, particularly in articulating the significance and impact of the findings.

See some of Mei Chee Tan ‘s work here: 

A sustainable redox-mediated pathway for improved transition metal organic framework activation and CO₂ uptake performance

Taylor Jade Self, Jiabin Niu, Wen Liu, Chaobin He and Mei Chee Tan

J. Mater. Chem. A, 2024, 12, 30454–30464, DOI: 10.1039/D4TA02526A

Dr. Renren Deng, Outstanding Reviewer

Zhejiang University, China

1) What do you like most about being a reviewer for Nanoscale Horizons?

What I enjoy most is the chance to evaluate and support highly innovative research that often sits at the interface of disciplines—particularly those aligned with my own interests in optical nanomaterials. Nanoscale Horizons prioritizes conceptual novelty, and reviewing for the journal allows me to contribute to advancing emerging ideas, especially in areas like optical nanomaterials and their biomedical applications.

2) What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

A: Reviewing has taught me to view research through multiple lenses—clarity, novelty, and translational potential. It’s also reinforced the importance of interdisciplinary dialogue: a materials scientist and a biologist might prioritize very different aspects of the same manuscript.

See some of Renrens’ work here: 

Nonvolatile electrical control of 2D Cr₂Ge₂Te₆ and intrinsic half metallicity in multiferroic hetero-structures

Asif Ilyas, Shuling Xiang, Miaogen Chen, Muhammad Yar Khan, Hua Bai, Pimo He, Yunhao Lu and Renren Deng

Nanoscale, 2021, 13, 1069–1076, DOI: 10.1039/D0NR06054B