Professor Carlo S. Casari,  Outstanding Reviewers

Politecnico di Milano, Italy

Carlo S. Casari is a Full professor in Physics of Matter at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. He obtained a Master degree in Electronic Engineering and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering at Politecnico di Milano. He works on structural, electronic, optical and transport properties of single and assembled nanostructures including 2D materials beyond graphene with the aim of developing capability to design and realize novel systems and materials with nano-engineered properties. He published more than 170 international scientific papers and has presented original contributions to various international conferences. He has been the Principal Investigator for several competitive projects, including ERC grants (ERC Consolidator in 2016, ERC Proof-of-concept in 2020 and 2022) and EIC projects (EIC Transition KEEPER). He co-founded the startup ENIGMA s.r.l. and spinoff of Politecnico di Milano and won innovation prizes such as Switch2Product by PoliHub, the Startcup Lombardia and the Italian prize for innovation PNI.

Reviewing allowed me to develop a critical point of view when reading a paper. Moreover, I tried to learn from well written papers and well focused research.

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

Being a reviewer greatly helped me to write manuscripts thinking about possible comments by reviewers. It also helped me to better select the target journal for my works.

See some of Carlo’s work here: 

Unraveling interfacial interactions in reduced Nb2CTx/GO heterostructures for highly stable and transparent narrow-band photoelectrochemical photodetectors

Muhammad Abiyyu Kenichi Purbayanto, Subrata Ghosh, Dorota Moszczynska, Carlo Spartaco Casari, Agnieszka Jastrzębska

Nanoscale Horiz., 2025, Accepted Manuscript

Julián Bergueiro Álvarez, Outstanding Reviewer

University of Santiago de Compostela

Dr. Julián Bergueiro Álvarez received his BS in Chemistry from the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain) in 2007. In 2008 he obtained the MS in Organic Chemistry and in 2013 he received his PhD from USC for his work in sterecontrolled synthesis of retinoids employing transition metal catalysed reactions in the key steps. During the last year of his PhD, he joined the group of Prof. F. Freire to work on the synthesis and characterization of stimuli response helical polymers and poly(phenylacetylene)s@gold nanoparticles nanocomposites. In October 2013, he joined Prof. M. Calderón group to carry out his postdoctoral research at Freie Universität Berlin. In 2016 he stayed at Aida lab in Tokyo University working on molecular glue-based stimuli responsive nanoarticles. In 2018 he joined Granja/Montenegro labs at CiQUS (University of Santiago de Compostela) within the Spanish Ministry of Science returning program Juan de la Cierva. In 2021 he was awarded with the Spanish tenure track system (Ramon y Cajal fellowship) at CiQUS. His current research is focused on the use of chirality for the supramolecular assembly of peptides and synthetic polymers.

I believe the most valuable contribution a reviewer can make is to provide constructive, thoughtful feedback. My primary goal when reviewing is to offer comments that not only assess the current work but also suggest ways to enhance its novelty and impact, whether through additional experiments or a shift in focus.

Many manuscripts that are not accepted in the first round have significant potential for improvement. I’ve experienced this myself as an author: although the initial feedback can feel challenging, I’ve often ended up feeling grateful for the constructive suggestions. In nearly every case, the additional work led to a much solid, more impactful paper.

Ultimately, I see peer review as a powerful tool, not just for quality control, but for advancing as researchers, sharpen our thinking, and become better communicators.

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

Absolutely. Since I began reviewing, I’ve developed a more strategic and critical perspective when preparing my own manuscripts. Trying to put yourself in the reviewer’s shoes—especially when evaluating work outside your immediate discipline—can be challenging, but it’s an incredibly valuable exercise. It often reveals weaknesses or gaps in your research that you might not have noticed otherwise.

Now, I make a conscious effort to act as my own “Reviewer #2” before I even start writing. This mindset not only improves the quality of the manuscript but also makes the review process smoother.

See some of Julián’s work here: 

Self-assembly of cyclic peptide monolayers by hydrophobic supramolecular hinges

Ignacio Insua, Annalisa Cardellini, Sandra Díaz, Julian Bergueiro, Riccardo Capelli, Giovanni M Pavan, Javier Montenegro

Chem. Sci., 2023, 14, 14074-14081

Annette Andrieu-Brunsen, Outstanding Reviewer

TU Darmstadt, Germany

Annette Andrieu-Brunsen studied Chemistry at the Philipps Universita¨t Marburg (Germany). She got her PhD from the Johannes-Gutenberg Universität and the Max-Planck-Institute for Polymer Research in Mainz (Germany) partly funded by the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes in 2010 and has been working together with Prof. Soler-Illia and Prof. Azzaroni at the CNEA in Buenos Aires (Argentina) before being appointed as the Assistant Professor at the TU-Darmstadt (Germany). In 2018 she was appointed as an associate professor at TU-Darmstadt and in 2020 she was appointed as a full professor at TU Darmstadt (Germany). She received several awards and was granted an ERC StG in 2018. Her research interest focuses on functional nanopore and nanopore transport design. This includes polymer functionalization of spatially confined nanopores, nanopore wetting and charge control, innovative nanoporous material and architecture design as well as automated design procedures.

I would recommend to write precise comments clearly referring to statements in the manuscript or to specific literature references and to explain judgements clearly. I as well recommend to write in a respectful style.

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

Reviewing allows to read latest research intensively and to help improving it. If this leads to an improved manuscript or an intensive discussion this is rewarding.

See some of Annette Andrieu-Brunsen ‘s work here: 

Grafting and controlled release of antimicrobial peptides from mesoporous silica

Mohadeseh Bagherabadi, Marie Fleckenstein, Oleksandr Moskalyk, Andrea Belluati, Olga Avrutina, Annette Andrieu-Brunsen

J. Mater. Chem. B, 2024, 12, 8167-8180

Jana Kalbáčová Vejpravová, Outstanding Reviewer

Charles University, Prague

Jana Kalbáčová Vejpravová is a full professor and group leader at the Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague. She earned her MSc in Chemistry from Charles University in 2003, followed by a PhD in Condensed Matter Physics and Materials Research in 2007. Following postdoctoral work at Hasselt University in Belgium and the National Institute for Materials Science in Tsukuba, Japan, she served as head of department at the Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, from 2011 to 2017. Her research focuses on the experimental physics of low-dimensional materials, such as carbon nanotubes, magnetic nanoparticles, graphene, and other 2D materials. Her work emphasizes advanced magnetometry techniques and cryomagnetic optical spectroscopies, complemented by ~25 years of experience in neutron and synchrotron radiation scattering techniques applied to magnetic and nanomaterials. She has secured ~20 funded projects as a principal investigator (~10 million EUR), including the prestigious ERC Starting Grant in 2016. She also contributes to the field as a member of the expert panel for Graphene Flagship monitoring and as a reviewer for the Swiss National Science Foundation, along with an expert panel role on the Research, Development, and Innovation Council. Additionally, she chairs the doctoral school in Physics of Nanostructures and Nanomaterials and co-founded the bachelor study program Science at the Charles University. Her research output includes ~200 publications in high-impact journals, ~30 invited or plenary talks, and numerous awards, including the Scopus/Elsevier Award (2010), the Otto Wichterle Award (2014), and the F. Behounek Award for promoting Czech science within the European Research Area (2019). She was also named one of the top female researchers in Czechia by Forbes in 2023.

I greatly enjoy the opportunity to engage with cutting-edge research and explore emerging trends in my field. Reviewing for Nanoscale Horizons allows me to encounter clever, often highly original ideas early on, which is both intellectually stimulating and professionally rewarding.

2)    What encouraged you to become a reviewer for Nanoscale Horizons?

The excellent reputation of Nanoscale Horizons was a key motivation, along with a strong sense of responsibility to contribute to the scientific community by critically assessing submitted work. I also have prior experience reviewing for other journals, so joining the Nanoscale Horizons reviewer community felt like a natural and meaningful next step.

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

While I don’t have one specific piece of advice, I would encourage first-time authors to trust in the value of their work while also remaining critical and open-minded. Constructive criticism is part of the process—take it as an opportunity to strengthen your manuscript and grow as a researcher.

4)    What would you recommend to new reviewers to ensure their report is helpful?

I would recommend paying attention to all aspects of the manuscript—scientific content, methodology, clarity, and presentation. Formulate your comments clearly and constructively, aiming to guide rather than judge. It’s also helpful to look at published reviewer reports for inspiration. Avoid generic statements or feedback based purely on personal impressions; a good review should be specific, balanced, and evidence-based.

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

Reviewing has helped me develop the ability to engage more deeply with topics that lie slightly outside my immediate area of expertise, broadening my scientific perspective. One of the most valuable aspects has been the indirect interaction with authors—seeing how they respond to feedback has given me insights into how my reviews are received and how I can improve my approach.

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

Yes, definitely. Reviewing has made me much more attentive to how the main story of the paper is formulated and how clearly it is communicated. I also pay closer attention to technical details, presentation, and overall coherence—essentially, I try to address in my own work all the issues that I know can be problematic from a reviewer’s perspective.

See some of Jana Kalbáčová Vejpravová ‘s work here: 

Sulfur isotope engineering in heterostructures of transition metal dichalcogenides

Vaibhav Varade; Golam Haider; Martin Kalbac; Jana Vejpravova

Nanoscale Adv., 2025,7, 1276-1286

Kenneth A. Dawson, Community Board Member

University College Dublin, Ireland

Professor Kenneth A. Dawson is Director of the Centre for BioNano Interactions (CBNI). The scientific focus of this Centre is to understand the interaction of nanostructures with living systems (www.ucd.ie/cbni).

Professor Dawson’s work aims to obtain a fundamental mechanistic and molecularly based understanding of the interactions between nanostructures and living systems. He is the discoverer of the ‘biomolecular corona’ effect via which an in situ tapestry of molecules at the nanoscale interface addresses and regulates endogenous biological processing machinery in qualitatively new ways from single molecules. He has been unravelling the detailed mechanisms by which biology recognizes structures on the nanoscale. In the early phase of this work he was awarded the US National Academy Cozzarelli Prize. He has also been awarded the Richardson Prize and Medal of Royal Society of Chemistry, Sloan, Dreyfus, IBM Foundation prizes, and has been distinguished visiting Professor by Chinese Academy, Brazilian Science Foundation, the Canon Foundation. He is an Academician of the Royal Irish Academy, FRSC, and various international scientific organizations.

Prof. Dawson is Chair of Physical Chemistry at University College Dublin, has been chairman of the National BioNanoscience Action, co-ordinator of the European Infrastructure, managed numerous large scale multi-sectoral cross-disciplinary research international and EU projects. He has represented Ireland on various international bodies, including the OECD and ISO working groups on standards for Nanotechnology, been an advisor in the EU ‘New Risk ‘Committee of the European Commission, the ad hoc Advisory group of the European Medicines Agency, and numerous other agencies and foundations around the world.

Nanoscale Horizons has a broad and open minded view of the field and its future.

2)  What would you recommend to new reviewers to ensure their report is helpful?  

While finding potential weaknesses is important, also look for the potential for significant advances in their work. That may have more lasting value, especially if you support the authors to express those elements more clearly.

See some of Kenneth A. Dawson’ work here: 

A microfluidic approach for synthesis and kinetic profiling of branched gold nanostructures

Qi Cai, Valentina Castagnola, Luca Boselli, Alirio Moura, Hender Lopez, Wei Zhang, João M de Araújo, Kenneth A Dawson

Nanoscale Horiz., 2022, 7, 288-298