Author Archive

Advancing with Advances- How to Publish and not Perish (Part 6): Publishing Tips from Academic Editors

How are papers assessed by academic editors at RSC Advances

Insights from editors handling catalysis, nanoscience and sustainable synthesis papers

We are delighted to continue sharing with you publishing tips and tricks from our editors who have listed their:

a) Most common reason for desk-rejecting a paper

b) Top tip to authors

Meet the Editor:

Dr. Ranjit Koodali is the Associate Provost for Research & Graduate Education at Western Kentucky University. He handles papers in the areas of photocatalysis, solar energy and nanoscience.

Dr Ranjith Koodali, Western Kentucky University, USA

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

RSC Advances disseminates new findings broadly in the area of Chemistry to the scientific community. With this broad scope and goal in mind to share exciting and new findings in Chemical Sciences, authors are encouraged to look at the scope and specifically the comprehensive list of subject categories to come to an informed decision if their work falls within this list. Also, it may be advisable to look at past issues and check if work that is planned to be submitted is covered in the scope. If the completed project falls within the scope of RSC Advances, then it may be best to provide a compelling narrative in the manuscript as to one or more of the following:
1. What gaps or ambiguities exist in the literature?
2. What new knowledge or scientific advance is being shared with the public?
3. How does the scientific community benefit from the work being published?
4. Are there some potential applied research benefits from the fundamental or basic research question being addressed?
5. Is prior literature cited and discussed in context of the current work?
6. Does the data support the hypothesis and conclusions?
The lack of specificities related to the questions above lead Associate Editors to question the quality, novelty, and scope of the submitted manuscript.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

A cover letter providing a compelling reason regarding the need to publish the submitted work and a manuscript that does not have typographical errors help Associate Editors come to an informed decision if a manuscript can be sent for reviews.

Meet the Editor:

Professor Luigi Vaccaro is based at the Department of Chemistry, Biology and Biotechnology at the University of Perugia and handles papers related to nanoanalysis, catalysis, stereochemistry and sustainable synthesis.

Professor Luigi Vaccaro, University of Perugia , Italy

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

A manuscript must certainly contain sufficient elements of novelty that should be clearly and easily recognizable during the first quick read of the abstract.

Besides novelty, the lack of a solid experimental section and supporting material is also very important while a routine application of known protocols makes the contribution to be of limited interest.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

Clearly define the advance in terms of novelty or clearly identify the new information reported in the contribution. A scheme, a graphical description is often very helpful for the reader.

Authors, by preparing this simple scheme, will also have a decisive chance to evaluate their own work before the submission.

A contribution with a solid experimental section where all materials prepared are completely and efficiently characterized also bring an useful piece of information implementing the original idea and highlighting the need for an additional contribution.

These elements should be also presented in the cover letter in a simple and schematic style that will facilitate the reader who is generally trying to save time and get the most useful information in the most straightforward manner.

Meet the Editor:

Professor Thierry Ollevier, FRSC is a Full Professor in Chemistry at Université Laval, Québec (Canada) and handles papers in the areas of organocatalysis, bioorganic catalysis, and stereochemistry.

Professor Thierry Ollevier, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

One of the most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review is an evident lack of advancement of science with respect to the state-of-the-art. This weakness is especially clear when the background literature and the context of the research are not presented in an appropriate manner.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

A submitting author should present a concise summary of the state-of-the-art and state well-defined, targeted, objectives. The manuscript should be structured to focus exclusively on the substantial advancement or new insight being reported. All arguments to highlight the advance should be placed in the context of the existing literature. The potential reader should readily get a clear understanding of the new elements brought by the manuscript.

We hope that you find these insights from Ranjith, Luigi, and Thierry useful while writing your next paper!

Tune in next week for yet more insights from our academic Associate Editors !

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer-review or publishing to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on Twitter @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Don’t miss out on our previous tips on how to publish and not perish below:

Advancing with Advances (Part 1): featuring Professor Robert Baker (Trinity College Dublin)

Advancing with Advances (Part 2): featuring editorial insights from staff editors at RSC Advances

Advancing with Advances (Part 3): featuring  Professor Brenno A.D. Neto (Universidade de Brasília, Brazil) Dr. Donna Arnold (University of Kent, UK), and Professor Nestor Mariano Correa (Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto, Argentina)

Advancing with Advances (Part 4): featuring Professor Megan O’Mara (Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology), Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova, Italy), and Dr Pablo Denis (Universidad de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay)

Advancing with Advances (Part 5): featuring Professor Franck Dumeignil (University of Lille, France) Professor Xi Chen (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China), and Professor Manojit Pal (Dr Reddy’s Institute of Life Sciences, India)

 

 

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

July 2022 Popular Advances Articles

Welcome to July’s Popular Advances article round up!

Every month we update our 2022 RSC Advances Popular Advances Article Collection to showcase all of the articles selected by our reviewers and handling editors as Popular Advances in 2022. Don’t forget to come back next month to check out our latest Popular articles.

We hope you enjoy reading and as always, all of our articles are open access so you can easily share your favourites online and with your colleagues.

Explore the full collection!

Theoretical investigation of the optoelectronic response of highly correlated Cu3P photocatalyst,
Haseeb Ahmad, Ali Rauf and Shoaib Muhammad, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 20721-20726, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA02472A

Phenoxy pendant isatins as potent α-glucosidase inhibitors: reciprocal carbonyl⋯carbonyl interactions, antiparallel π⋯π stacking driven solid state self-assembly and biological evaluation,
Saba Mehreen, Mehwash Zia, Ajmal Khan, Javid Hussain, Saeed Ullah, Muhammad U. Anwar, Ahmed Al-Harrasi and Muhammad Moazzam Naseer, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 20919-20928, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA03307K

Submit to RSC Advances today! Check out our author guidelines for information on our article types or find out more about the advantages of publishing in a Royal Society of Chemistry journal.

Keep up to date with our latest  Popular Advances articles, Reviews, Collections & more by following us on Twitter. You can also keep informed by signing up to our E-Alerts.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

July 2022 RSC Advances Review Articles

Welcome to July’s Review round up!

Every month we update our 2022 Reviews in RSC Advances collection to showcase all of the review articles published in RSC Advances in 2022. Don’t forget to come back next month to check out our latest reviews.

We hope you enjoy reading and as always, all of our articles are open access so you can easily share your favourites online and with your colleagues.

Explore the full collection!

Browse a selection of our July reviews below:

MXenes and their nanocomposites for biosensing applications , Zaheer Ud Din Babar, Bartolomeo Della Ventura,  Raffaele Velotta and Vincenzo Iannotti, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 19590-19610, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA02985E

Synthesis of MoS2-based nanostructures and their applications in rechargeable ion batteries, catalysts and gas sensors: a review, Wei Sun,  Yaofang Zhang, Weimin Kang, Nanping Deng, Xiaoxiao Wang, Xiaoying Kang, Zirui Yan, Yingwen Pan and Jian Ni, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 19512-19527, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA01532C

Inhibitory potential of nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur containing heterocyclic scaffolds against acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase, Rami J. Obaid, Nafeesa Naeem, Ehsan Ullah Mughal,  Munirah M. Al-Rooqi, Amina Sadiq, Rabab S. Jassas, Ziad Moussa  and Saleh A. Ahmed, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 19764-19855, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA03081K

Synchrotron radiation based X-ray techniques for analysis of cathodes in Li rechargeable batteries
Jitendra Pal Singh, Anil Kumar Paidi, Keun Hwa Chae, Sangsul Lee and Docheon Ahn, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 20360-20378, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA01250B

Nanostructured silicate catalysts for environmentally benign Strecker-type reactions: status quo and quo vadis, Vladimir V. Kouznetsov  and José G. Hernández, RSC Adv., 2022,12, 20807-20828, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA03102G

Submit to RSC Advances today! Check out our author guidelines for information on our article types or find out more about the advantages of publishing in a Royal Society of Chemistry journal.

Keep up to date with our latest HOT articles, Reviews, Collections & more by following us on Twitter. You can also keep informed by signing up to our E-Alerts.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

RSC Advances welcomes two new Associate Editors: Shannon Biros and Giulia Fiorani

The RSC Advances team is excited to welcome Professor Shannon Biros, Grand Valley State University, Michigan, USA and  Professor Giulia Fiorani, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy as our newest Associate Editors.

Shannon Biros, Professor of Chemistry, Grand Valley State University, USA

Research areas: x-ray crystallography, supramolecular chemistry, f-element coordination chemistry, actinide and lanthanide separation chemistry

Shannon M. Biros joined the faculty of GVSU as an Assistant Professor of Organic Chemistry in the fall of 2008.  She was a graduate of GVSU, receiving her BA in chemistry and BS in biomedical sciences in 2001. From there she moved to San Diego to pursue a PhD in chemistry at The Scripps Research Institute under the direction of Professor Julius Rebek, Jr. Following the completion of her thesis, Shannon spent a year at the University of California, Berkeley as a postdoctoral research associate in the laboratory of Professor Kenneth N. Raymond investigating the guest binding properties of a series of supramolecular metal-ligand clusters. She is currently in her thirteenth year as a faculty member at GVSU, and maintains an active research group of undergraduate students.

Browse a selection of Shannon’s RSC publications: 

Synthesis of diphenyl-(2-thienyl)phosphine, its chalcogenide derivatives and a series of novel complexes of lanthanide nitrates and triflates, Troy Luster, Hannah J. Van de Roovaart, Kyle J. Korman, Georgia G. Sands, Kylie M. Dunn, Anthony Spyker, Richard J. Staples, Shannon M. Biros and John E. Bender, Dalton Trans., 2022,51, 9103-9115, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2DT01570F

A complex with nitrogen single, double, and triple bonds to the same chromium atom: synthesis, structure, and reactivity, Evan P. Beaumier, Brennan S. Billow, Amrendra K. Singh, Shannon M. Biros and Aaron L. Odom, Chem. Sci., 2016,7, 2532-2536, https://doi.org/10.1039/C5SC04608D

Supramolecular ligands for the extraction of lanthanide and actinide ions, Eric J. Werner and Shannon M. Biros, Org. Chem. Front., 2019,6, 2067-2094, https://doi.org/10.1039/C9QO00242A

 

Giulia Fiorani, Associate Professor, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy

Research areas: Green chemistry, Organic synthesis, Heterogeneous catalysis (green chemistry), Organic chemistry, Sustainable synthesis, biodegradable/biocompatible polymers, degradation of polymers

Giulia Fiorani received her BSc and MSc in Chemical Sciences from the University of Rome “Tor Vergata”. In 2010, she obtained her PhD in Chemical Sciences and Technologies from the same university, working on Ionic Liquids, under the supervision of Prof. Valeria Conte. From 2010 to 2012 Giulia was a Post-Doctoral Research Assistant at the University of Padua, working on hybrid polyoxometalates. She then moved to Ca’ Foscari University of Venice as a Post-Doctoral Research Assistant to work on linear organic carbonates. From March 2016 until October 2017, Giulia was a Post-Doctoral Research Assistant in polymer chemistry and polymerization catalysis under the supervision of Prof. Charlotte K. Williams, initially at Imperial College London and then at the University of Oxford. Since November 2017, Giulia has been a fixed-term Assistant Professor, and later a tenure-track Associate Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Department of Molecular Sciences and Nanosystems, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.

In May 2015, she was shortlisted among the ten highly commended scientists for the ISGC Young Researcher Award. She was the recipient of the 2017 Junior Prize for Research on “Organic Chemistry for Environment, Energy and Nanoscience” awarded by the Organic Chemistry Division of the Italian Chemical Society and of the “Outstanding Young Researcher Award awardee” awarded by the International Scientific Committee of ICCDU XV, 5-7 July 2017, Shanghai (CN).

Giulia’s research interests focus on the development of novel synthetic and catalytic methodologies for the preparation of renewable-based molecules and materials. Bio-based synthons, including terpenes and lignocellulosic biomass derived platform chemicals, are employed as starting materials for the preparation of functional molecules and/or monomers for (co)-polymers synthesis. These transformations occur via sustainable catalytic processes, including direct CO2 activation, tandem and/or one-pot processes, and use of continuous flow to improve the overall selectivity of synthetic organic chemistry processes.

Browse a selection of Giulia’s RSC publications: 

Phosphonium salts and P-ylides, G. Fiorani, A. Perosa and M. Selva, From the book: Organophosphorus Chemistry: Volume 50, 2021, 50, 179-242, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839163814-00179

Dimethyl carbonate: a versatile reagent for a sustainable valorization of renewables, G. Fiorani, A. Perosa and M. Selva, Green Chem., 2018,20, 288-322, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C7GC02118F

Submit your research or reviews to Professor Biros and Professor Fiorani, they will be delighted to receive them! See our author guidelines for information on our article types or find out more about the advantages of publishing in a Royal Society of Chemistry journal.

Keep up to date with our latest HOT articles, Reviews, Collections & more by following us on Twitter. You can also keep informed by signing up to our E-Alerts.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Advancing with Advances- How to Publish and not Perish (Part 5): Publishing Tips from Academic Editors

Why has your paper been desk-rejected by an editor ? 

How can you improve your chances of publication?

This week we hear from three more Associate Editors of RSC Advances, who offer their advice on increasing the chances of your paper getting accepted. All of these editors handle catalysis-focused papers.

Meet the Editor:

Professor Franck Dumeignil is based at the University of Lille, France and has been working on RSC Advances since 2016. Professor Dumeignil handles papers in the areas of catalysis, carbon materials, spectroscopy, and biofuels.

Professor Franck Dumeignil, University of Lille, France

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

a. A paper that is “too specific” such as papers dealing with a very local themes linked to local environment, etc., without any outputs that could be more globally used.
b. A paper that is not really dealing with Advances in Chemistry, but rather using conventional “Recipes” and “as-usual characterization techniques” in a very incremental way.
c. A paper lacking in characterizations to strengthen/support the conclusions.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

I learned that from my supervisor in Japan when I was a post-doctoral researcher: “When you submit a revised version of your paper, always do your best to satisfy the reviewers (of course it does not mean that any debate is definitely and unilaterally closed but imagine that you are actually the reviewer receiving answers and comments).”

Meet the Editor:

One of our newest Associate Editors, Professor Xi Chen joined us in March 2022. Xi is an Associate Professor based in Shanghai Jiao Tong University and mainly handles papers on catalysis.

Professor Xi Chen, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

The most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review include the lack of novelty and poor manuscript quality. The novelty of a work is a crucial factor to determine whether a paper is worth publishing or not. The authors are suggested to highlight the unique creations or advances of the work clearly and properly in the Abstract as well as the Introduction with sufficient literature reviews. Apart from novelty, the quality of the manuscript is also important. A manuscript with poor writings, low figure quality, careless errors, unlogic flows, etc. will remarkably impair the readability and credibility of the work.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

Since the novelty of work is important, the authors are suggested to pinpoint the novelties and clarify them in a best way to the reviewers. Besides, the RSC templates are strongly suggested to be used for submission.

Meet the Editor:

Manojit Pal is a Professor of Organic and Medicinal Chemistry based at Dr Reddy’s Institute of Life Sciences, India. He handles papers in the areas of chemical biology and catalysis.

Professor Manojit Pal, Dr Reddy’s Institute of Life Sciences, India

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

I think this somewhat tough to decide the fate of a manuscript without performing peer review which could be disappointing or even annoying to authors who are especially in the early stage of their career. Frankly speaking, I am not a great believer of rejecting manuscript without peer review because as an author I believe and understand that most of the authors do perform some checking or assessment regarding suitability or appropriateness of their manuscript before submitting to a particular journal. However, this is not the case always and that is where an editor needs to check the suitability of a manuscript submitted to the particular journal.

The second most common reason to me (and probably obvious to any other editor) is the lack of novelty or originality. While this is a relative term and generally varies from journal to journal, for RSC Advances a descent level of novelty is required for a manuscript to be considered further. If a literature search provides enough evidence in support of the fact that the submitted work is not new or the results can be anticipated easily then the chances of rejection without peer review become high.

The other issues that I find occasionally but not frequently include erratic study design, incorrect approaches, choice of wrong illustrations, wrong statistics, poor writing etc. However, I generally exclude manuscripts that are transferred in from other RSC journals because I respect the opinion of the editor of the corresponding journal where the manuscript was initially submitted.    

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

If you are aspiring for a rapid publication, wider readership as well as faster dissemination of your quality work via an internationally recognized and one of the professionally managed leading publishing houses then choose RSC Advances as home of your paper. It is known that apart from maintaining the high-quality RSC journals are broadly cited and globally appreciated. Also, make sure that the manuscript depicts your expertise in the particular field, quality writing, and excellence in study design and methodology etc. These are the essential components that are normally considered for assessing the integrity or trustworthiness as well as scientific impact and importance of the manuscript submitted.

We hope you find these insights from Franck, Manojit and Xi useful while preparing your next manuscript for submission at RSC Advances!

Tune in next week for  yet more insights from our academic Associate Editors !

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer-review or publishing to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on Twitter @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Don’t miss out on our previous tips on how to publish and not perish below:

Advancing with Advances – Part 1

Advancing with Advances – Part 2

Advancing with Advances – Part 3

Advancing with Advances – Part 4

 

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Advancing with Advances- How to Publish and not Perish (Part 4)

How are papers assessed by academic editors at RSC Advances

Insights from editors handling computational chemistry papers

We are delighted to continue sharing with you publishing tips and tricks from our editors.

Meet the Editor:

Professor Megan O’Mara is a group leader at the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology. She handles papers in the areas of computational biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology, and drug discovery.

Professor Megan O’Mara

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?
I review a lot of computational and biomolecular papers. My most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review is it doesn’t contain sufficient chemistry to make an impact in the field of chemistry. I often get papers that focus on the cell biology of a particular process. While this is interesting, it doesn’t contribute to the chemistry. Likewise, method development papers and docking studies are often written from a perspective that does not emphasise or provide new insights into the chemistry (including biochemistry) of the research.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?
For computational papers, make sure you introduce the problem and experimental rationale behind your study. Emphasise the chemical basis of the results and give evidence for how your studies provides additional evidence into the chemical basis of a process.

Meet the Editor:

Dr Giacomo Saielli, is a senior researcher at the University of Padova, Italy and is an expert in computational materials chemistry, gels and soft matter.

Dr Giacomo Saielli

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?
There are two types of manuscript that I reject without peer review.
The first type is concerned with manuscripts that have nothing to do with chemistry. It does not happen very often, but sometimes I receive papers dealing with mechanical engineering, geology, mathematics. It might be the case that a vague relationship with chemistry can eventually be found in the paper (after all, the only truly chemical-free type of matter are probably neutron stars), but such relationship is so weak that I cannot take the work as a chemistry paper. Often in these cases I also note that none of the references cite a chemistry journal, which is also an indication that RSC Advances is not the right choice. Of course, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary works with a significant chemistry component are welcome, since these highlight the role of chemistry within the other sciences.

The second type of manuscript is – and this is rather obvious – papers where the work is really poor from a scientific point of view. This might happen with computational and experimental works alike, but since my area of expertise is computational chemistry it occurs to me more often to find computational papers, rather than experimental papers, in this category. In the majority of such cases, the main point is not that the work is wrong, often the computational protocol is correctly applied. However, that alone is not enough to make good science. Due to the availability of many computational chemistry software, it can happen that the Authors correctly solve a problem that had been already solved, maybe with a slightly different method, in the literature, sometime several years ago. Therefore the novelty is very low.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?
Based on my comments above, my first recommendation for Authors is to make sure that the manuscript is dealing with chemistry and it has a potential interest for the chemistry community. It should be clear for the Authors that the “C” in RSC Advances means Chemistry.
The second recommendation is to make clear what the scientific issues that the Authors wish to discuss are and how they have been addressed in the published literature: do we really need another quantum chemical calculation of the energy/structure of this particular molecule or another molecular dynamics simulation of this particular material? Maybe yes, but it should be stated clearly why and what new insights the calculations are revealing.

Meet the Editor:

Dr Pablo A. Denis is based at the Faculty of Chemistry of the Universidad de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay (UDELAR) and handles papers in the field of computational nanoscience.

Dr Pablo Denis

1. What is the most common reason for rejecting a manuscript without review?

The most common reason for my rejections without review is that the authors did not perform a complete investigation of the literature, and a large part of the results were published previously.

2. What is the best piece of advice you could give a submitting author?

My best piece of advice is related to point 1. I strongly recommend performing an extensive investigation of the literature and squaring the results in the context of the literature. By doing so, the authors can decide themselves if the work is worth publishing and where.
Publishing trick: Making an attractive graphical abstract!

We hope that you find these insights from Megan, Giacomo and Pablo useful while preparing your next manuscript!

Tune in next week for  yet more insights from our academic Associate Editors !

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer-review or publishing to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on Twitter @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Don’t miss out on our previous tips on how to publish and not perish below:

Advancing with Advances – Part 1

Advancing with Advances – Part 2

Advancing with Advances – Part 3

 

 

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Advancing with Advances- How to publish and not perish (Part 2)

Why did in-house editors reject my paper? 

From the perspective of two staff editors at RSC Advances

Research papers submitted to RSC Advances are subject to initial quality checks by in-house editors before they are passed on to our expert Associate Editors for assessment.  This week we are going to take a peek behind the curtain of the editing team at RSC Advances and see how in-house editors reject papers that do not meet the journal’s criteria.

Editors first check whether a manuscript is within the scope of the journal as described on the journal website. Papers published in RSC Advances must present insights that advance the chemistry field or be of interest to chemists.  Most of the manuscripts we reject for being out of scope may contain some chemistry (for example, a chemical compound used as a drug or for drug delivery) but with the primary scientific advance in a different field such as pharmacology, statistics, genetics, etc. Manuscripts that are out of the scope of the journal are rejected without peer-review no matter how sound the science is.

Once editors are satisfied that the paper fits within the scope of the journal, we go through your manuscript to ensure that all relevant and correct documents for submission are present. All our experimental data reporting requirements can be found online. The emails we most frequently send as editors are those requesting authors for supporting data as what was supplied did not meet our requirements. We cannot publish papers where the data provided does not meet our data standards. For example, all Western blot and other electrophoresis data should be supported by the underlying uncropped and unprocessed raw images, all new small molecule crystal data must be present in the  CIF (Crystallographic Information File) format, etc.

Burlington House, London (Headquarters of the Royal Society of Chemistry)

In addition, do keep in mind good publishing practices and follow the ethical guidelines that we have listed on our Author hub. Key points to keep in mind are:

  1. Make sure you address the scope of the paper in your cover letter or in your bibliography by citing previous work from the same journal and/or similar journals.
  2. Use your own words to describe previous work and experiments, and make that sure all your references are correct.
  3. Avoid making unsupported claims about your findings and provide all data supporting your findings either in the main paper or in the Electronic Supplementary Information. The Royal Society of Chemistry also strongly encourages authors to deposit the data underpinning their research in appropriate repositories.
  4. Only submit your manuscript to one journal at a time.

Thomas Graham House, Cambridge (where Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing is based)

If your paper has already been peer-reviewed at another Royal Society of Chemistry journal, please make sure to address the previous reviewer comments and revise the paper before submitting it to RSC Advances (and preferably include the point-by-point response to the previous referee comments as well). We feel that it is very important that the time and efforts of our reviewers are duly acknowledged in this manner, and this process should also help to improve the quality of work published in our journals. Be firm yet diplomatic in your responses to referee comments (even if the referees are confrontational).  There is nothing to be gained in responding aggressively, even if you are sure you are right.  Even if the referee reports are very negative, your paper may still be accepted if the Editor is convinced by your rebuttal letter.

In-house editors support external expert Associate Editors in their handling of papers, but we also support authors too. If you have any queries about data or scope pre- or post- submission of your paper, please do get in touch with the journal and we will be happy to help.

We hope that we have provided some clarity about why in-house editors at RSC Advances reject papers and what can be done to avoid this in any future submissions!

Tune in next week for interviews with three of our Associate Editors where they discuss their most common reasons for rejecting manuscripts and reveal their best publishing tips!

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer-review or publishing to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on Twitter @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

 

 

 

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Advancing with Advances- How to publish and not perish (Part 1)

Why did the editor reject my manuscript? 

Guest post by Professor Robert Baker, Trinity College Dublin

Most of the readers of this blog are driven by curiosity. The question “why?” is something we have at the forefront of our scientific endeavours. Why did this reaction give black insoluble gunk? Why is the reaction yield 5% (rounded up)? Some of the more interesting results have come from questioning the “why?” of failed reactions – Vaska’s complex was discovered by accident, Kubas discovered the first dihydrogen complexes because of a poor yield, and there are many more examples from all branches of chemistry.  Then we spend ages analysing the data; “why?” did the NMR spectrum have too many peaks. After that we put all the answers to our “why?” on paper and send it to a journal for peer review. But how many times do we receive the following email from an editor rejecting our carefully crafted manuscript?

Dear author,

Thank you for your recent submission to RSC Advances, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editors to ensure they meet the criteria for publication in the journal.

After careful evaluation of your manuscript, I regret to inform you that I do not find your manuscript suitable for publication in RSC Advances because it does not meet the novelty and impact requirements of the journal. Therefore your article has been rejected from RSC Advances.

Yours sincerely,

The Editor

 

Professor Robert James Baker is an Assistant Professor at the School of Chemistry, Trinity College Dublin and an Associate Editor as well as Editorial Board member of RSC Advances

In this series we will explore some of the pitfalls of submission from an editor’s point of view and move your science forward. From experience, some of the common problems revolve around cover letters, how the manuscript is presented and how to respond to referees’ comments – “why” did they not get it? “why” didn’t I think of that?

Later on in this blog series, I will be sharing some of the cover letters and reviewer responses that accompanied rejected as well as successful manuscripts that I authored (and the stories behind them) in order to highlight that not only manuscripts require to be revised. As an Associate Editor in the areas of spectroscopy, homogenous catalysis and inorganic chemistry at RSC Advances, I come across several manuscripts with cover letters in the following format:

Dear Editor:

 Here we submit the paper entitled “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”. We would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for publication in RSC Advances. Thank you for your kind consideration.

Signed- The authors

Such redundant cover letters do not help the cause of the manuscript. At the very minimum, the cover letter should clearly state the advance made to literature in a manner that helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript.

Here are my:

Most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review?

  1. Does the introduction set the scene – what is the problem the authors are looking at and why is it different to the literature. Context is key. So very short introductions with few references to the state-of-the-art are not good.
  2. Remember it is a results AND discussion section on a discussion of YOUR results. Again context – are your results good, bad or indifferent?
  3. Does the introduction and conclusion match the results? It is surprising how many manuscripts give a very ‘templated’ introduction on results from the last paper and not this current one.

Best piece of advice to a submitting author?

You are telling a story of WHY your results are important. Lead the reviewer and reader by the hand, explain everything that is important, but do it succinctly. The reader of your article wants to learn something new, so tell them what is new.

Having a manuscript rejected by an editor or peer reviewers is sometimes tough to take, especially in the early stages of your career. It’s frustrating and annoying but it happens to everyone; the comments are on your work, not you as a person or scientist. The best (though not necessarily easiest) way to look at it is as a learning experience. For example, I submitted a manuscript early in my career with the elemental analysis mixed up between two compounds; a referee picked up on this and the whole report was:

“The bulk purity of the compounds has not been proven, therefore none of the conclusions are remotely valid. Reject.”

I have not made the same mistake again!

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer-review or publishing to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on Twitter @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Tune in next week for our feature on how manuscripts are rejected by professional editors on scope and/or data concerns!

 

 

 

 

 

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Research infographic: SWIR emissive RosIndolizine dyes with nanoencapsulation in water soluble dendrimers

The use of small molecule fluorescent probes for high resolution in vivo biological imaging has profoundly impacted clinical diagnostics.

Jared H. Delcamp et al. from the University of Mississippi and University of Southern Mississippi have synthesised two new xanthene-based rosindolizine dyes that demonstrate great potential to be applied as fluorescent imaging probes in the shortwave infrared region.

Find out more about RozIndz dyes in the open access article:

SWIR emissive RosIndolizine dyes with nanoencapsulation in water soluble dendrimers

Jared H. Delcamp et al. , RSC Adv., 2021,11, 27832-27836

Tweet about it here!

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)