Archive for the ‘Peer Review’ Category

RSC Advances Outstanding Reviewers 2022

We like to highlight the Outstanding Reviewers for RSC Advances in 2022! Each one of our outstanding peer reviewers has been carefully selected by our editorial team and the list includes active researchers who have made significant contributions to peer review and have gone above and beyond in their actions. Please see our editorial for more about our outstanding reviewers.

RSC Advances 2022 Outstanding Reviewers:

Dr Takumi Abe, Okayama University, ORCID: 0000-0003-1729-1097

Dr Federico Bella, Politecnico di Torino, ORCID: 0000-0002-2282-9667

Dr Sambasiva R. Bheemireddy, Amionx, Inc., ORCID: 0000-0003-1169-9649

Dr Shreyasi Chattopadhyay, University of St Andrews, ORCID: 0000-0003-4429-6117

Dr Marek Ingr, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, ORCID: 0000-0001-6741-9955

Dr Xiaochen Ji, Xiangtan University, ORCID: 0000-0001-9533-0376

Dr Pavan Kumar Chityala, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., ORCID: 0000-0003-3339-2920

Dr Maxim L. Kuznetsov, Instituto Superior Tecnico, ORCID: 0000-0001-5729-6189

Dr Jianbo Liu, Hunan University, ORCID: 0000-0001-8282-4078

Dr Masato Miyauchi, Japan Tobacco Inc., Tobacco Science Research Center, ORCID: 0000-0001-9005-9855

Dr Wenxuan Mo, South China University of Technology, ORCID: 0000-0001-9341-500X

Dr Dane Scott, Scott East Tennessee State University, ORCID: 0000-0003-0018-7189

Dr Harvijay Singh, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, ORCID: 0000-0002-8370-2037

Professor Carlos Torres-Torres, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, ORCID: 0000-0001-9255-2416

Dr Werner Ewald van Zyl, University of KwaZulu-Natal, ORCID: 0000-0002-2012-8584

Dr Anna S. Vikulina, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, ORCID: 0000-0001-9427-2055

Dr Yunchao Xie, University of Missouri, ORCID: 0000-0001-6216-1211

Dr Zhi Yue, University of Chicago, ORCID: 0000-0002-4231-7474

Dr Li Zhang, Shanghai Second Polytechnic University, ORCID: 0000-0001-5774-4068

RSC Advances Reviewer Panel 2022 Outstanding Reviewers:

Dr Sohini Bhattacharyya, Rice University, ORCID: 0000-0002-4626-1578

Dr Guillermo Bracamonte, National University of Cordoba, ORCID: 0000-0003-4760-3872

Dr Bin Chang, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, ORCID: 0000-0003-4510-0550

Dr Lopamudra Das Ghosh, Texas A&M University, ORCID: 0000-0003-3867-6711

Dr S. Girish Kumar, RV College of Engineering, Department of Chemistry, ORCID: 0000-0001-9132-1202

Dr Darrick Heyd, Ryerson University

Dmitry Kharitonov, Jerzy Haber Institute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, ORCID: 0000-0003-2071-3975

Dr Gaurav Kumar, DuPont de Nemours Inc Water Solutions, ORCID: 0000-0001-7089-6146

Dr Shota Kuwahara, Toho University, ORCID: 0000-0001-7089-6146

Dr Hu Li, Guizhou University, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals, ORCID: 0000-0003-3604-9271

Dr Jianmin Li, Zhejiang University, ORCID: 0000-0002-3917-8653

Dr Feng Li, The University of Sydney, ORCID:0000-0003-4448-074X

Dr Guangchao Liang, Xidian University, ORCID: 0000-0001-7235-958X

Dr Ekkenhard Lindner, Institut für Anorganische Chemie, Universität Tübingen

Dr Lingaiah Maram, University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy in St Louis, ORCID: 0000-0003-1327-8426

Professor Angel Meléndez, Universidad Industrial de Santander, ORCID: 0000-0002-5166-1840

Dr Wenli Pei, Northeastern University, ORCID: 0000-0003-2525-152X

Dr Abhispa Sahu, American Nano LLC, ORCID: 0000-0002-3223-7577

Dr Paresh Kumar Samantaray, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, ORCID: 0000-0003-2533-929X

Professor Beatriz Sánchez, Universidad de Alcala de Henares, ORCID: 0000-0002-6584-1949

Dr James Sheehan, The University of Alabama, ORCID: 0000-0001-5548-8099

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of RSC Advances‘ reviewers for helping to preserve quality and integrity in chemical science literature. We continue to work on improving the diversity of our reviewer pool to reflect the diversity of the communities that we serve.

If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, you can fill out an application. Or, please see our author and reviewer resource centre, for more information and guidance.

RSC Advances Royal Society of Chemistry

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 8): More Publishing Tips from Academic Editors

What happens to your paper after submission? 

Step by step assessment of papers by academic editors at RSC Advances

Meet the Editor:

Professor Leyong Wang is based at the Institute for Supramolecular Chemistry and Smart Materials at Nanjing University. He handles papers in the areas of drug delivery, organic catalysis, synthesis & assembly of nanomaterials.

Professor Leyong Wang, Nanjing University

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

“As the associate editor, I am very pleased to receive and read well-organized and well written manuscripts with high quality and exciting results. Therefore, we could provide more excellent papers to our audience of our journal. When I receive a new submission, I will read the manuscript quickly, normally in 5-10 minutes.

Firstly, the cover letter is read, which is regarded as the dialogue between authors and Associate editors. From the cover letter, I would like to know the important background and the exciting results of the present research. Why did the authors think the contents of this manuscript are  exciting and challenging work?

Then, I will read the Graphic abstract and abstract quickly to know if the authors have clearly shown the exciting and informative results in present manuscript, and then if its contents lie inside the stated aims and scope of the journal.

Next, I will read the manuscript quickly while checking the References and Supporting information. From the introduction session, I would like to know if the authors establish the background of the problem studied and if the discussion only repeats the results but does not interpret them with the help of suitable literature cited. Some times, I realize that submitted manuscripts do not follow the format specified by our RSC journals. To be frank, it is a not pleasurable feeling during a quick reading. It means the authors did not read the authors guides of RSC Advances during the preparation of their manuscript. The authors should convince the associate editor, on behalf of readers to some degree, that the research is both sound and important through their writing.”

Last but not least, the professional supporting materials is very important to prevent the manuscript from being prescreened. I would like to see a  clear and professional description of experimental procedures. For the synthetic experiments, the reported compounds here should be given the physical data, for example 1H NMR and 13C NMR with in  professional style. I am sure, without the professional writing of experimental session and well updated suitable references, it is not easy to believe the reliability of results and discussion of a submitted manuscript.

I fully understand the feeling of authors when they receive the reject letter without reviewer reports. I do hope this kind of rapid decision is seen as favorable, because it allows the authors to quickly turn around the papers for submittal to a different journal, or to re-organize and re-write their manuscript for re-submission to us for consideration quickly. Of course, I do hope that this decision (Prescreen without review) will not discourage the authors from submitting the authors’ future work to us.

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

“Writing a professional paper is a challenging job for our authors. In fact, it is not easy to give the best piece of advice. If I have to give one, in my opinion, in the process of writing research papers, it is would be better to give the draft outline of this research paper, knowing the highlights of your research papers, give a catchy and informative title to your research paper, then continue writing an abstract in a short paragraph which provides key information of submitting paper in an easy-to-grasp manner.

I also have a reminder here. Every author is suggested to read the pre-submitted manuscript carefully with the arrangement of the corresponding authors. This action could remove some typos and grammar errors, even such low-level “stupid” mistakes.
In the end, I always warmly welcome the authors to submit their high-quality, and exciting research work to our RSC  Journals with good preparation and wish our authors continued success in their  research endeavors.”

Meet the Editor:

Professor Andrea Pucci is a Full professor in Industrial Chemistry at the University of Pisa, Italy and handles papers related to solar energy, optical materials and nanomaterials.

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

“Mainly due to the lack of novelties after a literature survey. Then, when the manuscript are reported with poor care in general of the RSC Advances regulations.””

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

“In the introduction, clear statements of the novelties reported should be provided. Then, comparison of the main outcomes with those from the literature are appreciated.”

We hope that you find these insights from Professor Wang and Professor Pucci useful while writing your next paper!

Tune in next week for our final set of publishing tips 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)

Advancing with Advances (Part 6): featuring Dr. Ranjit Koodali (Western Kentucky University, USA), Professor Luigi Vaccaro ( University of Perugia, Italy), and Professor Thierry Ollevier, (Université Laval, Québec Canada)

Advancing with Advances (Part 7): featuring Professor Steven McIntosh, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA and  Dr. Lubomír Rulíšek, Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague

 

 

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 7): More Publishing Tips from Academic Editors

What Can You Do to Improve Your Manuscript? 

Two Experienced Associate Editors offer words of Advice. 

This week we are going to hear from two more Associate Editors who offer their useful advise in how to improve your manuscripts chances of acceptance.

Meet the Editor:

Professor Steven McIntosh is based at the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, USA. He handles papers focused on electrochemistry and catalysis.

 

Professor Steven McIntosh, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, USA

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

There are a few reasons I reject manuscripts without review. The most common is a lack of fit for the journal with the manuscript not describing a true advance in chemistry. Some manuscripts fall down at the ”advance’ category in that they report work that is reproducing well-established results or appearing as a more preliminary investigation rather than a thorough investigation in a new area. Other manuscripts are better suited to specialized journals in other fields, I commonly reject manuscripts that are more focused on mechanical or chemical engineering topics rather than chemistry.

The other reason I reject manuscripts without review is when the manuscript clearly does not meet the depth of study required for the journal. Some submitted manuscripts contain experimental results without a supportive contextual discussion and literature review. A manuscript should have a narrative theme that describes and supports the claimed scientific advance.

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

My advice is to clearly make the case that the work is an advance over previous studies. This requires the author to describe the existing state of the art understanding, methodology, or performance level and then clearly show that their work advances beyond this. This requires comparison between their work and the existing state of the art in a clearly presented set of results. I’d also say not to forget to establish trends in your experimental data and provide negative tests. This can be as simple as providing data showing performance in the presence/absence of individual components or as a function of composition. Often these trends and comparisons are the key to establishing the purported advance in our understanding.

 

Meet the Editor:

 

Dr. Lubomír Rulíšek is based at the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague (IOCB). He regularly handles manuscripts in computational and theoretical chemistry.

Dr. Lubomír Rulíšek, Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague

  1. What are your most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review?

As an Associate Editor handling mostly manuscripts from the broad field of molecular modelling in biochemistry, biology, and material chemistry; I tend to reject manuscripts that do not have present the clear validation of the computed data.

Typically, a modelling/docking study is presented, carried out with fairly standard computer software, that ends with reporting computed free energies of binding for a series of (computationally) tested compounds. It ends with the statement: “Our modelling/docking study showed a potential of the compound X and Y to be the great inhibitor of the enzyme Y (where Y is very often one of the SARS-CoV-2 enzymes these days)” Then, then paper typically contains a very descriptive paragraphs of all interactions, detailed discussion of the computed data, etc. However, in my eyes, without experimental validation of the computed data, the results are meaningless; given the inaccuracies of the force-field based protocols. I am not saying that I expect the authors to do the experiment, but to clearly and convincingly show on a known series of compounds tested on the same target with the known experimental binding constants that the used protocol works and the data thus can be trusted. The second typical examples of the manuscript that I reject are those that are out of scope. This is mostly in material chemistry and such manuscripts almost entirely lack chemistry: molecules, compounds, structures, and their transformations, which is in my eyes the definition of chemistry.

  1. What would be your best piece of advice to a submitting author?

To read their paper with the critical eyes and ask yourself two questions: (1) Do I want to publish this manuscript, just to add one item onto my list of publications (requested, in some countries, by committees, grant agencies, etc.) or do I report a truly exciting science that I enjoy? (2) Does anybody else than myself and co-authors of the paper care about the results presented therein?

 

Tune in next week for our final blog with our academic Associate Editors! However, do not fear, we will be back with Bob Baker on how to improve your cover letter in a couple of weeks!

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)

Advancing with Advances (Part 6): featuring Dr. Ranjit Koodali (Western Kentucky University, USA), Professor Luigi Vaccaro ( University of Perugia, Italy), and Professor Thierry Ollevier, (Université Laval, Québec Canada)

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 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)

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)

RSC Advances 2019 Outstanding Reviewers

We are delighted to highlight the Outstanding Reviewers for RSC Advances in 2019, as selected by the editorial team, for their significant contribution to the journal. The reviewers have been chosen based on the quantity, quality and timeliness of the reports completed over the last 12 months.

A big thank you to those individuals listed here as well as to all of the reviewers on the RSC Advances reviewer panel who have supported the journal.

Each Outstanding Reviewer has received a certificate in recognition of their significant contribution.

Dr Arghya Adhikary, University of Calcutta
Professor Katsuhiko Ariga, Busshitsu Zairyo Kenkyu Kiko, ORCiD: 0000-0002-2445-2955
Dr Yaocai Bai, University of California Riverside, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3700-2520
Dr Xi Chen, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Dr Anindita Das, Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), ORCiD: 0000-0001-8723-6291
Dr Nilesh Gaikwad, Gaikwad Steroidomics Lab LLC, ORCiD: 0000-0002-4990-4508
Professor Wei-Min He, Hunan University of Science and Engineering, ORCiD: 0000-0002-9481-6697
Dr Mark Honey, University of Greenwich, ORCiD: 0000-0001-7272-476X
Dr Dattatray Late, National Chemical Laboratory CSIR, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3007-7220
Dr Giuseppe Lazzara, University of Palermo, ORCiD: 0000-0003-1953-5817
Dr Samir Nuseibeh, University College London, ORCiD: 0000-0003-1787-636X
Dr Veli Ozalp, Konya Gida ve Tarim Universitesi
Dr Qingsen Shang, University of Michigan, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6782-3437
Dr Diptesh Sil, Atul Ltd, ORCiD: 0000-0001-6457-0545
Dr Steven Suib, University of Connecticut
Dr Balaram Takale, University of California Santa Barbara
Dr Xiaobin Wu, Shanghai Normal University
Dr Murat Yavuz, Dicle Universitesi, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3452-8551
Professor Wenwu Zhong, Taizhou University

 

Thank you to the RSC Advances board and our community for their continued support of the journal, as authors, reviewers and readers.

If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, just email us with details of your research interests and an up-to-date CV or résumé.  You can find more details in our author and reviewer resource centre.

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.

RSC Advances Royal Society of Chemistry

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 Reviewer Panel: 2019 Outstanding Reviewers

We are delighted to highlight the Outstanding Reviewers for RSC Advances in 2019, as selected by the editorial team, for their significant contribution to the journal. The reviewers have been chosen from the reviewer panel based on the quantity, quality and timeliness of the reports completed over the last 12 months.

A big thank you to those individuals listed here as well as to all of the reviewers who have supported the journal.

Each Outstanding Reviewer has received a certificate in recognition of their significant contribution.

Dr Vipul Agarwal, University of New South Wales, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6239-5410
Dr Ashootosh Ambade, National Chemical Laboratory CSIR, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3605-5719
Dr Rok Borstnar, Kemijski institut, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6786-5434
Professor Lingxin Chen, Chinese Academy of Sciences, ORCiD: 0000-0002-3764-3515
Dr Ummadisetti Chinnarajesh, Indiana University Bloomington, ORCiD: 0000-0002-0065-2223
Dr Emanuele Curotto, Arcadia University
Dr Serap Evran, Ege Universitesi, ORCiD: 0000-0001-6676-4888
Dr Nicholas Geitner, Duke University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-4313-372X
Dr Prokopios Georgopanos, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum fur Materialforschung und Kustenforschung, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6394-0628
Dr S. Girish Kumar, CMR University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-9132-1202
Dr Hu Li, Guizhou University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3604-9271
Dr Jianmin Li, Zhejiang University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-3917-8653
Dr Shiwei Qu, Scripps Research Institute, ORCiD: 0000-0002-9358-066X
Dr Leo Small, Sandia National Laboratories, ORCiD: 0000-0003-0404-6287
Professor David Thompson, Sam Houston State University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-2934-5729
Dr Maria Timofeeva, FGBUN Institut kataliza im G K Boreskova Sibirskogo otdelenia Rossijskoj akademii nauk
Dr Paul Trippier, University of Nebraska Medical Center, ORCiD: 0000-0002-4947-5782
Dr Mark Waterland, Massey University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-8493-9407
Professor Chunping Yang, Hunan University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3987-2722
Professor Lei Yu, Yangzhou University

 

Thank you to the RSC Advances board and our community for their continued support of the journal, as authors, reviewers and readers.

If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, just email us with details of your research interests and an up-to-date CV or résumé.  You can find more details in our author and reviewer resource centre.

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.

RSC Advances Royal Society of Chemistry

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 2018 Outstanding Reviewers

We are delighted to highlight the Outstanding Reviewers for RSC Advances in 2018, as selected by the editorial team, for their significant contribution to the journal. The reviewers have been chosen based on the quantity, quality and timeliness of the reports completed over the last 12 months.

A big thank you to those individuals listed here as well as to all of the reviewers on the RSC Advances reviewer panel who have supported the journal.

Each Outstanding Reviewer has received a certificate in recognition of their significant contribution.

Professor Katsuhiko Ariga National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), ORCiD: 0000-0002-2445-2955
Dr Jiangkun Cao South China University of Technology, ORCiD: 0000-0001-7631-2797
Professor Jianping Xie National University of Singapore, ORCiD: 0000-0002-3254-5799
Dr Murat Yavuz Dicle University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3452-8551
Mr Zailei Zhang Chinese Academy of Sciences, ORCiD: 0000-0003-0222-9055
Dr Lin Tang Hunan University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-6996-7955
Dr Soo-Jin Park Inha University
Dr Jiaguang Zhang Lincoln University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-7238-4021
Dr Dattatray Late National Chemical Laboratory CSIR, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3007-7220
Dr Jinliang Song Chinese Academy of Sciences
Dr Jiadong Huang University of Jinan
Dr Zhiwei Xu Tianjin Polytechnic University
Prof Dr V. K Gupta Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, ORCiD: 0000-0003-2809-2966
Dr Mark Honey University of Wolverhampton, ORCiD: 0000-0001-7272-476X
Prof. Xiangke Wang North China Electric Power University
Dr Wenyu Yuan National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), ORCiD: 0000-0001-8443-1518
Dr Yaocai Bai University of California Riverside, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3700-2520
Dr Anindita Das Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), ORCiD: 0000-0001-8723-6291
Dr Hao Yuan Michigan State University
Dr Wenwu Zhong Taizhou University
Dr Sang-Jae Kim Jeju National University
Dr Kim Hung Lam Hong Kong Polytechnic University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-2161-2367
Prof. Xiao-Yu Hu Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ORCiD: 0000-0002-9634-315X
Dr Giuseppe Lazzara University of Palermo, ORCiD: 0000-0003-1953-5817
Ruibing Wang University of Macau
Professor Cormac Murphy University College Dublin, ORCiD: 0000-0002-2137-3338
Dr Arjan Kleij Institute of Chemical Research of Catalonia, ORCiD: 0000-0002-7402-4764
Dr Maiyong Zhu Jiangsu University
Dr Jinbo Pang Leibniz Institute for Solid State and Materials Research, ORCiD: 0000-0001-6965-4166
Dr Suming Chen Johns Hopkins University
Dr Neal Chung National University of Singapore, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3704-8609
Dr Yücel Baspinar Ege University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-2069-9659
Dr Quanjun Xiang University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Dr Sreekuttan Unni Central Electrochemical Research Institute CSIR, ORCiD: 0000-0002-0403-9186
Professor Yu Xin Zhang Chongqing University
Dr Guiling Wang Harbin Engineering University
Prof. Muhammad Hossain Dongguk University
Dr Daniela Giacomazza Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
Dr Asit Samui Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai

 

Thank you to the RSC Advances board and our community for their continued support of the journal, as authors, reviewers and readers.

If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, just email us with details of your research interests and an up-to-date CV or résumé.  You can find more details in our author and reviewer resource centre

Follow us on Twitter to keep informed!

RSC Advances Royal Society of Chemistry

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 Reviewer Panel: 2018 Outstanding Reviewers

We are delighted to highlight the Outstanding Reviewers for RSC Advances in 2018, as selected by the editorial team, for their significant contribution to the journal. The reviewers have been chosen from the reviewer panel based on the quantity, quality and timeliness of the reports completed over the last 12 months.

A big thank you to those individuals listed here as well as to all of the reviewers who have supported the journal.

Each Outstanding Reviewer has received a certificate in recognition of their significant contribution.

Dr Rok Borstnar Laboratory for Genotoxicity, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6786-5434
Dr S. Girish Kumar CMR University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-9132-1202
Dr Prasat Kittakoop Chulabhorn Research Institute, ORCiD: 0000-0002-5210-3162
Prof. Chunping Yang Hunan University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3987-2722
Dr Paul Trippier Texas Tech University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-4947-5782
Dr Jicong Cao Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ORCiD: 0000-0002-5253-3365
Professor Jiaguo Yu Wuhan University of Technology, ORCiD: 0000-0002-0612-8633
Dr Nicholas Geitner Duke University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-4313-372X
Dr Yang Zhang Arizona State University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6208-9392
Prof. Junsong Wang Nanjing University of Science and Technology, ORCiD: 0000-0002-8935-4969
Dr Z. Pinar Gumus Ege University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-3192-0614
Dr Luis Simon University of Salamanca, ORCiD: 0000-0002-3781-0803
Dr Zhijie Ma University of Colorado Boulder, ORCiD: 0000-0002-0734-1903
Prof. Lingxin Chen Chinese Academy of Sciences, ORCiD: 0000-0002-3764-3515
Dr Hu Li Guizhou University, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3604-9271
Dr Serap Evran Ege University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-6676-4888
Dr Mark Waterland Massey University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-8493-9407
Dr Bhupesh Goyal Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology
Professor Sabyasachi Sarkar Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, ORCiD: 0000-0002-8954-4375
Dr Yoshio Inagaki ORCiD: 0000-0001-6397-1822
Dr Shuyu Fang University of Wisconsin Madison, ORCiD: 0000-0003-0417-0093 
Dr Daniel O’Donovan AstraZeneca PLC, ORCiD: 0000-0002-8400-2198
Dr Nghia Truong Phuoc Monash University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-9900-2644
Dr Jiang Yang Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ORCiD: 0000-0001-5934-1537
Dr Bandish Kapadia University of Maryland School of Medicine
Prof. Huacheng Zhang Xi’an Jiaotong University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-1716-5763
Dr Rafael Vargas-Bernal Higher Technological Institute of Irapuato, ORCiD: 0000-0003-4865-4575
Prof. David Thompson Sam Houston State University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-2934-5729
Dr Zhuang Jin Baylor College of Medicine
Dr Prokopios Georgopanos Helmholtz Centre Geesthacht, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6394-0628
Dr Leo Small Sandia National Laboratories, ORCiD: 0000-0003-0404-6287
Dr Stoyan Karakashev Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski
Miss Xi Chen National University of Singapore, ORCiD: 0000-0002-8096-1455
Prof. Stanislaw Slomkowski Center of Molecular and Macromolecular Studies, ORCiD: 0000-0003-1543-535X
Dr Kangbing Wu Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Dr Maria Timofeeva Novosibirsk State Technichal University
Dr Chandra Sekhar Vasam Telangana University, ORCiD: 0000-0002-5403-7891
Dr María Báez University of Chile, ORCiD: 0000-0003-0312-7237
Dr Wujun Fu Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Dr Ashootosh Ambade CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory, ORCiD: 0000-0003-3605-5719
Prof. Abdullah Al-Mayouf King Saud University, ORCiD: 0000-0001-9246-7684
Ms Beatriz Jurado Sánchez University of Alcalá, ORCiD: 0000-0002-6584-1949
Dr Satyajit Shukla National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology CSIR

 

Thank you to the RSC Advances board and our community for their continued support of the journal, as authors, reviewers and readers.

If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, just email us with details of your research interests and an up-to-date CV or résumé.  You can find more details in our author and reviewer resource centre

Follow us on Twitter to keep informed!

RSC Advances Royal Society of Chemistry

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)