Chemical Science Reviewer Spotlight – April 2022
To further thank and recognise the support from our excellent reviewer community, we are highlighting reviewers who have provided exceptional support to the journal over the past year.
This month, we’ll be highlighting Neelanjana Sengupta, Tatiana Martins, David Mills and Luca Bernardi. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.
Neelanjana Sengupta, IISER Kolkata. Neelanjana’s group study complex biomolecular behaviour, such as protein self-assembly and aggregation, with “bottoms up” theoretical and computational approaches.
Tatiana Martins, Federal University of Goias. Tatiana develops materials based on peptides nanotubes combined to fluorescent molecules, which are able to convert energy for use in sensors and solar cells.
David Mills, University of Manchester. David’s group focuses on the synthesis and analysis of lanthanide and actinide compounds which can provide enhanced physicochemical properties.
Luca Bernardi, University of Bologna. Luca’s research is focused on asymmetric organocatalysis, and the valorisation of marine biopolymers by exploring their potential in catalysis.
What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?
Tatiana Martins: I was caught by the excellence of the research papers that were presented to me by Chemical Science. For me, it’s really delightful to review works such as those published by this journal, because I can understand the scientific progress and discuss high quality works.
Luca Bernardi: Reviewing implies in-depth study of upcoming works, and their backgrounds, in different research areas. Due to the reputation of Chemical Science, reviewing for this journal means absorbing knowledge from significant works, often belonging to emerging research trends.
What do you enjoy most about reviewing?
Tatiana Martins: The perspective of contributing somehow to a better quality of great scientific work. Even anonymously, the reviewer always knows that they have an opportunity to enhance the quality of the science that will bridge other works and build something really impactful.
David Mills: I get a bit of a buzz from seeing some exciting new research before everyone else does, and also the chance to provide some feedback on a scientific output.
What are you looking for in a paper that you can recommend for acceptance in Chemical Science?
Neelanjana Sengupta: Novelty and the highest quality science. I have to admit a special fondness for papers that incorporate both experiments and theory.
Tatiana Martins: I look for good and clear writing, flawless research, enough experiments, thorough explanations and for the questions that rise in my mind during the reading to be answered.
David Mills: It’s important that the paper provides some new insights for the research field, and that the work is thorough.
Luca Bernardi: I like original ideas, and the disclosure of appealing and practical solutions to untapped synthetic problems.
What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?
Neelanjana Sengupta: The experience has showcased the power of scientific communication. The best work are not just of highest quality, but are also easily comprehensible.
Tune in next month to meet our next group of #ChemSciReviewers!
If you want to learn more about how we support our reviewers, check out our Reviewer Hub.
Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Send us your CV and a completed Reviewer Application Form to becomeareviewer@rsc.org.
