Chemical Science Blog

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 Professor Kevin Huang and Professor Fei Li. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Fei Li, Xi’an Jiaotong University (China). My present research interests are development and applications of various electroanalytical methods and techniques in biomedical engineering studies, including single-cell electrochemical analysis and point-of-care testing electrochemical biosensors.

Professor Kevin Huang, University of South Carolina (USA). My research is on electrochemical materials and devices.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Fei Li: The reputation, quality and broad areas of Chemical Science. 

Professor Kevin Huang: Desire to learn and judge new advancements in basic science.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Fei Li: The most up-to-date researches and the different ways that authors tell their stories. 

Professor Kevin Huang: Learning new knowledge and getting to know the most recent developments.

Do you have any advice to our readers seeking publication in Chemical Science on what makes a good paper?

Professor Kevin Huang: Focusing on presenting your own understanding on fundamental aspects of new discoveries.

What are you looking for in a paper that you can recommend for acceptance in Chemical Science?

Professor Fei Li: The novelty and uniqueness, the systematic and solid experiments, as well as the contribution to the corresponding research areas and even the whole chemistry field.

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? Apply here now!

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 Dr Arundhati Deshmukh, Dr Zhiliang Wang and Professor Biplab Maji. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Arundhati Deshmukh, Stanford University. My current research is related to the broad family of halide perovskites. I design new derivatives of the original perovskites structures, specifically layered perovskites that can emit broadband white-light through a complex excited state landscape.

Dr Zhiliang Wang, the University of Queensland. My research focuses on materials innovation and mechanism understanding in solar energy conversion, such as photoelectrocatalysis, photocatalysis and electrocatalysis.

Professor Biplab Maji, IISER Kolkata. My research focuses on developing diverse catalytic strategies using cheap and abundant resources for environmentally benign and economically sound catalytic transformations.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Zhiliang Wang: My first paper was published in Chemical Science. The high requirement and professional peer-review impress me a lot. The paper published in this journal has a high quality. The peer-review for Chemical Science gives me a good chance to get the very first taste of some potential eye-catching researches.

Dr Arundhati Deshmukh: I have always followed the journal for its interdisciplinary showcase, it’s a great way to get acquainted with interesting work outside of your sub-discipline. So, when I received a review request and the paper looked interesting to me, I didn’t even have to think twice.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Biplab Maji: What I particularly enjoy about reviewing manuscripts is the opportunity to engage with the latest research findings and contribute to advancing knowledge in the field.

Dr Zhiliang Wang: I enjoy the comments-reply very much because it provides a channel to have a critical communication about science. It is much like a scientific argument, during which it will deepen my understanding about the research topic.

Do you have any advice to our readers seeking publication in Chemical Science on what makes a good paper?

Professor Biplab Maji: First, ensure your work’s originality and clarity, and always try to get peer feedback from your colleagues, mentors, or collaborators before submitting your paper.

What are you looking for in a paper that you can recommend for acceptance in Chemical Science?

Dr Arundhati Deshmukh: I love seeing papers where fundamental chemistry or a chemical insight/principle is directly related to an impactful solution to current challenges or discovers a new and interesting phenomenon. Of course, it goes without saying that the work has to be sound and well-written, and the findings sufficiently substantiated.

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? Apply here now!

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 Bhisma Kumar Patel, Gloria Mazzone, Ting Yang and Xiaodong Michael Shi. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Bhisma Kumar Patel, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. Our group is focused on transition-metal catalyzed cascade/annulation and C-H bond functionalization. We also develop sustainable protocols employing photo and electrochemistry.

Gloria Mazzone, University of Calabria. My research is focused on the use of computational approaches in medicinal chemistry for studying the mechanism of action of drugs and rationally designing new potential therapeutic agents.

Ting Yang, Northeastern University. My research interest is focused on affinity interfaces and their applications in liquid biopsy, pathogen detection and immune-sensing.

Xiaodong Michael Shi, University of South Florida. Our research focuses on the development of new synthetic methodologies from new catalyst and reagent development.  We are particularly interested in applying 1,2,3-triazole derivatives as ligands in tuning transition metal reactivity with applications in synthesis.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Bhisma Kumar Patel: Chemical Science is a prestigious journal published by the Royal Society of Chemistry in interdisciplinary science that always brings novel and cutting-edge research. So, it’s always a treat to read and review excellent works that keep me up-to-date with the latest trends in scientific research. The review process gives me the opportunity to improve the quality of the publication by providing constructive suggestions.

Xiaodong Michael Shi: Chemical Science is one of the highest quality journals in the field of chemical research.  It is always a great pleasure to be a reviewer for the journal where I proudly publish my own work.  In addition, the constructive communication from reviewers to me has been extremely helpful and I would like return the favor to the community as it is my honor and responsibility.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Ting Yang: The reviewing paper is a mirror that reflects the flaws you might have when submitting your own papers, so during judging, you also learn and improve.

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

Gloria Mazzone: Looking at the paper with two perspectives, the first one that wants to catch the strengths of the work, the second one searching for weakness. Combining the reports deriving from the two analysis should provide a surely helpful report for the authors.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Xiaodong Michael Shi: Be the first reader of the exciting works and educate myself with the most recent discovery in the community.  This is particular true while reviewing works for top-tier journals, like Chemical Science.

Ting Yang: To help the authors to improve their manuscript together is the most enjoyable part about reviewing.

How do you find that Chemical Science has contributed to your research field?

Bhisma Kumar Patel: Chemical Science always publishes high-impact results supported by properly analyzed data. The published works consist of unexploited synthetic problems that become the foundation of other positions and pave the way to build something meaningful for society. Thus, I believe that Chemical Science has greatly contributed to the field of synthetic methodology.

What advice would you give a first-time author looking to maximise their chances of successful peer review?

Gloria Mazzone: Undoubtedly to present the results in as clear as possible highlighting the novelty and strengths of the work looking to all the literature in the specific field.

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? Apply here now!

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 Søren Kramer, William Evans, Mi Hee Lim and Anastassia Alexandrova. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Søren Kramer, Technical University of Denmark. Søren’s research focuses on development of new methods in the fields of transition-metal catalysis, asymmetric catalysis, and photocatalysis – all with a predilection for C–H functionalization.

William Evans, University of California, Irvine. My group synthesizes new molecular complexes of heavy metals like the rare-earth metals, thorium, uranium, and bismuth.  The goal is to identify new phenomena in terms of oxidation states, reactivity, and physical properties that are not known with the other metals in the periodic table.

Mi Hee Lim, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). Our research objective is to identify how metal-involved biological networks are linked to dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease.

Anastassia Alexandrova, University of California, Los Angeles, and California NanoSystems Institute. Theoretical development of new physical paradigms in catalysis; quantum information science; enzymology; advancing multiscale modeling methods, and experimentally-testable materials design based on new paradigms

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Anastassia Alexandrova: Chem. Sci. is a top journal in our field, which I find exceptionally open-minded to new concepts and directions, and not locked in particular eternal sub-areas of chemistry. I very much like contributing to Chem. Sci. publishing as an author, and a reviewer, for this reason. 

Mi Hee Lim: The studies that I have reviewed are related to our research interests, and they are at a high level.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Mi Hee Lim: The studies that have been accomplished through multidisciplinary approaches

Anastassia Alexandrova:  I hope I make new science even better, and my goal is to help the authors. But the second part of it is that I get to be among the first pairs of eyes to see top new science.

Søren Kramer: It forces me to study a manuscript and supporting information very thoroughly and practice my critical thinking. In order to make sure that claims are supported, I frequently end up on detours into the literature learning something new along the way.

What advice would you give a first-time author looking to maximise their chances of successful peer review?

William Evans: Think of your audience.  It is not enough for the result to be important to you.  You must communicate why it is important to the reader.

What are you looking for in a paper that you can recommend for acceptance in Chemical Science?

Søren Kramer: The deciding factor is often whether there is a high level of novelty compared to existing literature and potential for significant impact on the research field. Of course, it is essential that the conclusions are solidly supported by the experimental data and appropriate literature.

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

William Evans: Never send your report immediately after you write it.  Always redo your report at least a day later to give it a fresh look before you send it.  Write it in a way that you would like to get a review.

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.