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 Wade Petersen, Pachaiyappan Rajamalli, Shikha Dhiman and Daniel Gryko. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Wade Petersen, University of Cape Town. Dr. Petersen’s work aims to develop low-cost chemical synthesis methods for accessing biologically important heterocycles.

Pachaiyappan Rajamalli, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Pachaiyappan works on organic electronics, mainly focusing on the development of organic functional materials for organic light-emitting diodes.

Shikha Dhiman, Eindhoven University of Technology. Shikha investigates the structure-function-dynamics relationship of supramolecular polymers utilising advanced techniques such as super-resolution imaging to optimise their potential applications.

Daniel Gryko, Institute of Organic Chemistry – Polish Academy of Sciences. Professor Gryko is trying to discover novel functional dyes possessing better photophysical properties compared to existing ones. They could find applications in organic optoelectronics including organic light-emitting diodes.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Shikha Dhiman: Chemical Science focuses on high-quality, multidisciplinary research, and reviewing is one component of my service to the scientific community in assessing and improving the quality of articles.

Daniel Gryko: The exceptionally high level of science which is published regularly in Chemical Science.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Wade Petersen: I enjoy getting a ’sneak peak’ into the latest work by the scientific community as well as playing a small part in improving the manuscript (where possible) by offering some suggestions. It is also wonderful to see authors taking on this advice in the published version of the manuscript. It certainly makes your effort worthwhile and is energising to want to review again.

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

Pachaiyappan Rajamalli: Your work should be unique, and good clarity in your writing will enhance the success rate. 

Daniel Gryko: First of all make sure you Conclusions section contains real conclusions rather than another rephrased version of your abstract. Secondly, the manuscript has to contain comparisons with the state of the art. This is especially true for synthetic manuscripts and papers focused on functional dyes. Last, but definitely not least, see if you can summarize the novelty in two sentences only. That truly helps with self-evaluation of the manuscript.

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

Shikha Dhiman: Readers are drawn in by a clear and intriguing abstract that highlights the substantial contribution made along with self-explanatory figures. Following that, the contribution, which is supported by properly conducted experiments, appropriately interpreted data, and an essential outlook for the reader, completes a good story.

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

Pachaiyappan Rajamalli: The report should clearly indicate your decision whether to accept or reject it. Check for the novelty of the work, if the work is novel, please give your input to improve the manuscript.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Wade Petersen: The true value that you can add to authors in improving their work for publication. It is easy to simply say ’no’. But offering a detailed review on how the work can be improved for successful review really is a great service to the both the authors and to the community as a whole.

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!

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.

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 Nan-Nan Deng, Ashraf Brik, Goran Angelovski and Jiang Weng. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Nan-Nan Deng, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Nannan’s research focuses on bottom-up construction of artificial cells and their behaviors using microfluidics.

Ashraf Brik, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. My research focuses on using chemical approaches to shed light on the function of proteins—the molecules that carry most cellular tasks, studying how malfunction in their role can lead to disease development and find solutions to such defects for drug development.

Goran Angelovski, Chinese Academy of Science. My research is focused on the design, preparation, and validation of bioresponsive MRI probes that are sensitive to calcium ions or neurotransmitters. These are intended to serve as markers for the functional molecular imaging applications, particularly the neuroimaging.

Jiang Weng, Sun Yat-sen University. Jiang’s research focuses on developing efficient methods for the synthesis of functional small molecules. Currently, we are involved in the areas of asymmetric catalysis and SuFEx click chemistry, and their further application in medicinal chemistry.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Ashraf Brik: Being able to review for excellent journals is a privilege! This is because you not only being among the first people to see the emergence of great science but also being part in shaping it. With this also comes the responsibility of being very rigorous and updated of your particular research area and in science general.   

Goran Angelovski: I like observing the evolution of the manuscript from its initial version, to being published in the final form. I enjoy the exchange of arguments and a constructive communication between the reviewers and authors, even if strong criticism has been expressed.

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

Jiang Weng: I think sufficient novelty and/or significance is the most essential element for the acceptance of a manuscript. In addition, telling a science story clearly and concisely is also very important.

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

Goran Angelovski: Be critical but fair. Do not focus on the final recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript, but how you can help identifying its shortcomings, eventual flaws, or parts where it may become even better. Focus on your role as the evaluator and how/if you can help the work submitted for publication become even better, in the submitted journal or elsewhere. Always have in mind that your role is the assessment of the work under the review, not the decision making. Leave the latter part to the editor.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Nan-Nan Deng: Chemical Science is a journal that I usually glance over on-line for finding good papers in my fields.  I have read many great papers from the journal, and am glad to be a reviewer of it.

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.