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 Rose Cersonsky, Professor Christian Heinis and Professor Bing Yang. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Rose Cersonsky, University of Wisconsin – Madison. My group uses molecular simulation and machine learning to understand and design behavior in multiscale and complex materials systems. Additionally, we strive to provide high-quality, open-source software, including the python package scikit-matter, a scikit-learn-affiliated and compatible software suite focused on machine-learning methods with additional nuance in chemical science.

Professor Christian Heinis, Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne (EPFL). My laboratory is developing new methods for the creation of cyclic peptide-based therapeutics. In recent years, we have begun to address the long-standing goal of developing target-specific peptides that are membrane-permeable and/or orally available.

Professor Bing Yang, Jilin University. Bing is engaged in the research of organic optoelectronic functional materials, such as organic electroluminescent materials, supramolecular optoelectronic functional materials, stimulus-responsive smart materials, etc.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Rose Cersonsky: Generally, I find the science within Chemical Science to be high-quality, and enjoy the topic areas it covers. I aim to be a responsible scientific steward by reviewing, as it upholds the quality and rigor of our field.

Professor Christian Heinis: Chemical Science is a top chemistry journal and manuscripts tend to report new, innovative work that is a pleasure to read.

Professor Bing Yang: Chemical Science is my favorite journal, because it does a great job in terms of scientific taste and originality, so peer review process provides me with a valuable communication platform that I greatly appreciate.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Rose Cersonsky: I treat every review as if I’m speaking to the (likely) graduate student who wrote the paper, and try to highlight the aspects of the work that were well-done or interesting, while providing constructive feedback, even in the case of rejecting a paper, to improve the study or its impact.

Professor Bing Yang: I most enjoy reviewing the manuscripts that have a major breakthroughs in terms of innovation, uniqueness and subversion, which is a feeling of meeting each other too late.

What makes a paper truly stand out for you when reviewing a paper?

Professor Christian Heinis: Papers that report answers to important scientific questions or solutions to long-standing challenges. Papers also attract my attention if the work is particularly creative or unconventional, or if the results are unexpected.

Professor Bing Yang: The most important thing for a paper that truly stands out is its scientific novelty, including new discoveries, new structures, new principles, new concepts, new functions, and new methods, which are well supported by systematic experiments and reliable theories.

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

Professor Rose Cersonsky: I look for a paper that has something unique to say in the context of chemical science, wherein the authors have done due-diligence in their scientific arguments and reporting.

Did reviewing for Chemical Science affect how you approached preparation of your recent publication with us?

Professor Bing Yang: Yes, absolutely. Reviewers can use other people’s manuscripts as a “mirror” to reflect our own strengths and weaknesses.

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Professor Christian Heinis: I commute from Bern to Lausanne and often read and review papers on the train. I then stop reviewing activities when I arrive at work or at home.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Professor Rose Cersonsky: It’s not my job to fix everything in a paper — early on in reviewing, I would write 2-3 treatises noting every typo and place of improvement. Now, I try to provide holistic reviews that focus on the points of largest concern for the author.

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 Clara García Astrain, Professor Phil Yates, Professor Jianfang Wang and Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Clara García Astrain, CIC biomaGUNE. Dr Clara García Astrain specializes in the development of polymer-based materials, with a particular focus on hydrogels designed for sensing and imaging applications, particularly within the context of 3D cell models.

Professor Phil Yates, Oregon Health & Science University. Professor Phil Yates’s research focuses on two main areas: 1) Developing genome-scale genetic screening platforms for Leishmania parasites, which cause a suite of Neglected Tropical Diseases in humans; and 2) Understanding the roles of long noncoding RNAs and RNA binding proteins in chromosome replication and stability in humans.

Professor Jianfang Wang, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Professor Jianfang Wang’s research currently focuses mainly on the use of localized surface plasmon resonance to control the light emissions of two-dimensional materials and to drive the artificial photofixation of nitrogen.

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze, Johannes Gutenberg-University. Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze’s group develops and investigates novel photoactive or luminescent metal complexes, preferably made from abundant elements. They use state-of-the-art synthesis procedures, ultrafast spectroscopy and high-level quantumchemical calculations.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Jianfang Wang: There are three main reasons. (i) Chemical Science is a decent journal. It publishes high-quality works. Many of its published papers are related to my own current research interests. (ii) The editors of the journal are very professional. They always send me manuscripts whose topics are highly relevant to my current research interests. (iii) I can learn the newest developments in the research fields that are related to my current research interest.

Professor Phil Yates: I was approached by a Chemical Science editor that was aware of my research interests to review a paper particularly congruent with my expertise. Given the excellent reputation of Chemical Science, and the fact that I routinely scan new issues to learn about cool new chemical biology tools, I was happy to serve as a reviewer.

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze: The highly interesting topics of the manuscripts and my curiosity to learn more about the latest developments in my field.

Dr Clara García Astrain: Reviewing for Chemical Science allows me to keep up to date with the latest developments not only in my field but also in other research fields and contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Reviewing also enhances my analytical and critical thinking skills, contributing to my growth as a scientist.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Jianfang Wang: I can learn the newest developments in the research fields that I am interested in.

Dr Clara García Astrain: I like contributing to the scientific community by playing a role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific literature. Reviewing also exposes me to diverse methodologies and perspectives, expanding my understanding of different approaches to research. I also find rewarding to guide authors towards improving their work.

Professor Phil Yates: I really enjoy learning about new science and taking a deep dive into a topic that is not my own research for a change. Like many researchers, I don’t necessarily have time to thoroughly digest every paper I read. However, when I’m reviewing a paper I carefully read every section (often several times), dissect every figure, and explore multiple background papers. I always learn something new as part of the review process.

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze: Personally, I like most to deeply dive into a novel aspect of research, to learn about novel results and to follow the author’s line of arguments.

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

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze: Identify a problem and then try to describe the way how the problem was solved in clear concise fashion.

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

Professor Jianfang Wang: I consider two main factors. (i) Novelty of the research work. (ii) Quality of the research work.

Dr Clara García Astrain: I prioritize assessing the novelty and significance of the work, ensuring its relevance to the Chemical Science readership. The paper should be original and contribute to the field of research. Then, I also consider the way the study was carried out in terms of methodology and the strong alignment between data and results. Lastly, clarity is a must to effectively communicate the results and their implications to the audience.

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

Professor Phil Yates: I would advise new reviewers to follow the “Reviewer’s Golden Rule”: critique others as you would like others to critique you. An important part of this, at least for me, is to try to provide constructive criticism rather than simply point out weaknesses. For example, if a conclusion made by the authors is not sufficiently supported by the data, clearly explain why not and provide examples of the types of data or experiments required. It may seem obvious, but we’ve all had vague and unhelpful reviews. Strive to be the kind of reviewer that makes papers better; don’t just look for reasons to reject a manuscript.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Dr Clara García Astrain: I think by biggest learning point from reviewing is to develop critical evaluation skills and identify strengths and weaknesses. I have also learned to improve my communication skills to provide constructive feedback to authors in a clear and supportive manner.

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Professor Jianfang Wang: I turn down manuscript review invitations from journals to which I have never submitted any manuscripts. I ask for the extension of the report due date when I am busy with my other duties.

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 Iwona Nierengarten, Ashlee Howarth, Jonathan Goodman and Stefan Matile. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Iwona Nierengarten, CNRS and University of Strasbourg. My main research interests are concerned with supramolecular chemistry in general and with pillar[n]arenes and rotaxanes in particular. We also develop versatile scaffolds that are easy to functionalize for the construction of sophisticated nanomolecules for applications in materials science and biology.

Ashlee Howarth, Concordia University. The Howarth research group is focused on making new rare-earth cluster-based metal–organic frameworks for potential applications in wastewater treatment, catalysis, drug delivery, bioimaging, and sensing.

Jonathan Goodman, University of Cambridge. My research group is working on understanding organic chemistry better, by analysing chemical information and by calculating molecular properties. Our DP5 method enables us to get more information out of NMR spectra, our calculations help us to predict how molecules react, and our studies of toxicology tell us whether chemicals are likely to be poisonous.

Stefan Matile, University of Geneva. My research focuses on functional supramolecular chemistry, supramolecular systems in action, at work. The general vision is that offering different, at best new ways to get into contact on the molecular level will lead to new structures and functions that ultimately will allow us to tackle challenges in science and society that are otherwise beyond reach. Current topics of interest are systems catalysis with unorthodox interactions (anion-π interactions, chalcogen, pnictogen bonds), chemistry tools to image physical forces in living cells, and the search for new ways to enter into cells.

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

Ashlee Howarth: To always be kind. Remember that you are writing these reviews for real people, many of whom are trainees (it could be their first manuscript!). You can be thorough and constructive, while still being kind. Compliment aspects of the manuscript that are well-done or exciting and be constructive and reasonable with your critiques.

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

Jonathan Goodman: Good papers say something new that is justified by the supporting data and analysis. Very good papers help us to think about chemistry in different ways.

Ashlee Howarth: The main thing I look for when I review a manuscript is thoroughness. Are new materials fully characterized? Are all necessary control experiments performed? Are all the conclusions made supported by data? In addition, the manuscript should be well-written, clear, and easy to follow.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Stefan Matile: I review for journals that publish my research.  For publishing, I submit mostly to journals published by chemical societies.  Chemical Science thus deserves highest respect for pioneering thoughtful publishing with regard to all aspects.  This includes outstanding editors who always send me papers to reviewers that match my interests.  I can only congratulate Chemical Science, I hope it will continue to excel and am of course more than happy to make my contribution. 

Iwona Nierengarten: Chemical Science offers to the readers the possibility to stay informed on emerging trends in science and it is great to read papers before their publication. It is also very rewarding to help authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts and thus to contribute to the high quality of the papers published by the journal.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Iwona Nierengarten: Reviewing is like discovering a first thought of the authors about their research, challenges and achievements. Writing a report offers the possibility to communicate with the authors and share with them your feelings about their work.

Stefan Matile: Reviewing is a lot of work but most enjoyable because it keeps me updated, forces me to catch up on topics different from, but close to, my own research interests – I learn so much, reviewing broadens my horizon.

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.