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 Mariateresa Giustiniano, Professor Malcolm Halcrow, Professor Marina Petrukhina and Professor Ken Tanaka. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano, University of Naples Federico II. Mariateresa’s research interests involve the development of green multicomponent synthetic methods mainly involving isocyanides, the study of their reactivities in visible light promoted reactions, and their application to identify new anticancer therapeutics.

Professor Malcolm Halcrow, University of Leeds. Malcolm is interested in switchable metal complexes and materials derived from them. Crystal engineering of spin-crossover compounds is a particular focus.

Professor Marina Petrukhina, University at Albany. Professor Marina Petrukhina’s research interests span from synthetic and structural inorganic chemistry of transition metals and main group elements to coordination, organometallic and supramolecular chemistry of novel curved and twisted molecular nanographenes with different carbon frameworks.

Professor Ken Tanaka, Tokyo Institute of Technology. Tanaka’s research is focused on the development of novel transition metal catalysts and synthetic organic reactions and their application to the construction of beautiful novel structures.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Ken Tanaka: Peer review is part of my service to the community, and I hope it helps to improve the quality of the papers. I, myself, have received many useful suggestions from reviewers and have been able to improve the quality of my papers.

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

Professor Marina Petrukhina: I look for a full package: new and exciting results, solid justification, great scientific storytelling, quality illustrations, and broad outcomes…Adding some edge to the discussion of results which could stimulate further thinking and open new research directions is always a plus!

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

Professor Malcolm Halcrow: If you set out an interesting problem in the Introduction, make sure your results address that goal logically and thoroughly. Present your work clearly, so the reader doesn’t have to work hard to see the experiments worked as you describe.

Are there any steps that reviewers can undertake to improve the quality of their review?

Professor Malcolm Halcrow: Look at the prior literature, to see if the authors have put their work properly in context. Look beyond errors in the text or the details, if the underlying concept is original and interesting. Where criticism is necessary, make sure it’s constructive.

How has your approach to peer reviewing changed over time?

Professor Marina Petrukhina: I try to allocate sufficient time to act as a critical scientific reviewer first and then switch and read/refine my review from the author perspective; the stepped approach helps to make sure that all recommendations are constructive and useful for the authors.

What do you most enjoy about reviewing?

Professor Ken Tanaka: Peer review gives me first-hand access to the world’s most cutting-edge research.

Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano: Reviewing a manuscript makes you one of the first people to read about a new discovery. That’s exciting but also a great responsibility. I most enjoy trying to understand the story behind the new findings, how the authors reasoned to get there, how hard, and how long it was. I have a deep respect for the time and the efforts of the human beings behind the authors’ names.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano: Reviewing helps you to never stop learning!

Check 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 Elisabeth Prince, Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel, Dr Manuel Nappi and Professor John Murphy. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Elisabeth Prince, University of Waterloo. In Dr Elisabeth Prince’s lab, they study the interplay between the architecture of polymer networks and their functional properties. They leverage their knowledge to improve the recyclability of polymer networks and to create biomimetic hydrogels for healthcare.

Dr Manuel Nappi, University of Santiago de Compostela. Dr Manuel Nappi’s group is dedicated to the invention of new sustainable chemical transformations at the interface of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and material science. Currently, they are working on the metal-free conversion of simple organic feedstocks into valuable molecules using visible light.

Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel, Ruhr-Universität Bochum. Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel’s group focuses on the development of electrochemical processes for water splitting, CO₂ reduction, and bio- as well as organoelectrochemical processes, spanning from catalyst development to establishing pilot plant systems.

Professor John Murphy, University of Strathclyde. Professor John Murphy is interested in organic reaction mechanisms and particularly those related to radicals and radical ions.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Elisabeth Prince: Reviewing is important service to the scientific community, and it’s always more enjoyable to do that service when the articles are at the cutting edge. The articles I’ve read and reviewed in Chemical Science have been interdisciplinary, innovative, and very engaging, which makes my job as the reviewer fun.

Dr Manuel Nappi: Chemical Science is the flagship journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry, publishing cutting-edge science. As reviewer and author, I am happy and honoured to help maintain and improve this exceptional level.

Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel: I understand reviewing to be an essential part of my duty to the community. Moreover, it provides me with the opportunity to collaborate with authors, enhancing the quality of their work, and it also helps me develop the skills needed to write excellent research papers from different perspectives.

Professor John Murphy: The relevance of the papers to my interests and the quality of papers published by the journal.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor John Murphy: The ability to see the very latest advances and, hopefully, to provide helpful feedback to the authors.

Dr Elisabeth Prince: I love seeing my feedback improve the quality of an article, whether it be by improving how its communicated or by clarifying the results. It’s very rewarding to help make the author’s work shine. 

Dr Manuel Nappi: The most exciting part of reviewing for Chemical Science is the opportunity to read groundbreaking science before publication and contribute for its improvement.

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

Dr Manuel Nappi: Originality and novelty are the keystones for a publication in Chemical Science. The authors should clearly explain how the chemistry differs from the state of the art, highlighting the innovative aspects of their work.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Dr Elisabeth Prince: Reviewing reminds me to think like a reviewer when writing my own papers. I always try to take a step back from my paper and think about what I would bring up as the reviewer.

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

Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel: Ensure that your scientific work presents robust evidence through well-reproducible experiments, while maintaining an easy-to-follow narrative that showcases your enthusiasm without exaggerating the significance of your findings.

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 Sascha Feldmann, Professor Scott Cockroft, Dr Xiyue Zhang and Professor Chuan He. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Sascha Feldmann, Harvard University. Dr Sascha Feldmann’s team combines ultrafast magneto-optical spectroscopy and materials chemistry to transform the way we produce and consume energy as a society. They work on uncovering the design rules which enable the next generation of cheap, efficient and flexible solar cells & ultra-bright displays, and unlock entirely new applications in quantum information technology.

Professor Scott Cockroft, University of Edinburgh. Professor Scott Cockroft’s group uses synthetic molecules and computational chemistry to study the origins and energetics of the interactions between molecules that make them stick together (or not!). They seek to exploit these chemical principles to construct devices from synthetic and biological molecules that can perform tasks within lipid membranes such as those surrounding living cells.

Dr Xiyue Zhang, University of Maryland. Dr Xiyue Zhang’s research mainly focuses on electrolytes and electrodes for Li-/Na-/Zn- ion batteries and supercapacitors.

Professor Chuan He, Southern University of Science and Technology. Professor Chuan He’s research is focused on chiral organosilicon and chiral organoboron chemistry. They are particularly interested in the construction and application of silicon-stereogenic silanes and boron-stereogenic compounds.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Dr Sascha Feldmann: I really enjoy that reviewing a paper actually forces me to read a paper from beginning to end, thoroughly and with a critical assessment mode activated. This to be is quite different from just skimming through some published reports to search for a specific piece of information and more often than not allows me to learn something new and unexpected.

Professor Scott Cockroft: The chance to be the first to read cutting-edge research on a topic of close personal interest.

Dr Xiyue Zhang: It’s happy to get in touch with the advanced level of research in the world and see the quality of the manuscript improved through the review process.

Professor Chuan He: It is always exciting to get first-hand information on the new and cutting-edge science from reviewing.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Sascha Feldmann: Chemical Science for me is one of the flagship journals to find cutting edge results in the broad field of the Chemical Sciences, from fundamental synthesis reports to spectroscopy studies and device applications. Having done my PhD at Cambridge and therefore growing up with the RSC as a premier publisher in the UK, it feels only natural to now be part of the reviewing process as well.

Professor Scott Cockroft: Peer reviewing is a cornerstone of academic integrity within science. It is therefore a duty that anyone contributing to science should fulfil. I tend to agree to review articles when I am particularly interested in the topic of the submitted paper.

Dr Xiyue Zhang: Chemical Science is dedicated to publishing ground-breaking research involving novel ideas, challenging questions and progressive thinking. Review is not only a way for me to serve the community, but also a way to connect with other world leading scientists and contribute to future breakthrough.

Professor Chuan He: Chemical Science is a high-quality journal that publishes world-leading interdisciplinary research from every aspect of chemistry.

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

Dr Sascha Feldmann: A paper that I would recommend for acceptance in Chem Sci should above all have novelty. There are other fantastic journals inside and outside the RSC where I would find a good home for a thorough follow-up investigation on an existing project, but Chem Sci I would reserve more for those new out-of-the-box type of results to share with a broad community.

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

Professor Scott Cockroft: Take your reader on journey of discovery. Propose hypotheses and systematically and critically test these hypotheses against your data. The result should be that we all arrive at the same convincing conclusion.

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

Dr Xiyue Zhang: Novel ideas, rigorous logic, and solid data.

Professor Chuan He: The author should ensure that the manuscript is well-written, logical, and follows the journal’s guidelines. Highlighting the key novelty of the work, and preparing elegant and clear figures are important. Carefully and thoroughly addressing any comments provided by the reviewers and editors during the peer review process is also crucial.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Dr Sascha Feldmann: If I had to limit myself to one thing I really have started to appreciate since beginning to review, it is that clarity in writing is of utmost importance. Even if I may qualify as an expert reader and therefore have been chosen as a reviewer, my access to a scientific story will always be much more limited than that of the group who wrote the manuscript and is therefore in a deep dive that is hard to reach. Therefore, explaining your results in a simple way and with a clear writing style is something I learned myself from reviewing and try to apply to my own works as much as possible.

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

Professor Scott Cockroft: Make sure you leave enough time to properly read and understand the paper; there is nothing more frustrating than having to respond to reviewer comments that are already addressed in the paper, or based on wild misunderstandings/poor comprehension.

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Dr Xiyue Zhang: Try to avoid procrastinating on either reviewing or other tasks. It’s essential to find a balance between productivity and relaxation.

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

Professor Chuan He: I do believe reviewing for Chemical Science provides me with valuable perspectives and experiences that shape my approach and enhance the quality of my own publication within the same journal. Putting yourself in the shoes of a reviewer is always helpful when you are preparing your own manuscript.

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 Meredith Borden, Dr Isabelle Landrieu, Dr Mattia Silvi and Professor Kazuaki Ishihara. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Meredith Borden, Trinity University. Dr Meredith Borden works to develop new catalytic strategies for controlling polymer synthesis with visible light, and is interested in applying ideas from small molecule catalysis to challenges in polymer science.

Dr Mattia Silvi, University of Nottingham. Dr Mattia Silvi’s research focuses on discovering new practical and sustainable methodologies for chemical synthesis. His group is currently developing novel visible-light mediated strategies to access reactivity that was previously elusive.

Dr Isabelle Landrieu, University of Lille. Dr Isabelle Landrieu is interested in the tau protein, with a focus on its phosphorylation and interactions, towards the understanding of its dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease development using approaches at the interface of biology and chemistry.

Professor Kazuaki Ishihara, Nagoya University. Professor Kazuaki Ishihara’s research is focused on the rational design of high-performance catalysts based on acid–base combination chemistry. In particular, he is interested in the catalytic use of halogen elements instead of transition metal or rare metal elements to design greener redox catalysts.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Dr Meredith Borden: Reviewing gives me an opportunity to think deeply about chemistry. I appreciate the privilege of being one of the first people who has the opportunity to engage with the new and exciting research my peers are performing.

Dr Mattia Silvi: Reviewing is an opportunity to open a scientific discussion. When you review a paper, your suggestions and recommendations become part of the work. You provide a different perspective, which may complement the vision of the authors. This may lead to a significant enhancement of the overall quality of the work. It’s great to see the positive impact of your suggestions.

Dr Isabelle Landrieu: I enjoy the critical analysis that it requires. I like to confront my report to those of other reviewers of the manuscript to improve my own skills. I appreciate when I have the ability to contribute to the quality of the published article.

Professor Kazuaki Ishihara: The review of high-quality manuscripts submitted to Chem. Sci. provides an opportunity to explore new chemistry and think deeply.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Mattia Silvi: Chemical Science aims at publishing top-quality innovations in chemistry. As a scientist working in the field, I am happy to provide my contribution to help to maintain and enhance this outstanding level.

Dr Meredith Borden: I always enjoy reading the papers published in Chemical Science because of the breadth of chemistry they highlight so I was eager to support the journal as a reviewer. 

Professor Kazuaki Ishihara: Most manuscripts submitted to Chem. Sci. are expected to be of high quality and I enjoy reading and reviewing them. I am happy to be able to review manuscripts and contribute to making them better ones.

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

Dr Isabelle Landrieu: For me a good paper is an argumentation consolidated by each presented rigorous experiment. I like the clarity of a single line of thought that develops an innovative idea with impact of the findings well-developed by the authors.

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

Dr Mattia Silvi: Originality and innovation are essential for an excellent scientific report. The first page of the paper should clearly and concisely show the originality of the paper and explain how it stands in comparison with the state-of-the-art. Images and schemes should be properly used for this purpose. Furthermore, it is fundamental that the technical aspects of the paper are well presented and correct.

Finally, probably the most valuable recommendation I can give is: discuss, discuss, discuss… Chat with your colleagues prior to submission. Let them review your draft submission. Be available to do this for them when they need it. Make sure that people reviewing your draft are honest in giving their opinion. Good science is often the result of good communication.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Dr Meredith Borden: I have learned more how to present science clearly and succinctly both in the written portions of a paper and how to create captivating figures. Reviewing has really cemented for me the idea that when writing a paper, you want to make it easy for the reader to follow through clear organization and alignment of text, figures, and references.

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!