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 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!

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 Hiroshi Imahori, Professor Davide Ravelli, Dr. Andrea Fermi and Dr Ming Xian. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Hiroshi Imahori, Kyoto University. I am interested in molecular electron donor-acceptor interactions, including in energy conversion such as photosynthesis and organic solar cells.

Dr. Andrea Fermi, Università di Bologna. My research is focused on the design and synthesis of photoactive materials and supramolecular systems, and their application in optoelectronics and in photocatalytic processes.

Professor Davide Ravelli, Universita de Pavia. I work in the field of radical chemistry applied to organic synthesis and is highly interested in the development of methodologies for the functionalization of aliphatic C–H bonds under photocatalytic conditions.

Dr Ming Xian, Brown University. We are interested in developing chemical tools for the regulation of signaling molecules (such as nitric oxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfane sulfurs, etc.) in redox biology. These tools include donors, prodrugs, scavengers, and imaging sensors.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Ming Xian: Chemical Science is one of my favourite journals. I like to publish the most exciting discoveries from my lab in this journal. I enjoy seeing high quality papers and am willing to contribute to the review process.

Professor Hiroshi Imahori: It partially arises from a sense of responsibility to make Chemical Science better as a member of chemistry community. It also comes from my scientific curiosity about something new.

Professor Davide Ravelli: I enjoy reading articles published in Chemical Science, because I can find top-level reports distributed under open-access conditions; acting as a reviewer is my contribution to the further development of the journal.

Dr Andrea Fermi: Chemical Science publishes high-quality research articles that encompass a broad range of disciplines in Chemistry. What I really like about this journal is its hetereogeneity and the avarage quality of the published papers.

What do you enjoy the most about reviewing?

Dr Ming Xian: Getting to know first-hand what my peers are working on and what the most pressing problems are in my research field.

Professor Hiroshi Imahori: I enjoy finding the originality and creativity of papers in terms of science. I also enjoy confidential communication with authors through comments and responses.

Professor Davide Ravelli: As a reviewer, I have the possibility to share my viewpoint with the authors; this is essential towards improving the quality of the published science through a constructive exchange of ideas.

Dr Andrea Fermi: One thing I appreciate about reviewing is the chance to deal with cutting-edge research in many scientific fields. It also allows me to provide a constructive feedback that can help improve the quality and the impact of the research being published.

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

Professor Hiroshi Imahori: I am looking for significant scientific advance and/or improvement in either an area of chemistry. At the same time the quality of a paper is essential to ensure author’s claim.

Professor Davide Ravelli: My research area mostly deals with the development of methodologies to be applied in organic chemistry. I am convinced, however, that the synthetic aspects must be accompanied by an adequate understanding of the mechanistic features as well, since only a balanced combination of both can foster a true advancement of the field.

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

Dr Ming Xian: Find one or two papers published in this journal that you feel are most similar to your work. Draft your paper in a way that you believe is similar or even at a higher quality than those papers.

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

Dr Andrea Fermi: I think that the attention to details tells a lot about the quality of an article and is at the core of the research displayed in 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? 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 Masha Kamenetska, Sarah Pike, Lutz Ackermann and Timothy Noel. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Masha Kamenetska, Boston University. Professor Kamenetska’s lab is pursuing experimental approaches to uncover structure-function relationships in single molecule systems with a focus on charge transport and force measurements of metal-molecule junctions.

Sarah Pike, University of Birmingham. Dr Pike’s research is in the field of synthetic supramolecular chemistry and focuses on the creation of new helical oligomers (foldamers) that adopt well-defined secondary structures in solution. They are particularly interested in exploring new methods for controlling their folding behaviour and in investigating their ability to function as responsive sensors and catalysts.

Lutz Ackermann, University of Göttingen. The development and application of novel concepts for sustainable catalysis constitutes Professor Ackermann’s major current research interests. He is fascinated by molecular transformations enabled through the activation of strong (C-H) bonds and applying environmentally-benign electricity to drive chemical reactions.

Timothy Noel, University of Amsterdam. Dr Noel is a researcher in the field of synthetic organic chemistry and technology, with a particular interest in the delicate synergy between the two fields.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Sarah Pike: Chemical Science is a top tier journal, and one that I read regularly as it publishes a lot of exciting and high quality work that is relevant to my group’s research interests, so it is a real pleasure to review for this journal.

Lutz Ackermann: To me, reviewing is a valuable service to the scientific community.  By reviewing manuscripts, I can actively contribute to maintaining the integrity and quality of scientific publications. At the same time, I can sharpen my critical thinking and analytical skills.

Timothy Noel: Chemical Science stands out as a top-tier journal in the field of chemistry, and its innovative diamond open access strategy is truly unparalleled. The community should rally behind this initiative to ensure the success of this exceptional publication.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Masha Kamenetska: I enjoy the debate that occurs between the authors, myself and other reviewers in the course of a review process.

Sarah Pike: Being one of the first people to see new and cutting-edge science is exciting and occasionally being able to offer additional insight to the authors is really rewarding.

Lutz Ackermann: Reviewing manuscripts enables me to engage with the latest scientific findings. It offers an opportunity to delve into diverse topics, learn about different methods and tools.

Timothy Noel: What I enjoy most about reviewing papers for journals is the opportunity to support the best work in the field and contribute to maintaining the highest standards of quality. I take pride in providing constructive feedback that can help improve the manuscript, and ultimately enhance the value of the publication.

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

Timothy Noel: What I appreciate most in papers that get accepted is a combination of meticulous attention to detail and originality. I enjoy reviewing manuscripts that have a well-developed substrate scope, detailed mechanistic studies, and other technical aspects that have been executed with precision. At the same time, I also value papers that offer a fresh perspective or novel insights into a particular field. I find that this balance between technical excellence and innovative ideas is what makes a manuscript truly exceptional and deserving of publication.

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

Lutz Ackermann: Ensure that your research presents a novel and significant contribution to the field. Meaningful figures are becoming increasingly important also. Clearly articulate the unique aspects of your findings and explain how it advances the existing knowledge.

Masha Kamenetska: A good paper is clearly written and has a good narrative. It provides details about methods and measurements, but also provides a broader perspective on the implications of the findings.

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

Sarah Pike: In my opinion, a paper truly stands out when the science is excellent, the experiments well designed and the concept of the work is cutting-edge. Additionally, I look for thorough data analysis and good clear figures in the paper that better help the reader to understand the work.

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

Timothy Noel: My experience reviewing for Chemical Science has definitely influenced how I approach preparing manuscripts for publication. When submitting a paper to a journal, I make a real effort to adhere to the house style and ensure that our work is a good fit for the journal. I firmly believe that a successful submission requires meeting the standards of the target publication, and this includes factors such as technical rigor, clarity of presentation, and adherence to the journal’s guidelines. By reviewing for Chemical Science, I gained valuable insights into what the editors and reviewers look for in a manuscript, and this knowledge has helped me to fine-tune my approach to manuscript preparation and submission.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Masha Kamenetska: Something I have learned in the course of reviewing is that writing a thorough, well-reasoned and considered review is hard work so I am always grateful to receive careful reviews of my own work.

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

Sarah Pike: I always give a paper a quick first read to gauge its relevance and impact to the field before going over it in much greater detail ahead of writing my report. It is important to remember to be kind when engaging with the reviewing process as the authors will have put a lot of time and energy into the study. My advice is to be constructive but kind.

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!