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 Liliya Yatsunyk, Dr Hajime Kameo and Dr Amar Flood. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Liliya Yatsunyk, Swarthmore College (USA). Canonical DNA is well known as a carrier of genetic information. But non-canonical DNA structures that my lab investigates play functional roles in our bodies, regulating a variety of important biological processes, notably cancer and aging.

Dr Hajime Kameo, Osaka Prefecture University, Japan. My research focuses on contributing to the deepening of catalysis science based on the chemistry of organometallic complexes.

Dr Amar Flood, Indiana University (USA). Amar studies ion-driven assembly with an emphasis on what anions bring to the table for molecular recognition and self-assembly leading to responsive polymers and optical materials (called SMILES).

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Liliya Yatsunyk: Being a reviewer is a great privilege as it gives me a chance to glimpse into the newest research findings. It also gives me an opportunity to shape this research with my careful feedback on the submitted work.

Dr Amar Flood: The journal attracts interesting chemistry-focussed research, and so the articles are fun and enjoyable to read and review.

Dr Hajime Kameo: Chemical Science is one of my favorite journals and makes a significant contribution to the chemical community. Its high quality is indicative of a rigorous and fair peer review process. I am honored to be a part of this process.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Liliya Yatsunyk: Learning new things, helping others to improve their work, and feeling part of the great community of scientists.

Dr Amar Flood: Helping the authors (and particularly the first author) to improve the quality of the science and its communication to the community

Dr Hajime Kameo: Aside from being able to contribute to the scientific community at a high level, the most enjoyable part is the opportunity to reaffirm my interest in chemistry by reading stories of cutting-edge, outstanding chemistry.

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

Dr Hajime Kameo: The significance and value of the study are clearly demonstrated through concise text and attractive figures and tables.

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

Professor Liliya Yatsunyk: Do not stretch themselves thin with taking on too many papers to review or having other commitments. Also, as a reviewer, one needs to keep in mind that our task is not to criticize the authors or find mistakes, our task is to help authors improve their work – shape your review with that goal in mind. Focus on the big picture and major problems that you see with the review – word editing is not a reviewer’s job and it takes lots of time and potentially also detracts from delivering the useful message.

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 Satoshi Horike, Maria Contel, Stefanie Dehnen and Christopher Barner-Kowollik. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Satoshi Horike, Kyoto University. Satoshi’s research group studies hybrid glass-forming materials consisting of metals and molecules, involving solid-state ion conductors and porous solids.

Stefanie Dehnen, Philipps-University Marburg. Stefanie is interested in the synthesis, in-depth analysis and application of cluster compounds, i.e. compounds with large molecules of atomically precise composition and defined structure comprising (semi-)metal atoms.

Maria Contel, Brooklyn College, The City University of New York (CUNY). Maria’s research group is focused on developing anticancer and antimicrobial agents based on metal- compounds. They study modes of action to help optimize the design of drugs with an improved pharmacological profile. They also work on strategies to develop targeted drugs.

Christopher Barner-Kowollik, Queensland University of Technology. Christopher’s research focuses on understanding photochemical reactions via wavelength-by-wavelength reactivity assessments via so-called action plots, which drive precision photochemistry development for the design of advanced (macromolecular) photoresists for 3D laser lithography and 3D printing applications.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Stefanie Dehnen: Chemical Science is one of the most important journals for research in all areas of chemistry. It is a pleasure to review for it, as the articles are usually of high quality and report on cutting-edge research (even if not all of them actually reach the quality required for publication in Chemical Science in the end).

Christopher Barner-Kowollik: The outstanding quality of the journal and the diverse and vibrant author community, underpinned by one of the most respected learned chemical societies in the world.

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

Maria Contel: I would have a supportive senior colleague with ample experience in the field to look at the manuscript and provide feedback. I would read quite a bit, every week and keep current with the literature (within your possibilities). There are also wonderful webinars on writing scientific papers, including those from specific journals, which can be very useful for first time authors.

Satoshi Horike: In many cases, the research field is competitive and has a vast background. It is important to clearly explain how the authors find and solve the challenges that have not yet been explored in the field. The focus should not be dispersed. If the paper includes non-conventional methods on synthesis and characterization, it is eye-catching and I feel that they have provided new values.

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

Christopher Barner-Kowollik: Beautiful and carefully crafted schemes and figures, including the all-important overview scheme that should be at the end of every introduction, summarizing the idea and concept of the presented work. When reviewing a manuscript, I look at the figures first, even before reading the abstract. In my view, effective science communication starts with outstanding imagery, including the presentation of technical data such as NMR spectra.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Maria Contel: To be concise and straight forward. Less is more when it comes to writing. You also need to tell a story and should not forget to cite relevant papers in your 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!

Chemical Science Reviewer Spotlight – March 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 Eric Masson, Mark Crimmin, Ru-Jia Yu and Larissa von Krbek. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and what they are looking for in a paper that can be recommended for acceptance in Chemical Science.

Eric Masson, Ohio University. Eric’s group seeks to characterize and quantify intermolecular interactions in both organic and aqueous environments. They are particularly interested in the interactions of guest molecules with Cucurbituril hosts, a family of hollow, pumpkin-shaped macrocycles that can encapsulate guests with extreme affinity in aqueous medium.

Mark Crimmin, Imperial College London. Mark’s research team develops new types of chemical transformations and new types of catalysts. They are interested in methods to recycle and re-use environmentally persistent fluorocarbons and also developing new types of catalysts that possess an active site that contains two or more metals in proximity.

Ru-Jia Yu, Nanjing University. Ru-Jia’s research involves nanopore-based electrochemistry and direct measurement of single molecules and single cells.

Larissa von Krbek, University of Bonn. Larissa’s research looks at developing and investigating metallo-supramolecular assemblies that form via consumption of energy in the form of an electrochemical fuel or light.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Mark Crimmin: I have been publishing in, and reviewing for, Chemical Science since it started more than 10 years ago. I love the fact that Chemical Science is open access and is a venue for some of the best science from around the world. The work I receive is nearly always of direct interest and I think the editorial team do a great job assigning papers to people with relevant expertise.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Ru-Jia Yu: Critical and logical thinking skills. As a junior researcher, taking part in reviewing deepens my current scientific research, challenges me to understand different fields, and helps to shape my own academic career.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Larissa von Krbek: The deep dive into the author’s scientific work, thinking through the line of argument and the necessary controls. When do we ever take (or can take) the time to do that with a publication we are interested in? Furthermore, if necessary at all, I enjoy giving constructive feedback on how to improve the work or the presentation thereof.

Ru-Jia Yu: Communicating with authors about their cutting-edge research from different angles. It feels like I am involved in their work by deep discussion and interaction. 

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

Eric Masson: I am looking first and foremost for conceptual novelty supported by meticulously designed experiments and a very careful, critical, and concise discussion.

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.