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 Kevin Huang and Professor Fei Li. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Fei Li, Xi’an Jiaotong University (China). My present research interests are development and applications of various electroanalytical methods and techniques in biomedical engineering studies, including single-cell electrochemical analysis and point-of-care testing electrochemical biosensors.

Professor Kevin Huang, University of South Carolina (USA). My research is on electrochemical materials and devices.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Fei Li: The reputation, quality and broad areas of Chemical Science. 

Professor Kevin Huang: Desire to learn and judge new advancements in basic science.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Fei Li: The most up-to-date researches and the different ways that authors tell their stories. 

Professor Kevin Huang: Learning new knowledge and getting to know the most recent developments.

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

Professor Kevin Huang: Focusing on presenting your own understanding on fundamental aspects of new discoveries.

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

Professor Fei Li: The novelty and uniqueness, the systematic and solid experiments, as well as the contribution to the corresponding research areas and even the whole chemistry 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!

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 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 Arundhati Deshmukh, Dr Zhiliang Wang and Professor Biplab Maji. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Arundhati Deshmukh, Stanford University. My current research is related to the broad family of halide perovskites. I design new derivatives of the original perovskites structures, specifically layered perovskites that can emit broadband white-light through a complex excited state landscape.

Dr Zhiliang Wang, the University of Queensland. My research focuses on materials innovation and mechanism understanding in solar energy conversion, such as photoelectrocatalysis, photocatalysis and electrocatalysis.

Professor Biplab Maji, IISER Kolkata. My research focuses on developing diverse catalytic strategies using cheap and abundant resources for environmentally benign and economically sound catalytic transformations.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Zhiliang Wang: My first paper was published in Chemical Science. The high requirement and professional peer-review impress me a lot. The paper published in this journal has a high quality. The peer-review for Chemical Science gives me a good chance to get the very first taste of some potential eye-catching researches.

Dr Arundhati Deshmukh: I have always followed the journal for its interdisciplinary showcase, it’s a great way to get acquainted with interesting work outside of your sub-discipline. So, when I received a review request and the paper looked interesting to me, I didn’t even have to think twice.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Biplab Maji: What I particularly enjoy about reviewing manuscripts is the opportunity to engage with the latest research findings and contribute to advancing knowledge in the field.

Dr Zhiliang Wang: I enjoy the comments-reply very much because it provides a channel to have a critical communication about science. It is much like a scientific argument, during which it will deepen my understanding about the research topic.

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

Professor Biplab Maji: First, ensure your work’s originality and clarity, and always try to get peer feedback from your colleagues, mentors, or collaborators before submitting your paper.

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

Dr Arundhati Deshmukh: I love seeing papers where fundamental chemistry or a chemical insight/principle is directly related to an impactful solution to current challenges or discovers a new and interesting phenomenon. Of course, it goes without saying that the work has to be sound and well-written, and the findings sufficiently substantiated.

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 Zachariah Page, Professor Selvan Demir, and Professor Vicent Moliner. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Zachariah Page, University of Texas at Austin. Dr Page’s research group uses light as an energy source to rapidly and efficiently create next generation “smart” plastics that are more mechanically robust than existing materials.

Professor Selvan Demir, Michigan State University. Professor Demir’s research has a strong emphasis on organometallic rare earth metal and actinide chemistry to develop compounds that are relevant for the design of next generation single-molecule magnets and qubits, with potential applications in high-density information storage and quantum computing.

Professor Vicent Moliner, Jaume I University. Professor Moliner’s research interests are in theoretical studies of biological processes, particularly enzyme-catalyzed processes, by means of multiscale simulations. The major lines of research in his group are devoted to the design of artificial enzymes and the design of enzyme inhibitors.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Zachariah Page: Chemical Science is a premier journal that covers a wide breadth of cutting-edge chemistry research, including within the field of polymer science that is my area of expertise. Reviewing for this journal allows me to give back to the scientific community in a meaningful way.

Professor Selvan Demir: I consider reviewing a responsible and crucial service to the research community and I strive to provide authors with useful feedback based on my expertise. Personally, I truly appreciate receiving insightful comments on my articles.

Professor Vicent Moliner: Despite it taking a lot of our time, reviewing is part of our job as members of the scientific community. By the same token, we expect our manuscripts to be reviewed in a fair and professional manner by other colleagues.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Dr Zachariah Page: It is always exciting to get a sneak peak of up and coming science before it has become publicly available, which reviewing allows for.

Professor Selvan Demir: I enjoy reading about new discoveries, extraordinary results, and inspiring concepts. Reviewing a paper allows me to delve into the new findings and thoroughly learn about them.

Professor Vicent Moliner: I always learn by reviewing high level manuscripts that are submitted to Chemical Science. In addition, the discussions established with the authors are usually debates of quality.

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

Dr Zachariah Page: The papers that stand out the most to me are those where the figures clearly tell the story and when the results (e.g., metrics) are placed into context with state-of-the-art examples, either commercial or academic.

Did reviewing for Chemical Science affect how you approached preparation of your previous publications with us?

Professor Selvan Demir: For sure. I pay more attention to the accessibility of the paper to a broad readership. This ranges from implementing a clear language to providing sufficient scientific evidence for the reported science and drawn conclusions. Chemical Science is one of the leading journals last but not least because the papers are available to many scientists around the world through the Diamond Open Access which is yet another motivation to both review for and publish in this outstanding journal.

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

Professor Vicent Moliner: A real new contribution to the field, with relevant conclusions, originality, good practice, and reproducibility of the experimental/computational part.

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 William Unsworth, Professor Kara Bren, Professor Grace Han and Professor David Harding. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr William Unsworth, University of York. Dr William Unsworth focused on the development of new method in organic synthesis, with a particular focus on ring expansion reactions, large ring synthesis, spirocycle synthesis and biocatalysis.

Professor Kara Bren, University of Rochester. Professor Kara Bren’s group is developing systems for artificial photosynthesis. In particular, we focus on creating and studying biomolecular and bioinspired fuel-forming catalysts as well as biological modules for charge transfer.

Professor Grace Han, Brandeis University. Professor Grace Han’s research centers on the interaction of light with organic molecules including photoswitches in condensed phases with the goal of promoting sustainable solar energy storage and efficient industrial chemical recycling.

Professor David Harding, Suranaree University of Technology. Professor David Harding’s research is concerned with the design and discovery of molecular magnetic switches with applications in sensing and next generation data storage.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Grace Han: First off, I enjoy reading and publishing papers in Chemical Science because of its interdisciplinary nature and strong emphasis on novelty, so I also value contributing to the review process as a member of the community.

Professor Kara Bren: When I receive a paper well within my expertise, I am motivated to provide comments that I hope will yield the best possible final publication. I appreciate it when I get constructive comments on my manuscripts from reviewers, and I hope to provide the same to others.

Professor David Harding: Chemical Science publishes insightful studies and has a great reputation for robust, but fair peer review. As it’s Diamond Open Access this really helps those of us who work in developing countries to showcase our work.

Dr William Unsworth: I do my best to review papers for as many journals as I am able, as good peer review is so important across the sciences. Also, as a long term RSC member and elected member of the RSC Organic Community Committee, I always am especially happy to be invited to review for the RSC’s flagship journal!

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Grace Han: Many times I get inspired by the cool ideas and techniques that are illustrated in the manuscripts, and I also have learned a lot by observing how professionally authors respond to the reviewers’ requests by improving the quality of their work.

Dr William Unsworth: Taking the time to read a paper in detail – something I find I have frustrating little time to do outside of reviewing. Having an early preview of exciting new results before they are published is nice too, and it can be very satisfying to see first hand the improvements made to papers as a result of the peer review process.

Professor David Harding: This might sound odd, but I’d say being helpful. I often read papers where there’s a good story there, but it’s hidden. I see it as my job to help the authors tell it, even if I end up recommending against publication in Chemical Science.

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

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

Dr William Unsworth: A good idea, that has been well executed and is well described. I also really value balance in a paper – I am far more likely to accept a paper in which the strengths AND limitations of the research are explained in a clear and open manner.

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

Professor Grace Han: I believe that a good paper tells a story that is not only technically rigorous but also inspirational to readers from various backgrounds.

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

Professor Kara Bren: My favorite papers report results that make me say, wow, how did we not think of that before? I especially appreciate work that yields important fundamental advances by taking a creative new approach.

Professor David Harding: The best papers are those that provide new directions in chemistry telling the story of the work in a clear and accessible manner. All too often authors, and reviewers, get lost in the technical details of the study, such that the key findings are lost.

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Dr William Unsworth: With difficulty – the polite reminders sent by patient editorial staff when deadlines are approaching/have been missed certainly help!

What single piece of advice would you give to someone about to write their first review?

Professor Grace Han: I would suggest keeping an open mind when reviewing science that departs from a traditional approach or method. I believe that it is an important role of reviewers to promote innovations.

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

Professor David Harding: Absolutely! I’ve found that reviewing for the journal causes me to more critically assess what I write and ask questions like “Is the data convincing? Are there other interpretations? Is this the clearest way that I can say that?”

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 Professor Haoxing Wu, Dr Jennifer Garden, Professor Kanyi Pu and Dr Patricia Rodríguez Maciá. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Haoxing Wu, Sichuan University. Professor Haoxing Wu’s research focuses on developing bioorthogonal tools and applying them to theranostic applications.

Dr Jennifer Garden, University of Edinburgh. Dr Garden’s research uses chemistry and catalysis to improve the sustainability of polymers and plastics. This ranges from investigating renewable feedstocks to making new materials, and is underpinned by the development of catalytic processes.

Professor Kanyi Pu, Nanyang Technological University. Professor Kanyi Pu’s research interests involve creating special molecular spies that give out specific signals to help doctors spot diseases early and treat them in a personalised way, tailored specifically to each patient.

Dr Patricia Rodríguez Maciá, University of Leicester. Dr Rodriguez-Macia’s group focuses on studying how energy-conversion reactions such as H₂ production and CO₂ reduction happen in nature to develop new and more efficient bioinspired catalysts and artificial metalloenzymes for sustainable chemistry.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Jennifer Garden: I very much enjoy reading articles in Chemical Science, and the review process is an excellent way to find out about cutting-edge developments in my field. Reviewing manuscripts is also a way to contribute to the chemistry community, and the review process helps me to think about the science from a different perspective.

Professor Kanyi Pu: I am motivated to review for Chemical Science because (a) it is a reputable journal known for publishing exceptional research, spanning both fundamental and applied chemistry; and (b) I wanted to contribute to the scientific community by sharing my expertise and insights in the field of chemistry.

Professor Haoxing Wu: Chemical Science is a comprehensive journal in the field of chemistry, showcasing cutting-edge research findings.

Dr Patricia Rodríguez Maciá: I believe that as a researcher of today, reviewing papers is an important duty to the scientific community. It also allows me to be up to date with the literature, and to be exposed to different scientific perspectives.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Haoxing Wu: During the review process, I not only get to stay updated on the latest research findings, but also take pleasure in witnessing the improvement in paper quality.

Professor Kanyi Pu: What I find most fulfilling in the reviewing process is the chance to explore cutting-edge research in my field and the satisfaction of contributing to the scholarly community by providing valuable feedback to enhance the quality and impact of authors’ work.

Dr Patricia Rodríguez Maciá: To be able to read and enjoy the latest scientific advances and to provide constructive feedback on the work. I particularly enjoy seeing that my feedback is implemented and helps to improve the quality of the paper. It is a truly rewarding experience!

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

Dr Jennifer Garden: In addition to good quality and innovative science, I think it is important to carefully consider what your most impactful results are, and to write the narrative in a way that emphasises their importance within the context of your work, your field and the broader chemistry community.

Dr Patricia Rodríguez Maciá: To ensure that the presented work is original and cutting edge, and very importantly, that it is a solid piece of work and well-reproducible. I find that it is key to explain your findings in a non-specific language easy-to-follow for the general chemistry audience. In this way researchers outside your immediate field can also clearly understand the work, thus reaching a wider audience/readership.

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

Professor Haoxing Wu: I look for papers that present groundbreaking discoveries in the field of chemistry while also demonstrating a systematic and rigorous approach in their research.

How has your approach to peer reviewing changed over time?

Professor Kanyi Pu: Over time, my peer review approach has evolved. Initially, I emphasised finding flaws, but now I focus on constructive feedback, balancing positives and areas for improvement. I’ve grown more empathetic toward authors, aiming to help them understand strengths and opportunities for manuscript enhancement.

What single piece of advice would you give to someone about to write their first review?

Dr Jennifer Garden: Read the paper with a focus. I try to write a summary of the paper as I read it, to think about whether the topic and level of novelty is suitable for the journal, and to consider whether the scientific evidence fully supports the claims made in the paper. When I first started, I felt a little nervous about reviewing but it gets quicker and easier with experience.

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 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!