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 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!

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!

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 Fiona Hatton, Bettina Lotsch, Mahesh Hariharan and Shana Sturla. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fiona Hatton, Loughborough University. Dr Hatton’s research interests are in sustainable polymer science, for example reducing single use plastic by focussing on reuse systems, facilitated by labelling of packaging. Within this theme she also researches renewable monomer synthesis and polymerisation using water-based techniques, with a focus on copolymer self-assembly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bettina Lotsch, Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research. Professor Lotsch’s research focuses on the synthesis of multifunctional materials for energy conversion and storage, including molecular frameworks (COFs and MOFs), solid-state electrolytes, and 2D materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mahesh Hariharan, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram. Professor Hariharan’s research group focuses on understanding light-matter interactions in organic molecules and biomolecules. They work towards synthesizing novel and diverse molecular architectures, and investigating the ultrafast processes through experimental and theoretical methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shana Sturla, ETH Zürich. Professor Sturla aims to understand how chemicals that are in our foods, environment or drugs influence biochemical processes. For this purpose, and to advance disease prevention and therapy, Shana develops and implements highly precise methods to track the fate of chemicals in cells.

 

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Bettina Lotsch: For me, reviewing is a service to the community, and I enjoy reviewing high quality papers with interdisciplinary content the most – like those submitted to Chemical Science 😉

Fiona Hatton: The journal is known for its excellent reputation and for reporting high quality science, so I was happy to review for the journal. My first two research papers from my PhD are published in Chem Sci so it has a special place in my publishing journey!

Shana Sturla: Chemical Science publishes excellent work in diverse and interdisciplinary areas of chemistry, and I have had a positive experience publishing in the journal. Therefore, I feel it is my obligation to also offer support to the review process for other authors.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Mahesh Hariharan: The opportunity to contribute towards enhancing the quality of research that is made available to the scientific community makes reviewing an enjoyable activity.

Bettina Lotsch: The fact that I can share my insights with colleagues through peer-review, and help to improve or refine a manuscript before it gets published.

Shana Sturla: If I can offer suggestions for authors to improve the quality of their work.

 

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

Mahesh Hariharan: When publishing in a top-tier journal like Chemical Science, it is important that the study is thorough and also curated into an interesting story that conveys its novelty. Good papers should further encourage readers to think in new directions.

 

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

Fiona Hatton: If I could offer one piece of advice it would be to make sure that any claims you make in the manuscript are substantiated by evidence, either experimentally or from literature – my biggest ‘bug bear’ is when data presented does not support the authors’ claims.  Another would be to make sure graphs/Figures can be easily read by someone not familiar with the work and are not too busy or overloaded.

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

Bettina Lotsch: I do learn from reviewing in many ways. In preparing a manuscript (for Chemical Science and generally), I try to put myself in a reviewer’s shoes and reflect on its strengths and weaknesses. “What would a reviewer say?” is a very helpful question to ask when preparing a 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 Laura Hernandez, Klaus Braagaard Møller, Claudia Blindauer and Ranjan Jana. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laura Hernandez, McGill University. Laura’s research focuses on finding and characterizing micro and nanoplastics in the environment and consumer products that directly impact humans. Due to their chemical composition and size, micro and nanoplastics are not like regular nanoparticles, thus the challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Klaus Braagaard Møller, Technical University of Denmark. Klaus uses theory and computational chemistry to unravel the course of the most basic processes in chemistry (chemical dynamics) and their signatures in ultrafast experiments, with a particular focus on vibronic and solvation dynamics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claudia Blindauer, University of Warwick. Claudia is an inorganic and analytical biochemist interested in how metal ions, in particular zinc, move around in organisms and cells, with a focus on proteins that are involved in these processes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranjan Jana, CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. Ranjan’s research involves exploring divergent, cascade C–H activation for medicinal chemistry and drug discovery, and circular CO₂ economy in organic synthesis.

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Claudia Blindauer: I am a member of the RSC, and I am publishing in and reviewing for a range of RSC journals – amongst many others. Often, I am personally known to the academic editors, which helps with invitations to review being well-targeted and manuscripts being within my area of expertise. Obviously, it is an honour to also review for the RSC’s flagship journal, and I have also published some of our best work in Chemical Science.

Klaus Braagaard Møller: Chemical Science is one of the most exciting journals covering all fields of modern chemistry and I am both honoured and happy to be able to support the journal this way. As reviewer I focus on the good story, and I believe that this is very much in line with the scope of an interdisciplinary journal.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Ranjan Jana:  Reviewing an article with a cup of tea is an exciting part of my day. It is always a learning experience to me to read starting from title to conclusion of the paper. However, I get excited the most in the concept and control experiment part. Sometimes, serendipitous observations by the authors and its execution to a logical conclusion provides extra food for my brain.

Klaus Braagaard Møller: The scientific dialog between me and the authors. It is unique to have this dialog before publication as it is open (nothing is set in stone yet) and has the common goal of improving the science and the presentation as much as possible.

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Laura Hernandez:  I have learned a lot of new science but also to be kind when reviewing someone else’s science.

 

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Claudia Blindauer: With great difficulty. Reviewing a paper takes me typically at least half a day, and I rarely have this kind of “spare” time. More often than not, I end up agreeing to too many reviewing tasks at the same time and then come to regret it, as taking the time to review in a timely fashion then either becomes impossible or stops progressing other parts of work (often my own writing of manuscripts), or both. I am not a fan of the increasing push towards faster and faster turnaround times, as this cannot be good for quality of reviewing (and hence papers) or indeed a healthy work-life balance.

 

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

Laura Hernandez: Have your lab group or team review the paper multiple times before submitting it, not only your supervisor, you would be surprised by the feedback your peers can give you.

 

How do you find that Chemical Science has contributed to your research field?

Ranjan Jana: My research group is engaged to achieve molecular diversity through cascade C-H activation for medicinal chemistry applications. After the publication of one of my articles in Chemical Science (doi.org/10.1039/D2SC01420C), we have received a global recognition and leadership for the promotion of this cutting-edge research field.

 

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

Claudia Blindauer: In general, a good paper has a coherent narrative and easy-to-understand Figures that support this narrative. The most outstanding papers are those that present novel concepts that advance the respective field and inspire new work.

 

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

Klaus Braagaard Møller: Assuming that the science is publishable: Focus on the reader. Tell a good story.

 

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 Katherine Bujold, Sabrina Conoci, Tierui Zhang and Junpei Yuasa. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katherine Bujold, McMaster University. Katherine’s research group focuses on the synthesis and development of chemically modified DNA nanostructures for biological applications. More specifically, the group is studying how backbone modifications and biocompatible ligands can facilitate the cell entry and/or cell surface of nucleic acid-based nanostructures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tierui Zhang, Technical Institute of Physics and Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Tierui’s research focuses on the discovery of novel solar-responsive nanomaterials for the sustainable conversion of resource molecules such as water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen into fuels and valuable chemicals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sabrina Conoci, University of Messina. Sabrina’s work involves the development of bio-nano-technologies for medical applications including PCR-free nucleic acids detection, cancer research and regenerative medicine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Junpei Yuasa, Tokyo University of Science. Junpei’s research interests include metal assemblies exhibiting chiroptical properties, such as circularly polarized luminescence (CPL).

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Sabrina Conoci: I was encouraged to review because Chemical Science is a top journal with cutting-edge research papers.

 

What piece of advice would you give your past self when preparing your first review?

Tierui Zhang:  I would like to suggest my past self develops his review skills by learning from excellent reviews. He should treat every manuscript with care and respect and give comments clearly, thoughtfully, and productively.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Junpei Yuasa: I am always happy to review papers from Chemical Science, because I can learn a lot of new techniques and chemistry insights from the high quality manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Tierui Zhang: By reviewing, I can catch up with the state-of-the-art works in research fields I am interested in, which is important to identify the orientation and direction of my research.

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Katherine Bujold: It is important to give clear and constructive feedback for suggested improvements to the paper. This way, the authors will have an easier time making the proposed changes to their 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 Esther Heid, Nicholas White, Sarit Agasti and Sharon Neufeldt. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Esther Heid, Technische Universität Wien. Esther’s research focuses on machine learning and heuristics to describe the properties of molecules and chemical reactions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas White, Australian National University. Nicholas’ group are focussed on supramolecular chemistry. They are particularly interested in systems that can self-assemble in water, for example cage molecules and hydrogen bonded frameworks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sarit Agasti, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR). The central theme of Sarit’s research is ‘Molecular recognition in synthetic systems. Areas of application include super-resolution imaging, sensing, and developing new approaches for delivering and activating therapeutic materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sharon Neufeldt, Montana State University. The Neufeldt lab’s research focuses on mechanistic organometallic chemistry, with a particular interest in controlling the selectivity of transition metal catalysts.

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Sharon Neufeldt: Chemical Science publishes a lot of work that is relevant to my group’s research interests, so I am generally interested in supporting this journal through peer review. Furthermore, my experience publishing in Chem. Sci. was really amazing – we received the most constructive and thorough reviewer comments I’ve ever had, which gave me a deeper appreciation of this journal’s review process.

Nicholas White: I think reviewing is an important part of the job. I submit papers and expect people to review them, so it’s only fair that I return the favour. I really like reviewing for Chemical Science in particular because most of the papers I review are high quality and interesting – they’re papers I’ll end up reading any way so it’s fun to review them.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Esther Heid: I enjoy helping researchers improve their work by providing constructive comments. Furthermore, it is exciting to read about the newest research before it is actually published.

Sarit Agasti: Besides reading science first-hand, I enjoy giving critical thinking to an experimental outcome or an unusual finding. The thing about being a reviewer is that you get to clarify your doubts directly from the authors-which is precious.

 

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

Nicholas White: Minimise the hype! Reviewers are researchers themselves and can see through it straight away. Personally, if a paper starts with two paragraphs of hyperbole about improbable applications or changing the world or “paradigm shifts,” I get pretty grumpy. I’d much rather read a paper that probes an important question, is open about its limitations and comes to valid conclusions than one that makes outlandish claims. I’d also suggest being selective with your citations, huge lists of citations just make it harder to find the really relevant prior work.

Sharon Neufeldt: It’s so important to clearly articulate why your research matters and how it represents an advance in knowledge or application. If a reviewer happens to be one of the small number of other researchers in the world working on nearly the same thing, they will immediately recognize the importance without you having to spell it out. However, it’s more likely that one or more of your reviewers will be pretty unfamiliar with the specifics of the research area and can’t easily appreciate why your work is exciting unless you make it obvious.

 

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

Esther Heid: In my opinion, high-quality manuscripts should be compelling, reproducible, and supported by data. A great piece of research might not get published if it is written poorly, has no clear message or is described insufficiently, thus constructing a compelling story is a must. A manuscript that is not reproducible due to missing information or code cannot produce a large impact on the community. Finally, a bold conclusion that is not or only partially supported by data might prove false later and hinder scientific advancement.

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Esther Heid: When writing a manuscript, I try to look at it also from the perspective of a reviewer: Is the message clear, interesting, and supported by data? Is the given information enough to reproduce all results? Through reviewing, I learned to focus on these important points.

 

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Sarit Agasti: I usually give a few thorough readings before I am ready to write the comments. I try to include the reading part within my daily schedule of reading newly published articles. Once I am prepared to write the comments, I book the earliest empty slot in my calendar and finish the review.

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!