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 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!

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 Venkat Kapil, Shina Kamerlin, Douglas Stephan and Ruth Brenk. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Venkat Kapil, University of Cambridge. I develop advanced computational methods in the domains of high-end electronic structure, statistical mechanics, and machine learning to push the accuracy and efficiency of first-principles simulations. I apply them to study molecular systems at bulk, interfaces and in nanoscale confinement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shina Kamerlin, Georgia Institute of Technology. I’m a computational biochemist, my research group uses a variety of molecular simulation approaches to understand the chemical basis for complex biological problems. We are particularly interested in understanding how new proteins evolve, and how they can be engineered to be used in biomedical and industrial applications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Douglas Stephan, University of Toronto. Our research is focused on frustrated Lewis pairs and main group Lewis acids in the activation of small molecules and derived applications in catalytic reactions and organic synthesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ruth Brenk, University of Bergen. In my group, we make use of the 3D structures of target molecules to design new ligands that have the potential to be further developed to new drugs. Currently, we work on RNA and protein targets, mainly in the field of antibiotics.

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Shina Kamerlin: I want to support the journal. As a long-time RSC member, I very much value our society, and supporting the RSC including through peer review for RSC journals is important to me. Furthermore, Chemical Science has been a great success story as a flagship journal for the RSC, publishing excellent science, as well as providing a best-practice template for what a high-quality Diamond Open Access journal could look like.

Douglas Stephan: Chem Sci is a journal focused on a broad range of exceptional chemistry where the editorial standards rank with the best in chemistry.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Venkat Kapil: I learn a lot about the latest advances in the field.

Douglas Stephan: I always learn something from reviewing a paper. It may be new techniques, new reagents, or simply new chemistry.

Ruth Brenk: I enjoy reviewing high quality science about topics that interest me. It is also fun if I can give some advice on how to improve an article, but for sure, it’s most fun if I can recommend an article for publication without any further revisions needed.

 

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

Shina Kamerlin: First of all, scientific rigor is really important to me as a reviewer. Is the work done to the highest quality standards in the author’s field? Are there any glaring technical errors that need to be addressed? Secondly, does the paper push forward the boundaries science? Are there important conceptual or methodological advances in the work? I am also mindful of the broad readership Chemical Science, and consider whether this is a manuscript that will be appreciated also by other chemists (and chemistry-adjacent scientists from other disciplines), not just those within the authors’ immediate area of expertise? Finally, a well-written paper that reads well is important, in that the paper is ideally well-structured with arguments that can be followed in a logical way, without confusing the readers, especially those that are not experts in the immediate area of the paper.

Venkat Kapil: New scientific discoveries or innovative methods that advance the state-of-the-art in the broad subject of Chemistry. In terms of the scientific methods, I set the same benchmarks that I set for myself. I also emphasize the need to provide data / code for reproducibility.

 

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

Ruth Brenk: 1) Put a lot of effort in the writing and using precise language. A reviewer is not an editing service. 2) Chose a journal in which your article fits in. Find out in which journal similar articles have been published, they are probably a good start.

 

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

Douglas Stephan: As I mentioned the standards are very high, so I would encourage authors to be thorough, in the chemistry, the writing and referencing. In addition, I would say be your own worst critic, so you can see the flaws before the referees.

 

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

Shina Kamerlin: It’s important that reviewers remember that even if they don’t necessarily know the authors personally, these are colleagues. The authors may include students as well, for some of whom this may be their first paper and experience publishing. It is important to be mindful of the fact that one is interacting with real people during the review process, and even if one disagrees with methodology or conclusions of the paper, the aim is to be constructive in conveying this information. Think about how you would feel if you were the one receiving the report you are writing, and write the kind of report you would like to receive yourself. The ideal report will highlight strengths and weaknesses of the paper, be specific when it comes to weaknesses (rather than vague or generalized comments that can be hard for the authors to improve from), and ideally provide suggestions as to how the weaknesses can be addressed and improved upon. The hoped for outcome would be that upon receiving the review, the authors receive the information they need to improve their work to the level that it is either suitable for publication in Chemical Science, or another high-quality specialist journal, as relevant.

 

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Douglas Stephan: I often use weekends or evenings as a great time for reviewing. You read something interesting and offer a constructive assessment, while trying to place the work in larger context for the editor, and at the same time trying to help the authors make an even better paper.

 

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 Bhisma Kumar Patel, Gloria Mazzone, Ting Yang and Xiaodong Michael Shi. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Bhisma Kumar Patel, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. Our group is focused on transition-metal catalyzed cascade/annulation and C-H bond functionalization. We also develop sustainable protocols employing photo and electrochemistry.

Gloria Mazzone, University of Calabria. My research is focused on the use of computational approaches in medicinal chemistry for studying the mechanism of action of drugs and rationally designing new potential therapeutic agents.

Ting Yang, Northeastern University. My research interest is focused on affinity interfaces and their applications in liquid biopsy, pathogen detection and immune-sensing.

Xiaodong Michael Shi, University of South Florida. Our research focuses on the development of new synthetic methodologies from new catalyst and reagent development.  We are particularly interested in applying 1,2,3-triazole derivatives as ligands in tuning transition metal reactivity with applications in synthesis.

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Bhisma Kumar Patel: Chemical Science is a prestigious journal published by the Royal Society of Chemistry in interdisciplinary science that always brings novel and cutting-edge research. So, it’s always a treat to read and review excellent works that keep me up-to-date with the latest trends in scientific research. The review process gives me the opportunity to improve the quality of the publication by providing constructive suggestions.

Xiaodong Michael Shi: Chemical Science is one of the highest quality journals in the field of chemical research.  It is always a great pleasure to be a reviewer for the journal where I proudly publish my own work.  In addition, the constructive communication from reviewers to me has been extremely helpful and I would like return the favor to the community as it is my honor and responsibility.

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Ting Yang: The reviewing paper is a mirror that reflects the flaws you might have when submitting your own papers, so during judging, you also learn and improve.

 

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

Gloria Mazzone: Looking at the paper with two perspectives, the first one that wants to catch the strengths of the work, the second one searching for weakness. Combining the reports deriving from the two analysis should provide a surely helpful report for the authors.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Xiaodong Michael Shi: Be the first reader of the exciting works and educate myself with the most recent discovery in the community.  This is particular true while reviewing works for top-tier journals, like Chemical Science.

Ting Yang: To help the authors to improve their manuscript together is the most enjoyable part about reviewing.

 

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

Bhisma Kumar Patel: Chemical Science always publishes high-impact results supported by properly analyzed data. The published works consist of unexploited synthetic problems that become the foundation of other positions and pave the way to build something meaningful for society. Thus, I believe that Chemical Science has greatly contributed to the field of synthetic methodology.

 

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

Gloria Mazzone: Undoubtedly to present the results in as clear as possible highlighting the novelty and strengths of the work looking to all the literature in the specific 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 Wade Petersen, Pachaiyappan Rajamalli, Shikha Dhiman and Daniel Gryko. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Wade Petersen, University of Cape Town. Dr. Petersen’s work aims to develop low-cost chemical synthesis methods for accessing biologically important heterocycles.

 

Pachaiyappan Rajamalli, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Pachaiyappan works on organic electronics, mainly focusing on the development of organic functional materials for organic light-emitting diodes.

 

Shikha Dhiman, Eindhoven University of Technology. Shikha investigates the structure-function-dynamics relationship of supramolecular polymers utilising advanced techniques such as super-resolution imaging to optimise their potential applications.

 

Daniel Gryko, Institute of Organic Chemistry – Polish Academy of Sciences. Professor Gryko is trying to discover novel functional dyes possessing better photophysical properties compared to existing ones. They could find applications in organic optoelectronics including organic light-emitting diodes.

 

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Shikha Dhiman: Chemical Science focuses on high-quality, multidisciplinary research, and reviewing is one component of my service to the scientific community in assessing and improving the quality of articles.

Daniel Gryko: The exceptionally high level of science which is published regularly in Chemical Science.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Wade Petersen: I enjoy getting a ’sneak peak’ into the latest work by the scientific community as well as playing a small part in improving the manuscript (where possible) by offering some suggestions. It is also wonderful to see authors taking on this advice in the published version of the manuscript. It certainly makes your effort worthwhile and is energising to want to review again.

 

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

Pachaiyappan Rajamalli: Your work should be unique, and good clarity in your writing will enhance the success rate. 

Daniel Gryko: First of all make sure you Conclusions section contains real conclusions rather than another rephrased version of your abstract. Secondly, the manuscript has to contain comparisons with the state of the art. This is especially true for synthetic manuscripts and papers focused on functional dyes. Last, but definitely not least, see if you can summarize the novelty in two sentences only. That truly helps with self-evaluation of the manuscript.

 

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

Shikha Dhiman: Readers are drawn in by a clear and intriguing abstract that highlights the substantial contribution made along with self-explanatory figures. Following that, the contribution, which is supported by properly conducted experiments, appropriately interpreted data, and an essential outlook for the reader, completes a good story.

 

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

Pachaiyappan Rajamalli: The report should clearly indicate your decision whether to accept or reject it. Check for the novelty of the work, if the work is novel, please give your input to improve the manuscript.

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Wade Petersen: The true value that you can add to authors in improving their work for publication. It is easy to simply say ’no’. But offering a detailed review on how the work can be improved for successful review really is a great service to the both the authors and to the community as a whole.

 

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!