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 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!

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 Iwona Nierengarten, Ashlee Howarth, Jonathan Goodman and Stefan Matile. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Iwona Nierengarten, CNRS and University of Strasbourg. My main research interests are concerned with supramolecular chemistry in general and with pillar[n]arenes and rotaxanes in particular. We also develop versatile scaffolds that are easy to functionalize for the construction of sophisticated nanomolecules for applications in materials science and biology.

 

Ashlee Howarth, Concordia University. The Howarth research group is focused on making new rare-earth cluster-based metal–organic frameworks for potential applications in wastewater treatment, catalysis, drug delivery, bioimaging, and sensing.

 

Jonathan Goodman, University of Cambridge. My research group is working on understanding organic chemistry better, by analysing chemical information and by calculating molecular properties. Our DP5 method enables us to get more information out of NMR spectra, our calculations help us to predict how molecules react, and our studies of toxicology tell us whether chemicals are likely to be poisonous.

 

Stefan Matile, University of Geneva. My research focuses on functional supramolecular chemistry, supramolecular systems in action, at work. The general vision is that offering different, at best new ways to get into contact on the molecular level will lead to new structures and functions that ultimately will allow us to tackle challenges in science and society that are otherwise beyond reach. Current topics of interest are systems catalysis with unorthodox interactions (anion-π interactions, chalcogen, pnictogen bonds), chemistry tools to image physical forces in living cells, and the search for new ways to enter into cells.

 

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

Ashlee Howarth: To always be kind. Remember that you are writing these reviews for real people, many of whom are trainees (it could be their first manuscript!). You can be thorough and constructive, while still being kind. Compliment aspects of the manuscript that are well-done or exciting and be constructive and reasonable with your critiques.

 

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

Jonathan Goodman: Good papers say something new that is justified by the supporting data and analysis. Very good papers help us to think about chemistry in different ways.

Ashlee Howarth: The main thing I look for when I review a manuscript is thoroughness. Are new materials fully characterized? Are all necessary control experiments performed? Are all the conclusions made supported by data? In addition, the manuscript should be well-written, clear, and easy to follow.

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Stefan Matile: I review for journals that publish my research.  For publishing, I submit mostly to journals published by chemical societies.  Chemical Science thus deserves highest respect for pioneering thoughtful publishing with regard to all aspects.  This includes outstanding editors who always send me papers to reviewers that match my interests.  I can only congratulate Chemical Science, I hope it will continue to excel and am of course more than happy to make my contribution. 

Iwona Nierengarten: Chemical Science offers to the readers the possibility to stay informed on emerging trends in science and it is great to read papers before their publication. It is also very rewarding to help authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts and thus to contribute to the high quality of the papers published by the journal.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Iwona Nierengarten: Reviewing is like discovering a first thought of the authors about their research, challenges and achievements. Writing a report offers the possibility to communicate with the authors and share with them your feelings about their work.

Stefan Matile: Reviewing is a lot of work but most enjoyable because it keeps me updated, forces me to catch up on topics different from, but close to, my own research interests – I learn so much, reviewing broadens my horizon.

 

Tune in next month to meet our next group of #ChemSciReviewers!

 

If you want to learn more about how we support our reviewers, check out our Reviewer Hub.

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Send us your CV and a completed Reviewer Application Form to becomeareviewer@rsc.org.

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 Søren Kramer, William Evans, Mi Hee Lim and Anastassia Alexandrova. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Søren Kramer, Technical University of Denmark. Søren’s research focuses on development of new methods in the fields of transition-metal catalysis, asymmetric catalysis, and photocatalysis – all with a predilection for C–H functionalization.

 

William Evans, University of California, Irvine. My group synthesizes new molecular complexes of heavy metals like the rare-earth metals, thorium, uranium, and bismuth.  The goal is to identify new phenomena in terms of oxidation states, reactivity, and physical properties that are not known with the other metals in the periodic table.

 

Mi Hee Lim, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). Our research objective is to identify how metal-involved biological networks are linked to dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease.

 

Anastassia Alexandrova, University of California, Los Angeles, and California NanoSystems Institute. Theoretical development of new physical paradigms in catalysis; quantum information science; enzymology; advancing multiscale modeling methods, and experimentally-testable materials design based on new paradigms

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Anastassia Alexandrova: Chem. Sci. is a top journal in our field, which I find exceptionally open-minded to new concepts and directions, and not locked in particular eternal sub-areas of chemistry. I very much like contributing to Chem. Sci. publishing as an author, and a reviewer, for this reason. 

Mi Hee Lim: The studies that I have reviewed are related to our research interests, and they are at a high level.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Mi Hee Lim: The studies that have been accomplished through multidisciplinary approaches

Anastassia Alexandrova:  I hope I make new science even better, and my goal is to help the authors. But the second part of it is that I get to be among the first pairs of eyes to see top new science.

Søren Kramer: It forces me to study a manuscript and supporting information very thoroughly and practice my critical thinking. In order to make sure that claims are supported, I frequently end up on detours into the literature learning something new along the way.

 

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

William Evans: Think of your audience.  It is not enough for the result to be important to you.  You must communicate why it is important to the reader.

 

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

Søren Kramer: The deciding factor is often whether there is a high level of novelty compared to existing literature and potential for significant impact on the research field. Of course, it is essential that the conclusions are solidly supported by the experimental data and appropriate literature.

 

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

William Evans: Never send your report immediately after you write it.  Always redo your report at least a day later to give it a fresh look before you send it.  Write it in a way that you would like to get a 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? Send us your CV and a completed Reviewer Application Form to becomeareviewer@rsc.org.

Chemical Science Reviewer Spotlight – April 2022

To further thank and recognise the support from our excellent reviewer community, we are highlighting reviewers who have provided exceptional support to the journal over the past year.

This month, we’ll be highlighting Neelanjana Sengupta, Tatiana Martins, David Mills and Luca Bernardi. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Neelanjana Sengupta, IISER Kolkata. Neelanjana’s group study complex biomolecular behaviour, such as protein self-assembly and aggregation, with “bottoms up” theoretical and computational approaches.

Tatiana Martins, Federal University of Goias. Tatiana develops materials based on peptides nanotubes combined to fluorescent molecules, which are able to convert energy for use in sensors and solar cells.

 

David Mills, University of Manchester. David’s group focuses on the synthesis and analysis of lanthanide and actinide compounds which can provide enhanced physicochemical properties.

 

Luca Bernardi, University of Bologna. Luca’s research is focused on asymmetric organocatalysis, and the valorisation of marine biopolymers by exploring their potential in catalysis.

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Tatiana Martins: I was caught by the excellence of the research papers that were presented to me by Chemical Science. For me, it’s really delightful to review works such as those published by this journal, because I can understand the scientific progress and discuss high quality works.

Luca Bernardi: Reviewing implies in-depth study of upcoming works, and their backgrounds, in different research areas. Due to the reputation of Chemical Science, reviewing for this journal means absorbing knowledge from significant works, often belonging to emerging research trends.

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Tatiana Martins: The perspective of contributing somehow to a better quality of great scientific work. Even anonymously, the reviewer always knows that they have an opportunity to enhance the quality of the science that will bridge other works and build something really impactful.

David Mills: I get a bit of a buzz from seeing some exciting new research before everyone else does, and also the chance to provide some feedback on a scientific output.

 

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

Neelanjana Sengupta: Novelty and the highest quality science. I have to admit a special fondness for papers that incorporate both experiments and theory.

Tatiana Martins: I look for good and clear writing, flawless research, enough experiments, thorough explanations and for the questions that rise in my mind during the reading to be answered.

David Mills: It’s important that the paper provides some new insights for the research field, and that the work is thorough.

Luca Bernardi: I like original ideas, and the disclosure of appealing and practical solutions to untapped synthetic problems.

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Neelanjana Sengupta: The experience has showcased the power of scientific communication. The best work are not just of highest quality, but are also easily comprehensible.

 

Tune in next month to meet our next group of #ChemSciReviewers!

 

If you want to learn more about how we support our reviewers, check out our Reviewer Hub.

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Send us your CV and a completed Reviewer Application Form to becomeareviewer@rsc.org.

Chemical Science Reviewer Spotlight – March 2022

To further thank and recognise the support from our excellent reviewer community, we are highlighting reviewers who have provided exceptional support to the journal over the past year.

This month, we’ll be highlighting Eric Masson, Mark Crimmin, Ru-Jia Yu and Larissa von Krbek. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and what they are looking for in a paper that can be recommended for acceptance in Chemical Science.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

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

 

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

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

 

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

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

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

 

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

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

 

Tune in next month to meet our next group of #ChemSciReviewers!

 

If you want to learn more about how we support our reviewers, check out our Reviewer Hub.

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Send us your CV and a completed Reviewer Application Form to becomeareviewer@rsc.org.