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 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.

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 Nan-Nan Deng, Ashraf Brik, Goran Angelovski and Jiang Weng. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Nan-Nan Deng, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Nannan’s research focuses on bottom-up construction of artificial cells and their behaviors using microfluidics.

Ashraf Brik, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. My research focuses on using chemical approaches to shed light on the function of proteins—the molecules that carry most cellular tasks, studying how malfunction in their role can lead to disease development and find solutions to such defects for drug development.

Goran Angelovski, Chinese Academy of Science. My research is focused on the design, preparation, and validation of bioresponsive MRI probes that are sensitive to calcium ions or neurotransmitters. These are intended to serve as markers for the functional molecular imaging applications, particularly the neuroimaging.

Jiang Weng, Sun Yat-sen University. Jiang’s research focuses on developing efficient methods for the synthesis of functional small molecules. Currently, we are involved in the areas of asymmetric catalysis and SuFEx click chemistry, and their further application in medicinal chemistry.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Ashraf Brik: Being able to review for excellent journals is a privilege! This is because you not only being among the first people to see the emergence of great science but also being part in shaping it. With this also comes the responsibility of being very rigorous and updated of your particular research area and in science general.   

Goran Angelovski: I like observing the evolution of the manuscript from its initial version, to being published in the final form. I enjoy the exchange of arguments and a constructive communication between the reviewers and authors, even if strong criticism has been expressed.

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

Jiang Weng: I think sufficient novelty and/or significance is the most essential element for the acceptance of a manuscript. In addition, telling a science story clearly and concisely is also very important.

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

Goran Angelovski: Be critical but fair. Do not focus on the final recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript, but how you can help identifying its shortcomings, eventual flaws, or parts where it may become even better. Focus on your role as the evaluator and how/if you can help the work submitted for publication become even better, in the submitted journal or elsewhere. Always have in mind that your role is the assessment of the work under the review, not the decision making. Leave the latter part to the editor.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Nan-Nan Deng: Chemical Science is a journal that I usually glance over on-line for finding good papers in my fields.  I have read many great papers from the journal, and am glad to be a reviewer of 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? Send us your CV and a completed Reviewer Application Form to becomeareviewer@rsc.org.

Welcome to this month’s edition of Reviewer Spotlight! 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 Diego Andrada, Marina Kuimova, Sayaka Uchida and Kjell Jorner. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

	Diego Andrada, Saarland University, Germany. Diego’s search focuses on the preparation, description, and applications of main group compounds bearing exotic multiple bonds.
	Sayaka Uchida, The University of Tokyo, Japan. Sayaka’s research focuses on synthesis of porous ionic crystals based on molecular metal-oxides with unique guest (ions/ molecules) sorption, conduction, and transformation properties.
	Marina Kuimova, Imperial College London, UK. Marina’s research interests are in understanding biologically relevant processes using different types of fluorescence imaging. Marina’s group have developed methodologies in Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging Microscopy (FLIM) to use viscosity-sensitive fluorophores, termed ‘molecular rotors’, to measure viscosity of cellular organelles and to image a clinically relevant unusual DNA conformation, termed G-quadruplex, in live cells.
	Kjell Jorner, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, and University of Toronto, Canada. Kjell uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to find new molecules and chemical reactions. Kjell’s special niche is to combine these methods with traditional computational chemistry.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Marina Kuimova: I enjoy having a ‘preview’ of exciting results before they are widely available! It’s particularly exciting to review a good paper in my direct field of expertise – my goal as a reviewer is to assist the authors in making their work better by spotting something they may have overlooked. 

Diego Andrada: I enjoy thoroughly reading high quality work as well as spending time learning/reflecting about new chemistry, and the ways to communicate it. Although a (small) contribution, the opportunity to discuss one to one with authors is priceless.

Kjell Jorner: Reviewing is a very good opportunity for me to learn about the latest and most exciting new developments in my field. It is also one of few opportunities nowadays to really read a paper in detail from start to finish and think about it deeply. The ultimate hallmark of a positive review process for me is when the manuscript is improved by collaborative effort of authors and reviewers. It is heartwarming to see authors acknowledge the contribution of reviewers when posting about their paper on Twitter.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Sayaka Uchida: Chemists usually submit their best papers to Chemical Science, and reviewers are privileged to be the first reader of those high-quality papers. Besides, I review papers because other chemists will review mine, so I also take it as a responsibility.

Marina Kuimova: I like publishing my work in Chem Sci – I believe it’s home to high quality research with a broad readership. It is a pleasure to act as a reviewer for a journal where I publish my own research, and part of our duty as authors to give something back to the community, by ensuring the journal maintains its high standards.

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

Diego Andrada: Be constructive! You might have a different opinion on the data/analysis. The importance is to clearly state your own arguments. If they turn out to be meaningful, the quality of the manuscript will definitely improve, and consequently your own way of conducting reviews will improve.

What advice would you give a first-time reviewer to maximise the chances of successful peer review?

Kjell Jorner: Employ a constructive mindset where you try to focus on the positive value of the scientific ideas and the results. One can always find problems with a paper, but there are often constructive suggestions which can resolve these problems and improve the paper. Keep a respectful and balanced tone where you also highlight the positive aspect of the paper as well as required revisions. Read the paper multiple times, at least twice and on different days. When making requests for revisions, consider the costs in terms of time and money in relation to what the value of the additions.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Sayaka Uchida: Self-reflection and critical thinking. How I should improve to write high-quality papers with novel and clear messages, logical results and discussion, neat figures, concise conclusions, etc..

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

Marina Kuimova: It is often hard to strike a balance between impact and reaching the right audience when publishing your papers. I believe Chem Sci is one of the journals that maintains this balance well, for chemical sciences research. I think Chem Sci provides a wonderful forum for multidisciplinary research in Chemistry (broadly defined!) and comes with a high impact, as a bonus. I remember the launch of Chem Sci when I was starting out as an independent group leader, and I was very happy that one of my first independent papers was published there and highlighted on the inside cover!

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

Keep up to date on Peer Review Week 2021 on Twitter by following #PeerReviewWeek21 and #IdentityInPeerReview.

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.

September 20-24 marks Peer Review Week 2021, a week that celebrates the vital role that peer review plays in upholding scientific standards globally. This year, the theme is “Identity in Peer Review”.

Chemical Science wishes to mark this week with our latest Reviewer Spotlights, a new way to highlight the hard work of our reviewers for our community over the past year and encourage further diversity in our reviewer community.

This month, we’ll be highlighting Andrew Weller, Stéphanie Bastin, Marcetta Darensbourg and Satoshi Maeda. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

	Andrew Weller, University of York, UK. Research in the Weller group is based upon synthetic organometallic chemistry and catalysis, and in particular the generation and stabilisation of transition metal complexes that have C–H, B–H and C–C bonding modes with metal centres (via agostic or sigma interactions). We are interested in the fundamentals of synthesis, bonding, structure and reactivity of these complexes, but we also have a strong focus on their use and development in challenging catalytic bond transformations, such as C–H, B–H and C–C activation.
	Stéphanie Bastin, LCC-CNRS, Université de Toulouse, France. My research work focuses on the design and development of transition metal complexes and their application in homogeneous catalysis.
	Marcetta Darensbourg, Texas A&M University, USA. The challenge of developing, and understanding, molecular catalysts containing earth abundant metals that perform similarly to the rare and expensive platinum, palladium, rhodium metals is the heart of my research.  Our synthesis program is guided by Nature’s design of enzyme active sites trapped in giant proteins that facilitate organometallic-like reactions.
	Satoshi Maeda, Hokkaido University, Japan. My study focuses on the development of automated reaction path search methods toward the discovery of unknown reaction channels based on quantum chemical calculations.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Andrew Weller: I am a great believer in learned society published journals – both in terms of quality, history but also accountability to, and support of, the chemical community. As with many top-tier journals the role of the academic associate editor in the reviewing process, who handles the manuscript, provides me with confidence that the process is overseen by someone who publishes (and reviews) regularly themselves. I think this is vital.

Satoshi Maeda: I consider it as one of my contributions to the community. I try to find and point out parts that readers may possibly have doubt due to insufficient data or ambiguous description. I believe this could be a help to improve the papers.

Marcetta Darensbourg: It is an attractive journal, which speaks to the professionalism of the editorial/production staff, and it has a good editorial board.  One can expect submissions to be sent to the appropriate, knowledgeable reviewers whose comments will be respected.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Marcetta Darensbourg: Learning! The invitation to see up to the minute research (or reviews) from others either directly in your field or near it is a privilege.

Stéphanie Bastin: I appreciate the feeling that I am contributing to the development of a field of research other than by publishing my own results.

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

Stéphanie Bastin: In my opinion, in addition to the quality of the results, an article stands out for its clear and careful presentation of the results which must be put into context by a well-constructed introduction of the research topic. In other words, on first reading one should be able to discern the major advances the article brings to the field of research in question.

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

Satoshi Maeda: It is of course important that the data and discussion adequately support the conclusions. In the case of Chemical Science, one needs to prepare a manuscript so that its impact can be conveyed even to readers who are not specialists of the authors’ field. For that, it could be a nice idea to include diagrams by which the entire concept can be understood immediately.

Andrew Weller: When you revise your manuscript look at it through the lens of a reviewer. Does it tell as story, are the diagrams clear and in the appropriate place, is it appropriately concise? Also remember that referees are not infallible – once accepted your work will be read (hopefully) by many people (and presented at group meetings). So a clear message, that has a narrative arc, and avoids unnecessary detours into results that simply do not fit the story, will be well received both by referees and then the scientific community when it is published. Less is more sometimes (I must remember that advice myself!)

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

Keep up to date on Peer Review Week 2021 on Twitter by following #PeerReviewWeek21 and #IdentityInPeerReview.

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.

At Chemical Science, we recognize the many and varied contributions our reviewer community make to the high quality of the research published in the journal. To further thank and recognise the support from our excellent community, we are delighted to introduce our new Reviewer Spotlight feature. Each month we will highlight reviewers who have provided exceptional support to the journal over the past year.

This month, we’ll be highlighting Sangwoon Yoon, Athina Anastasaki, Jeremiah Gassensmith and Yun Chen. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Sangwoon Yoon, Chung-Ang University, South Korea. Sangwoon’s work involves the controlled assembly of gold and silver nanoparticles and the study of their plasmonic properties.

Athina Anastasaki, ETH Zürich, Switzerland. Athina’s research focuses on controlled radical polymerisation for the synthesis of polymers with enhanced properties and functions.

Jeremiah Gassensmith, The University of Texas at Dallas, USA. Jeremiah studies solid state materials, like MOFs and molecular crystals, and biomaterials, such as viruses, and their interface.

Yun Chen, Nanjing Medical University, China. Yun’s research is focused on the development of mass spectrometry-based chemical mapping and quantification assays towards the molecular understanding of disease.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Sangwoon Yoon: Reviewing is just a part of my service to the community. It is also a way of communicating with other scientists. I always try to help improve the quality of manuscripts through the review process.

Jeremiah Gassensmith: I usually review papers that I would read anyway and so it’s not very surprising that the papers at Chemical Science would be at the interdisciplinary interface that I enjoy.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Athina Anastasaki: What I enjoy the most when reviewing is the unique feeling that I am the very first person who reads this exciting piece of science. And this is both an honour and a responsibility.

Yun Chen: By reviewing, I can have a chance to get in touch with the advanced level of research in the world.

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

Sangwoon Yoon: I look at all aspects – whether conclusions are supported by data, whether data are properly interpreted, whether data were acquired using the right methods, whether citations are impartially given, etc.

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

Athina Anastasaki: Cool science is always the most important thing that stands out and this can be better illustrated through good quality and self-explanatory figures.

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

Jeremiah Gassensmith: Writing papers and cooking food share an open secret—people eat first with their eyes. The figures must tell the story and it is worth every second of your time to get them polished to high art. Good scientists turn good science into art with Adobe Illustrator…the bad ones turn nonsense into science with Photoshop. Learn the difference!

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

Athina Anastasaki: Treat the authors the way you would like to be treated. As reviewers our job is not to reject papers; this is the editor’s job. Even if the paper will be eventually rejected, our job is to improve it by being respectful and providing constructive feedback.

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

Yun Chen: Yes, absolutely. Reviewing other papers reminds me not to make similar mistakes.

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Jeremiah Gassensmith: Precariously…

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.