Chemical Science Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

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

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

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

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

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Apply here now!

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

This month, we’ll be highlighting Dr Clara García Astrain, Professor Phil Yates, Professor Jianfang Wang and Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Clara García Astrain, CIC biomaGUNE. Dr Clara García Astrain specializes in the development of polymer-based materials, with a particular focus on hydrogels designed for sensing and imaging applications, particularly within the context of 3D cell models.

Professor Phil Yates, Oregon Health & Science University. Professor Phil Yates’s research focuses on two main areas: 1) Developing genome-scale genetic screening platforms for Leishmania parasites, which cause a suite of Neglected Tropical Diseases in humans; and 2) Understanding the roles of long noncoding RNAs and RNA binding proteins in chromosome replication and stability in humans.

Professor Jianfang Wang, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Professor Jianfang Wang’s research currently focuses mainly on the use of localized surface plasmon resonance to control the light emissions of two-dimensional materials and to drive the artificial photofixation of nitrogen.

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze, Johannes Gutenberg-University. Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze’s group develops and investigates novel photoactive or luminescent metal complexes, preferably made from abundant elements. They use state-of-the-art synthesis procedures, ultrafast spectroscopy and high-level quantumchemical calculations.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Jianfang Wang: There are three main reasons. (i) Chemical Science is a decent journal. It publishes high-quality works. Many of its published papers are related to my own current research interests. (ii) The editors of the journal are very professional. They always send me manuscripts whose topics are highly relevant to my current research interests. (iii) I can learn the newest developments in the research fields that are related to my current research interest.

Professor Phil Yates: I was approached by a Chemical Science editor that was aware of my research interests to review a paper particularly congruent with my expertise. Given the excellent reputation of Chemical Science, and the fact that I routinely scan new issues to learn about cool new chemical biology tools, I was happy to serve as a reviewer.

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze: The highly interesting topics of the manuscripts and my curiosity to learn more about the latest developments in my field.

Dr Clara García Astrain: Reviewing for Chemical Science allows me to keep up to date with the latest developments not only in my field but also in other research fields and contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Reviewing also enhances my analytical and critical thinking skills, contributing to my growth as a scientist.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor Jianfang Wang: I can learn the newest developments in the research fields that I am interested in.

Dr Clara García Astrain: I like contributing to the scientific community by playing a role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific literature. Reviewing also exposes me to diverse methodologies and perspectives, expanding my understanding of different approaches to research. I also find rewarding to guide authors towards improving their work.

Professor Phil Yates: I really enjoy learning about new science and taking a deep dive into a topic that is not my own research for a change. Like many researchers, I don’t necessarily have time to thoroughly digest every paper I read. However, when I’m reviewing a paper I carefully read every section (often several times), dissect every figure, and explore multiple background papers. I always learn something new as part of the review process.

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze: Personally, I like most to deeply dive into a novel aspect of research, to learn about novel results and to follow the author’s line of arguments.

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

Prof. Dr. Katja Heinze: Identify a problem and then try to describe the way how the problem was solved in clear concise fashion.

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

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

Dr Clara García Astrain: I prioritize assessing the novelty and significance of the work, ensuring its relevance to the Chemical Science readership. The paper should be original and contribute to the field of research. Then, I also consider the way the study was carried out in terms of methodology and the strong alignment between data and results. Lastly, clarity is a must to effectively communicate the results and their implications to the audience.

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

Professor Phil Yates: I would advise new reviewers to follow the “Reviewer’s Golden Rule”: critique others as you would like others to critique you. An important part of this, at least for me, is to try to provide constructive criticism rather than simply point out weaknesses. For example, if a conclusion made by the authors is not sufficiently supported by the data, clearly explain why not and provide examples of the types of data or experiments required. It may seem obvious, but we’ve all had vague and unhelpful reviews. Strive to be the kind of reviewer that makes papers better; don’t just look for reasons to reject a manuscript.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Dr Clara García Astrain: I think by biggest learning point from reviewing is to develop critical evaluation skills and identify strengths and weaknesses. I have also learned to improve my communication skills to provide constructive feedback to authors in a clear and supportive manner.

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

Professor Jianfang Wang: I turn down manuscript review invitations from journals to which I have never submitted any manuscripts. I ask for the extension of the report due date when I am busy with my other duties.

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

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

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Apply here now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

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

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

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

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

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How has your approach to peer reviewing changed over time?

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

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

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

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

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

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Apply here now!

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

This month, we’ll be highlighting Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano, Professor Malcolm Halcrow, Professor Marina Petrukhina and Professor Ken Tanaka. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano, University of Naples Federico II. Mariateresa’s research interests involve the development of green multicomponent synthetic methods mainly involving isocyanides, the study of their reactivities in visible light promoted reactions, and their application to identify new anticancer therapeutics.

Professor Malcolm Halcrow, University of Leeds. Malcolm is interested in switchable metal complexes and materials derived from them. Crystal engineering of spin-crossover compounds is a particular focus.

Professor Marina Petrukhina, University at Albany. Professor Marina Petrukhina’s research interests span from synthetic and structural inorganic chemistry of transition metals and main group elements to coordination, organometallic and supramolecular chemistry of novel curved and twisted molecular nanographenes with different carbon frameworks.

Professor Ken Tanaka, Tokyo Institute of Technology. Tanaka’s research is focused on the development of novel transition metal catalysts and synthetic organic reactions and their application to the construction of beautiful novel structures.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Professor Ken Tanaka: Peer review is part of my service to the community, and I hope it helps to improve the quality of the papers. I, myself, have received many useful suggestions from reviewers and have been able to improve the quality of my papers.

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

Professor Marina Petrukhina: I look for a full package: new and exciting results, solid justification, great scientific storytelling, quality illustrations, and broad outcomes…Adding some edge to the discussion of results which could stimulate further thinking and open new research directions is always a plus!

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

Professor Malcolm Halcrow: If you set out an interesting problem in the Introduction, make sure your results address that goal logically and thoroughly. Present your work clearly, so the reader doesn’t have to work hard to see the experiments worked as you describe.

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

Professor Malcolm Halcrow: Look at the prior literature, to see if the authors have put their work properly in context. Look beyond errors in the text or the details, if the underlying concept is original and interesting. Where criticism is necessary, make sure it’s constructive.

How has your approach to peer reviewing changed over time?

Professor Marina Petrukhina: I try to allocate sufficient time to act as a critical scientific reviewer first and then switch and read/refine my review from the author perspective; the stepped approach helps to make sure that all recommendations are constructive and useful for the authors.

What do you most enjoy about reviewing?

Professor Ken Tanaka: Peer review gives me first-hand access to the world’s most cutting-edge research.

Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano: Reviewing a manuscript makes you one of the first people to read about a new discovery. That’s exciting but also a great responsibility. I most enjoy trying to understand the story behind the new findings, how the authors reasoned to get there, how hard, and how long it was. I have a deep respect for the time and the efforts of the human beings behind the authors’ names.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Professor Mariateresa Giustiniano: Reviewing helps you to never stop learning!

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

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

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Apply here now!

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

This month, we’ll be highlighting Dr Elisabeth Prince, Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel, Dr Manuel Nappi and Professor John Murphy. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

Dr Elisabeth Prince, University of Waterloo. In Dr Elisabeth Prince’s lab, they study the interplay between the architecture of polymer networks and their functional properties. They leverage their knowledge to improve the recyclability of polymer networks and to create biomimetic hydrogels for healthcare.

Dr Manuel Nappi, University of Santiago de Compostela. Dr Manuel Nappi’s group is dedicated to the invention of new sustainable chemical transformations at the interface of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and material science. Currently, they are working on the metal-free conversion of simple organic feedstocks into valuable molecules using visible light.

Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel, Ruhr-Universität Bochum. Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel’s group focuses on the development of electrochemical processes for water splitting, CO₂ reduction, and bio- as well as organoelectrochemical processes, spanning from catalyst development to establishing pilot plant systems.

Professor John Murphy, University of Strathclyde. Professor John Murphy is interested in organic reaction mechanisms and particularly those related to radicals and radical ions.

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

Dr Elisabeth Prince: Reviewing is important service to the scientific community, and it’s always more enjoyable to do that service when the articles are at the cutting edge. The articles I’ve read and reviewed in Chemical Science have been interdisciplinary, innovative, and very engaging, which makes my job as the reviewer fun.

Dr Manuel Nappi: Chemical Science is the flagship journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry, publishing cutting-edge science. As reviewer and author, I am happy and honoured to help maintain and improve this exceptional level.

Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel: I understand reviewing to be an essential part of my duty to the community. Moreover, it provides me with the opportunity to collaborate with authors, enhancing the quality of their work, and it also helps me develop the skills needed to write excellent research papers from different perspectives.

Professor John Murphy: The relevance of the papers to my interests and the quality of papers published by the journal.

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

Professor John Murphy: The ability to see the very latest advances and, hopefully, to provide helpful feedback to the authors.

Dr Elisabeth Prince: I love seeing my feedback improve the quality of an article, whether it be by improving how its communicated or by clarifying the results. It’s very rewarding to help make the author’s work shine. 

Dr Manuel Nappi: The most exciting part of reviewing for Chemical Science is the opportunity to read groundbreaking science before publication and contribute for its improvement.

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

Dr Manuel Nappi: Originality and novelty are the keystones for a publication in Chemical Science. The authors should clearly explain how the chemistry differs from the state of the art, highlighting the innovative aspects of their work.

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Dr Elisabeth Prince: Reviewing reminds me to think like a reviewer when writing my own papers. I always try to take a step back from my paper and think about what I would bring up as the reviewer.

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

Professor Ulf-Peter Apfel: Ensure that your scientific work presents robust evidence through well-reproducible experiments, while maintaining an easy-to-follow narrative that showcases your enthusiasm without exaggerating the significance of your findings.

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

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

Interested in joining our ever-growing reviewer community? Apply here now!