Chemical Science Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

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

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

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

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bettina Lotsch: I do learn from reviewing in many ways. In preparing a manuscript (for Chemical Science and generally), I try to put myself in a reviewer’s shoes and reflect on its strengths and weaknesses. “What would a reviewer say?” is a very helpful question to ask when preparing a manuscript.

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

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

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

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

This month, we’ll be highlighting Laura Hernandez, Klaus Braagaard Møller, Claudia Blindauer and Ranjan Jana. We asked our reviewers a few questions about what they enjoy about reviewing, and their thoughts on how to provide a useful review.

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

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

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

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

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

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

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

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

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

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

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

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

How do you balance reviewing with your other activities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What encouraged you to review for Chemical Science?

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

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

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

What do you enjoy most about reviewing?

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

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

What has been your biggest learning point from reviewing?

Katherine Bujold: It is important to give clear and constructive feedback for suggested improvements to the paper. This way, the authors will have an easier time making the proposed changes to their manuscript.

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

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

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