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.