In conversation with Ryan Richards

Ryan Richards

How can researchers best frame the impact of their work to make sure its significance is recognised? What skills do today’s scientists need to develop to thrive in the decade ahead?

RSC Applied Interfaces associate editor Ryan Richards shares his thoughts on these questions and offers his advice to authors looking to grab the attention of his editorial team.

As an associate editor, what are the two or three most important qualities that make a new manuscript stand out when it first arrives on your desk? 

To begin, a good cover letter and abstract that concisely describe the importance of the manuscript and how it fits in the overall state of the art for a particular area are both really helpful. Then, looking at the conclusions, I generally look for what were the hypotheses tested and did they miss any alternative hypotheses that might explain what is observed. Thirdly, I’ll look to see if the data provided support the discussion and conclusions and how clear that is for the general reader. 

In any study ask yourselves, ‘what is the most important result?’ and ‘what audience/community will care the most?’. From there, are there clear hypotheses? How were those hypotheses tested? Does the data provided support the discussion/conclusions

RSC Applied Interfaces bridges fundamental research and real-world applications. How can researchers best present the significance in how their materials or interface work is being applied to make it more compelling to the journal's editors and readership? 

There tends to be a range. I look for those manuscripts that have some breakthrough that I think will be of importance to the readership. Sometimes that breakthrough might be something more fundamental but will be of great interest to the more applied readers and sometimes it might be the opposite. I think researchers can best present their findings by addressing both in relatively simple terms that are readily understood by the broader community. 

Beyond a single publication, what advice do you have for researchers looking to strategically build a strong publication record over the course of their career, particularly in an interdisciplinary field like interface science? 

In any study ask yourselves, ‘what is the most important result?’ and ‘what audience/community will care the most?’. From there, are there clear hypotheses? How were those hypotheses tested? Does the data provided support the discussion/conclusions? Usually, there will be a series of these studies and the team needs to figure out how to divide the findings into logical units (papers) that will be of greatest utility to the community going forward. 

How do you recommend researchers handle rejection, whether it's from a grant, a paper, or a job application? What mindset is crucial for long-term resilience? 

Rejection is tough for everyone. Try to learn from it as much as you can. It’s a major component of the peer review process that drives science. It’s not perfect but we don’t have a better system. As editors, we don’t take rejecting manuscripts lightly but understand it is a part of job. 

As a prominent voice in the field, what emerging research areas you most excited about right now? What kind of groundbreaking submissions would you love to see in RSC Applied Interfaces? 

I’m particularly interested in high entropy oxides and high entropy materials in general. On the more applied side, I’m very interested in PFAS decomposition and light driven catalysis. 

What initially drew you to work in this area of science, and what continues to inspire you? 

It has really been an evolution over many years. I have followed my curiosity and found interesting problems that had both very fundamental understanding gaps and challenges for application. 

Your editor's choice collection highlights work that you find particularly significant. Was there a paper that surprised you because it approached a known problem in a completely new or unexpected way? 

I find carbon-based catalysis very intriguing. The manuscript by Naccache and co-workers was somewhat surprising to me. 

In a world of information overload, how can a researcher best make their work visible and ensure it reaches the right audience? 

In this day and age, it seems that publishing in a journal that will reach your intended audience coupled with promotion in social media is effective. I was very pleasantly surprised with how well RSC promoted a recent article from my own group. 

Looking to the future, how do you think the way science is conducted will change in the next decade, and what skills should researchers be developing now to prepare for it? 

I have been telling my graduate students to really master how to prepare good graphics and figures that can both grab the attention of a reader but also convey a great deal of information. 

Finally, what is one piece of career advice you would offer to a researcher who is just starting out, based on your experience both as an author and as an editor? 

Spend time working with students on their writing skills (and figures). Read landmark manuscripts twice (at least), once for the science and once with real attention to how it was written (why were certain words chosen). 

Ryan Richards recommends…

As well as sharing his advice, Ryan has also handpicked some of the top catalysis research published in the first year of RSC Applied Interfaces. Start reading and discover the key to reaching your next breakthrough.

Read the collection now