In discussion with Ryan Richards
Ryan Richards
How can researchers frame the impact of their work so its significance is recognized? What skills will scientists need to develop to thrive in the coming decade?
RSC Applied Interfaces associate editor Ryan Richards shares his perspectives on these questions and offers guidance to authors aiming to capture the attention of his editorial team.
As an associate editor, what are the two or three key qualities that make a new manuscript stand out when it first lands on your desk?
First, a well-crafted cover letter and a concise abstract that clearly articulate the manuscript’s importance and how it fits into the current state of the art for a given area are incredibly helpful. Then, in examining the conclusions, I look for the hypotheses tested and whether any alternative hypotheses might account for the observed results. Third, I assess whether the data presented adequately support the discussion and conclusions, and whether this is accessible to a broad readership.
In any study, ask yourselves, “What is the most important result?” and “Which audience or community will care the most?” From there, are there explicit hypotheses? How were those hypotheses tested? Do the data support the discussion and conclusions?
RSC Applied Interfaces bridges fundamental research and real-world applications. How can researchers best convey the significance of how their materials or interface work is applied, so the message is more compelling to the journal’s editors and readers?
There is a spectrum of responses. I’m drawn to manuscripts that present some kind of breakthrough with clear importance to our readership. Sometimes that breakthrough is more fundamental yet highly relevant to applied readers, and other times it’s the reverse. The clearest approach is for researchers to articulate their findings in straightforward terms that a broad audience can grasp, while still capturing the underlying significance.
Beyond a single publication, what guidance do you have for researchers aiming to build a strong publication record over a career, especially in interdisciplinary fields like interface science?
As with any study, consider, “What is the most important result?” and “Who will care the most?” From there, there should be clear hypotheses and transparent methods for testing them. Do the data back the discussion and conclusions? In practice, research programs yield a sequence of studies, and teams should organize findings into logical, publishable units that maximize utility for the broader community going forward.
How should researchers handle rejection—whether it’s for a grant, a paper, or a job application—and what mindset sustains long-term resilience?
Rejection hurts, but it’s a universal part of science. Use it as a learning opportunity. Rejection is a fundamental element of the peer-review process that helps advance science. It isn’t flawless, but it’s the system we have. As editors, we don’t relish turning down manuscripts, yet we recognize it as part of the job.
As a leading voice in the field, which emerging research areas excite you most right now? What kinds of groundbreaking submissions would you love to see in RSC Applied Interfaces?
I’m especially intrigued by high-entropy oxides and, more broadly, high-entropy materials. On the applied side, I’m keen on PFAS decomposition and light-driven catalysis, areas where fresh, impactful work could push the field forward.
What first drew you to this scientific area, and what continues to inspire you?
My path has been a long evolution driven by curiosity. I’ve pursued questions with both fundamental significance and practical application, exploring problems where understanding gaps and real-world challenges intersect.
Your editor’s choice collection highlights work you find particularly meaningful. Was there a paper that surprised you by tackling a familiar problem in an unexpected or novel way?
Carbon-based catalysis captures my attention. The Naccache and colleagues paper stood out for its surprising angle on a familiar challenge.
In an era of information overload, how can a researcher maximize visibility and ensure the work reaches the intended audience?
Today, a practical strategy is to publish in a journal that reaches your target readership and to amplify the work through social media and other channels. I was pleasantly surprised by how effectively RSC promoted a recent article from my team.
Looking ahead, how do you believe scientific practice will evolve in the next ten years, and which skills should researchers cultivate now to prepare?
I’ve been advising my graduate students to master the art of presenting data visually—crafting graphics and figures that grab attention while conveying substantial information. This ability will be increasingly valuable as communication in science becomes more visually driven.
Finally, what one piece of career advice would you offer to a researcher just starting out, based on your experience as an author and editor?
Invest time in helping students develop their writing and figure design. Read landmark papers twice—once for the science itself, and once to analyze how the writing was crafted, including word choices and structure.
