How to publish a research paper in Science or Nature – part 2

Data quality and how it presents represents your research. What is the high quality in data? What is the good presentation figure? I sounds philosophical, but blaming the vagueness of the quality standard does not solve anything. When I was young and wild and free, I was thinking that the standard is mere someone's taste or opinion, not generalized things. Now I, old and experienced and disciplined, know that to have a standard is helpful, which I want to share a bit with you.

Data Quality

This is one of the areas I am most confident about. Please look at my TEM and SAXS data—these are examples I take pride in. Clean, precise data carries a kind of craftsmanship. So just like a sushi chef is in a zen state of mind and cut fish at a precise angle to make his sushi exquisite, you will adjust the sample condition of your samples.

I believe that exceptionally clean data has value on its own. Even when the novelty of the work is not very high, world-class data quality can still be persuasive, especially for high-impact journals. My favorite example is a quasicrystal single crystal that Professor Tsai at Tohoku Univ Japan fabricated. People knew the existence of quasicrystals, but Professor Tsai refined and refined the quasicrystal creation and finally he made a single crystal quasicrystal. Scientifically new? Maybe not much. However, the impact and appeal to the field are huge. Even Prof. Steinhardt highly acclaim the work in his book. 

When your data quality is maximized and your analysis is done carefully, you often notice things that have not been reported before. For me, this pattern has led to new and exciting findings many times.The opposite is also true: poor-quality data is one of the most common reasons for rejection. And personally, I simply don’t want to do research with messy data. That’s why I often say: in academia it’s “publish or perish,” so the work we do is to “polish.”

What Is “Clean Data”?

In order to take clean data, you need to understand what is noise and what is signal, and eliminate the noise thoroughly.

For TEM, for example:

• Remove stigmation completely
  (check the Live FFT every time).

• Make sure the focus is perfect, and take multiple images at different magnifications.

• Spend time searching for the best sample area.

• If necessary, take ED or EDS data to strengthen the overall dataset.

• For ED, choosing the correct area of interest is extremely important.

The goal is to collect data that is as clean and pure as possible. This requires attention, effort, and a sense of craftsmanship.

Know your enemy 

Also, it happens that some unexpected instrument trouble or software glitch cause problems. Thus, keep in mind your targeted data so that you can modify your measurement when you are doing the measurement. Sometime (or often time), it is just a stupid mistake that you can solve right away. If you are not prepared for it, you will have a consequence. e.g., You bring the data back to your laptop, which was not checked 2 hours before the group meeting and you find something is wrong in your data and you just said "something is wrong" in the meeting, which make your audience bored as hell.

Just know your enemy that you shoot. Check published papers and know what the result from your sample should look like. If something is wrong or unexpected, take a note and be mindful. If you can solve the problem right away, do it so. If you find something unexpected and interesting, chase it now. Finding something unexpected and interesting is the best fuel to drive your research well and it is the best part of science. So for you, please get prepared well.

Do extra saves your time

You satisfy the quality. Now just take one more measurements. Having two or three more, for example, TEM images does not hurt. Indeed, in many cases, it saves your time. When preparing your manuscript, more data always helpful.

Be mindful that the data will be used in the end, and what you are doing at the measurement table should be useful in the process. It is more like a personal management task, rather than science task, since measuring same data does not advance science. However, in order to make your work efficiently in the end, doing extra save your time always.

How to publish a research paper in Science or Nature – part 1

Scientists’ top impact-factor journals are Science and Nature. I myself never thought I’d have a paper published in such journals. Until I did. Bruh! Hey yo! Mic dropped.

If you’re in academia, I believe aiming for high-quality venues is a good thing. In other words, I don't think it is right if someone keeps saying “impact factor isn’t everything” and yet can only publish weak papers? I’ve seen plenty of those people, and such people who are good at making excuses nicely are also good at making fancy "brand" for their research and convince people that their research is worth investing. For me struggling to get a good position in academia, it is a bit of bullshitish. Of course I know that the impact factor isn’t everything. Saying aloud "I aim for the high impact journals" sounds like a worldly and inhumane activity possibly. Knowing such vibes in academia, it is hard to speak up to invite people to try hard to do so. But what moves forward the modern science and technology is a high quality work and it is one of the most tangible way to aim for publishing your papers in Science or Nature in my opinion.

I know I am being cocky. "complaining about never having published in Science or Nature when you never tried? That’s pathetic. " Super cocky. I am sorry. But what I wanted to say, and what I want to convince, even if my post pisses someone off, is that you can also do it 100%. The idea that “only the big names can publish in Nature or Science, you need political power, you need connections” — that’s a viewpoint with 100% harms. It’s plainly false. If you have such people around you, you might think “scientist, yet starting a baseless conspiracy theory”. Publishing in Science / Nature draws attention, and it lets you level-up in many ways. Of course, there’s some luck required, and yes, knowing an editor helps a little. But even if you exchange business cards with an editor, you may still get a “desk reject”. I’ve experienced it myself. (After publishing my papers in Nature and Science, an editor approached me (not from me, from her/him!) and she/he told me that I can reach them out or choose her/him to be the editor. I did exactly what they told me to do, and my paper got immediately rejected!) Meanwhile, when I submitted my first Nature / Science, I didn’t know any editor, our lab wasn’t large at all — yet I passed. This part is severe but fair.  

There are several topics that I want to cover, but in this post, I would mainly discuss on presentation quality. There are a certain level of quality expected from Nature or Science. The beauty of the Figures, the Intro, the Abstract text — your manuscript has to be great, good is not enough, compared to all the existing papers in the world, because they need the best papers. The simple but the most effective method is to compare your best paper (or the best paper in your research group) and see if your current manuscript is better or not. 

The cover letter, abstract, and the title are the three biggest items that determine your papers in the first round.  I believe editors only glance at a manuscript for a moment when deciding desk-reject vs. not.  More than 90% probably get immediate desk rejection in Nature or Science. So take great care with the Title. Carefully select necessary words and tickle what’s going to resonate. Another important criteria is your concept riding the current trend. Can you convincingly say you’re moving modern science forward, even a little bit? Yes — that feeling of being ahead is important. Personally, I’m the type who wants to make the title witty but my collaborators always don't appreciate it, basically saying don't be a smug by being witty. the most important thing is conciseness and readability. More than clever phrasing, you want to make it straightforwardly clear: “High-quality, important”. Apologies for the macho tone, but again, it has to be great, not just good. 

passing down techniques in the lab is harder than winning a Nobel Prize

There once was a legendary student whowas super good at synthesis of special materials. Once upon a time, there was a postdoc who made her measurements excellent and beautiful. And then if that person disappears, the project totally grinds to a complete halt. The past is past. You cannot go back to the past just like you cannot go back to the future.

The so-called inheriting techniques issue is everywhere. I’ve seen tons of cases where this becomes a problem, and I’m kinda in that spot myself to some degree. (Self-assembly research is tough on reproducibility sometimes, you know!)

I got to chat with a professor who won a Nobel Prize, and according to what I heard, they were doing this nano-crystal bio project and it was going great, but then COVID hit and people couldn’t come to the lab, so the hands-on technique inheritance got totally cut off, and the bio project came to a complete stop right there. Even with all the equipment and brains available. So yeah, that’s sad and sadly inefficient. But it is important to know that it can happen to the Nobel prize winning lab. Which mean…. Passing down techniques is harder than winning a Nobel Prize!!!, and if all the lab’s knowledge gets properly stacked up over time, that’s like, insanely impressive, you know. Lab notebooks are important, sure, but if that was all it took, we wouldn’t be struggling like this.

The problem is, I think, that the person doing the technique doesn’t even know what’s important and what’s not. That’s why it’s hard to teach.

At this point, maybe one idea is that we gotta film experiments everywhere and have AI extract stuff or something? Can’t we do something about this? As an AI-loving human, I feel like this kinda thing has gotten way easier than before.

Roughly summarize into about 30 minutes, write down what experiment it is. Then have AI summarize it, tag it, and make it easy to search later. But this sounds pretty annoying as a project? Well, maybe I’ll give it a shot anyway. Yeah, I’ll do it! Let’s go for it! For starters, I thought I’d begin with something like my own Vlog. Probably the key is good audio, so I went and bought a kinda fancy mic. Might end up being wasted money again, though! If it does. This could be the solution to the Nobel-level tough problem of technique inheritance, right! Who knows, though!

I watched the best movie ever, Secret Mall Apartment

I’ve lived in Providence, Rhode Island—the town where Brown University is—for about ten years now. There’s a fairly ordinary shopping mall here, the Providence Place Mall. This film is a documentary about how eight friends discovered a hidden gap inside the mall building and actually built a secret base there, where they lived for four years. Yes, really. It actually happened. And their secret base wasn’t just some makeshift hideout—it had a sofa, beds, furniture, electricity, etc. Since all eight were artistically inclined, the place was unnecessarily stylish, and organized. 

To cut to the chase: it was an absolutely fantastic film. Honestly, it became one of the most important films in my life. On a personal level, it was surreal to see my everyday town—Providence—portrayed so vividly. Sure, the city has plenty of issues, but the film captured the pulse of young people living and creating here, sealed tight like a vacuum-pack of life. Every street corner shown—the hospital, the Salvation Army, of course the mall—synced with my own memories. And yet, at the same time, I could see all these parallel stories that never intersected with mine but are just as much a part of this city. It made me feel that life is wonderful living in Providence and I am a member of the scene!

As a movie, the pacing was excellent—easy to follow, the story expanded naturally, and it was thrilling (well, of course, since they were secretly living inside a mall). You keep thinking, “This can’t possibly be real!” but it is. It’s one of those films I’d recommend to anyone.

The central figure—the leader of the eight—is a wildly charismatic guy. He’s quirky to say at least, sure, but extremely likable, social, and genuine. Yes, he is so real no fake. He lives by his own philosophy that art should open up new perspectives and provoke thought. You can feel the authenticity radiating from him. He made me see life from angles I had never considered before.

Then, after 90 minutes, the movie ended. I thought, “This was incredible. I have to watch the credits all the way through.” But then, to my utter shock, the actual main guy from the story appeared in the theater for a live Q&A. Can you believe that? I hadn’t been to a movie theater in a couple of years, and the first one I go back to is a jackpot experience like this. I must have some kind of luck. It made me want to keep pushing forward in life.

Here are some of the fun tidbits I learned during the Q&A (just for the record):

Q1: Why did you have so much footage in the first place?
A1: At the time, I was already doing another long-term art project in New York, which was highly improvisational. I spent about five years documenting everything, so filming constantly became second nature. When I handed all that material to Jesse (producer Jesse Eisenberg), he thought it was a goldmine for a film.

Q2: How did the other members feel about making this movie?
A2: To move forward, we needed everyone’s consent. At first, there was some resistance and tension, but the film team did a great job of persuading people.

Q3: In the film, it looked like you and your girlfriend at the time disagreed about the project’s direction. What happened afterward?
A3: With big projects like this, it’s natural for people to lose faith halfway through. But overall, the group stayed close. We worked on other projects together too.

Q4: What do you think of Providence today?
A4: I recently saw news saying Providence has some of the fastest-rising real estate values in the country. While that benefits some, it also makes life harder for those starting out with fewer resources. That bothers me.

Q5: Do you have Instagram?
A5: Yes! I’m really into it. My current goal is to reach 10,000 followers. Please check it out: @tapeart

---

Later, my lovely wife went to see the film as well and heard a different set of Q&A answers:

Q6: What was your intended “end point” for the apartment project?
A6: The plan was to fix up the sewage and flooring and then see if we could live there for a full year without ever leaving—working, earning money, everything. If we managed that, I’d call it a success and completed! (laughs)

Q7: How did you make that sewer art project shown in the film?
A7: I literally moved all my home furniture down there. My actual house was left with just a laptop. Then, for about six months, I barely spoke to anyone while completing the project

I am excited for nanocrystal plasmonics

 Lately, my personal research obsession has been all about plasmons. Part of it is because I have a paper coming out soon on this very topic, but beyond that, I strongly believe plasmonics is a field worth pursuing—both in terms of current trends and in terms of the deeper academic trajectory. And among plasmonic systems, nanocrystals in particular are poised to take center stage, which honestly makes me quietly thrilled.

Plasmons are the phenomena that emerge when metals like silver or gold are reduced to the nanoscale, where light couples strongly with the collective motion of electrons. It’s one of those classic introductions in nanoscience: when you shrink gold to the nanoscale, it turns a wine-red color; silver turns orange. This has been studied for decades, but what excites me now is the next level—when plasmonic nanoparticles come close to one another and begin to interact. They can form new hybrid bands and exhibit bizarre, collective interactions. This is often described as deep strong coupling, a regime where the boundary between light and matter effectively disappears. Such states are even being explored as potential platforms for future quantum computing.

Nanocrystals are particularly powerful for accessing this regime, and plasmons have the unique advantage of operating even at room temperature, unlike many other quantum materials. The specific mechanisms for quantum computing applications are still developing, but for now it’s enough to recognize how radically forward-looking this field is.

For someone like me, with a background in self-assembly, this feels like a genuine turning point: a case where the beautiful but often “aesthetic-only” nanocrystal superstructures might actually become socially and technologically transformative. It’s the kind of breakthrough point I’ve been waiting for. The prospect that carefully organized nanocrystal architectures could not only look elegant but also enable real functionality is deeply exciting.

So from here on, I plan to engage much more actively with plasmon- and nanocrystal-related research. I see it as one of the most promising frontiers—and perhaps even a business opportunity. If anyone out there is interested in joining forces, I would love to connect.

I am back here as a blogger yo

 I’ve always had this embarrassing habit of writing things and putting them online, only to get bored, abandon it, and repeat the cycle. It’s been ages since the last time I actively published any posts. During that time, the idea of coming back to writing kept popping up in my head, but every time I thought about it, I’d convince myself I’d run out of time, get tired of it, or just use daily busyness like picking up my son at daycare and watching Dr Stone as an excuse not to do it. Kind of like those YouTube ads that say, “Procrastination isn’t your fault.”

And yet, here I am again, as if I weren’t afraid of repeating the same mistakes as before. Hooray. My chemistry hero George whitesides had a quote saying like that a repeating same mistake is insane. I have to try let George down. Hooray.

I think the problem with putting your writing out there in public is that it inevitably comes across as some form of cringe-worthy narcissism. Like, “Hey, listen to my unique thoughts,” or “Here’s a slice of my life.” It’s a bit like a Yngwie Malmsteen guitar solo. Not that it’s intentional—it just sneaks in unconsciously. Readers may not actually perceive it that way, but the disconnect makes me lose steam and quit. Or I quit because it feels inconsistent with my own sense of integrity.

But time has passed. When I’m older then I am wiser now, more grounded, and hopefully past making such naive mistakes. Maybe. At least that’s what I tell myself as I sit down to write again.

I’m a researcher in chemistry. I’ve been in the U.S. ever since my PhD, though I did all my schooling through my master’s in Japan. Now I’m working as something like a senior researcher at a U.S. university, focusing only on research. Here, I want to write about research, nanocrystals, life in America, technology, investing, U.S. politics—things that are tough but also fun in their own way.