This editorial highlights the essential role of scientific societies in representing researchers, advancing science education, influencing public policies, and promoting scientific communication. Using the Brazilian Chemical Society (SBQ) as an example, it emphasizes the importance of active membership in strengthening the scientific community and ensuring that science has a stronger voice in society.

Leia na íntegra:

https://dx.doi.org/10.21577/0103-5053.20260162

 

Throughout its history, the Brazilian Meeting on Organic Synthesis (BMOS) has accompanied the transformation of organic chemistry in Brazil and worldwide. The 20th edition of the meeting, marking the 44th anniversary of the first gathering of organic chemists in Brazil, could offer us an opportunity to revisit the history of what is the largest meeting devoted to Organic Synthesis in Brazil. However, this has been very well documented recently! In addition, we, the editors, who received our academic training between the 2000s and the early 2010s, would be limiting ourselves to telling a story in the third person.

Leia na íntegra

 

When Professor Brenno A. D. Neto, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society (JBCS), invited me to write about what this journal has meant to women in our field, I said yes before I had fully worked out what I wanted to say. The invitation came just after my defense for full professorship at the Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), on a committee of which he himself was a member. Twenty years into a life spent among molecules, models, and manuscripts, I am, if I am honest, far more practiced at describing a model or a binding pocket than at describing myself. But the invitation stayed with me, because the JBCS has, in fact, walked with me through my career at almost every stage of it, as a venue where a young researcher from Goiás State, far from the traditional São Paulo-Rio axis of Brazilian chemistry, could publish, be read, and be taken seriously on exactly the same terms as anyone else. That is not a small thing. For many of us, it has been the difference between a career and a false start.

Leia na íntegra

 

It is not our aim, in this editorial, to offer a final definition of research ethics or ethics in scientific publishing, especially at a time when we are increasingly connected and are still learning to deal with the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI). It would be unreasonable to assume that readers are unfamiliar with the stages of research or with the ethical principles that should guide scientific work. Researchers can usually explain what they study, which methods they use, and how their collaborations are organized. They also know, at least in general terms, which rules must be followed. Yet knowing these elements does not remove the questions that arise during research or, by itself, ensure that every decision will be right.

Leia na íntegra

 

Scientific communication has always been an important tool for scientists to engage in dialogue, initially within the community, but also with society. Over the years, changes have undergone, and driven by the digital age and open science, these changes have been accelerated and demanded constant updating.

Leia na íntegra

 

In recent years, omics sciences have experienced rapid global growth, and Brazil, with its increasing scientific relevance, has actively participated in this process. Among the various definitions of omics sciences, the concept of integrated approaches aiming the comprehensive and systematic characterization of different biomolecules in biological systems is particularly familiar from a chemical perspective. Understanding chemical composition enables a broad comprehension of the organization, dynamics, and interactions among molecular components, allowing the investigation of complex biological processes, environmental responses, and regulatory mechanisms at multiple levels, from cells to ecosystems.

 

Scientific journals are foundational to the modern research ecosystem. They are the primary formal medium by which empirical results, theoretical developments, and methodological advances are communicated and validated. Their relevance to innovation arises from their core functions: codifying and communicating new knowledge, facilitating systematic dissemination of original research. The peer review system is designed to ensure that claims are supported by evidence, that methods are described in sufficient detail to allow replication, and that conclusions flow logically from data, enabling other researchers to build upon validated findings rather than merely speculative claims. Chemical journals maintain high standards for experimental description (e.g., detailed synthetic procedures, analytical data, proof of structure), serving as gatekeepers and quality filters.

 

As a fallible process since its origins, peer review continues to be a widely debated aspect of modern science. Most scientists, if not all, are familiar with the infamous “reviewer #2” (R#2), synonymous with the “bad” reviewer, notorious for excessive or nonsensical demands. The internet is filled with jokes and sketches about R#2, and most readers have likely encountered a few. While it is not always R#2, this reviewer is often blamed and, interestingly, commonly perceived as male. Even the most diligent and competent reviewers have likely been labeled as R#2 at some point.