Evaluating advances in chemical engineering

In this Editorial, we discuss how we consider advances in chemical engineering at the journal, taking into account metrics that can be human-, time- and context-dependent.


Scholarly advances are novel and interesting contributions to the collective body of knowledge. While the concept of novelty — the addition of previously unknown information — is similar across disciplines, the assessment of whether a contribution is interesting is highly specific to the topic. Within the engineering sciences, the degree to which a finding is considered interesting often includes metrics that are human-centered, time-variable and context-dependent. Given these complexities, as the journal enters its second year of publication, we find it prudent to discuss some of the considerations behind our evaluation of chemical engineering science at the journal.


Credit: ElenaPhoto / E+ / getty


First, evaluating advances in engineering relies heavily on societally driven factors such as energy efficiency, economic cost and environmental impact. There are also often trade-offs between these metrics. Take, for example, historical advances in plastics production that proved extremely profitable but eventually highly unsustainable in practice.


Assessing advances is then a function of the evaluator’s perceptions and priorities, as well as the scientific context of the specific advance being considered. In essence, the evaluator uses a perception of relative importance between performance metrics to guide decision-making, much like a utility function commonly considered in economics. At the journal, we believe that one of our key roles is to collaboratively develop shared understanding of these objective functions with our authors, referees and our team for each paper under consideration, and to clearly communicate this understanding to the broader readership.


Next, the assessment of advances in engineering is time-dependent due in part to changes in human-driven design priorities, as well as factors such as technological maturity (or technology readiness level). At the journal, one way these time-dependent considerations come into play is through the way in which the maturity of relevant technologies affects how we evaluate process practicality.


For example, a case where expectations are commonly unclear is how the level of precision required for techno-economic and carbon footprint analyses changes with technological maturity. Factors such as the resource efficiency of a process can be highly important when assessing an advance that uses well-established unit operations or technologies. By contrast, forecasts of practicality for new processes can be more uncertain and, while important, are often treated as guideposts for future development to identify key process handles, rather than measures of immediate practical value.


Finally, the broad range of topics and scales that chemical engineering covers means that our readership comes from diverse backgrounds, and thus can have very different personal perceptions of the significance of any given advance. In practice, this means that two community members with the same technical understanding of a work can have very different perspectives of its potential impact.


Consider, for example, an advance that presents the integration of several unit operations or processes. Some members of the community may be most interested in the individual unit operations, others in the properties of the resulting product, and still others in the technical integration of these processes. At the journal, we believe that progress in each of these areas can represent an important advance. As part of our editorial aim, we seek to leverage these diverse perspectives to ensure that strong submissions entering our editorial pipeline in any one area are further refined through a comprehensive and constructive peer-review process.


Evaluating advances in chemical engineering is a nuanced endeavor that depends heavily on both scientific and societal contexts. By providing a glimpse into our editorial thought process, we aim to offer clarity on how we assess progress in this complex space. As we move further into volume 2 of the journal, we look forward to continuing our engagement with authors, referees and readers as we explore the dimensions of this exciting and evolving landscape.