In this interview, Dr. Srot describes her recent research on rodent incisors—and how publishing her work open access significantly amplified its reach and impact, leading to widespread media coverage and a surge in reader engagement.

As part of an ongoing series here on ACS Axial, we’re interviewing authors and librarians from around the world to find out more about their research, their published work, and the impact that open science is having on a changing landscape of research communication. This time, we're speaking with Vesna Srot, Senior Scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research.
I received a lot of emails and follow-up questions from readers, possibly because [my paper] was published as open access so everyone could read it for free.

Hello, Vesna. Could you describe your research group's current focus for us?
I work at the Stuttgart Center for Electron Microscopy which is part of the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, Germany. Our main focus is on investigating many different materials using electrons. As well as conducting our own research, we also support other teams within the Institute with whatever projects they are working on by investigating materials on their behalf.
Could you describe the work covered in your recent publication, for someone who isn't familiar with the area?
In this recent publication, we investigated rodent incisors of 7 different species. All rodents—like beavers, mice, rats and others—have two pairs of elongated front teeth called incisors that have an orange-brown color. For around 80 years, it was believed that the color comes from pigmented enamel. We investigated the microstructure and chemical composition of these incisors in detail, and through optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy we discovered that the enamel enriched with iron actually resembles the color of regular enamel. Instead, we discovered two new structural units that we called the transition zone and surface layer, and we were able to show that these new structural units are responsible for the color of the incisors. So we renamed this pigmented enamel into iron-rich enamel. This has far reaching implications for human dentistry because this material has extremely good mechanical properties and it is acid-resistant. Now, we're investigating its potential applications in human dentistry.
What kind of an impact do you think this work has had?
I was very lucky, because ACS asked me if they could issue a press release for the article. I think this had really big impact; it was covered in several news articles in Europe, in the US and Canada, in Japan, and in China.
I could also see that the article was read by a large number of people. I received a lot of emails and follow-up questions from readers, possibly because it was published as open access so everyone could read it for free. I think that this press release combined with publishing as open access helped really to spread the word about the paper.
How was the experience of publishing in ACS Nano?
I have always had really good experiences with publishing in ACS journals—the process is pretty quick and straightforward. As an author, everything is clearly described. I review for ACS journals too, and I know that reviewers have deadlines to submit their comments, so it keeps the process fast. So my experiences are really positive, and the process goes very smoothly.
The article was published open access (OA) under your institution's read and publish agreement with ACS—how did you discover this was available?
I did not actually know beforehand that we have an agreement with ACS. I already decided before we submitted the paper that I wanted to publish it as open access, because an open access article we published the year before was read very widely compared to non-OA articles we've published in the past.
After the paper was accepted for publication, I received an email from ACS telling me that my institution had an open access agreement and that I could publish OA and the payment will be directly charged to our institute. The process itself was very simple—of course, I needed to discuss it with my co-authors and ask for permission from my manager, but that was very simple—just a few clicks and it was done.
What are your thoughts on open access?
In my opinion, the OA articles seem to have better visibility. I understand this as a reader, too, because when I'm searching for papers, if I find something that looks relevant but I cannot access it immediately, I might forget about it. I'm fortunate that my library can usually order articles that are not OA, but it takes some time for them to arrive and I may have forgotten all about the article by then. If a paper is open access, I will download it immediately, and I will read it. Those are the main reasons I would strongly recommend publishing open access to everybody.
What are your thoughts on open science workflows (e.g. open methods, preprints, transparent peer review, open data) more generally?
I've heard about it, but I've never published a preprint, because I'm not quite sure about publishing anything before it goes through peer review. But I do support open methods, I agree that as much of the information about methodology should be shared as possible.
I also think that transparent peer review is good, and one side I think it would be useful if authors knew who was reviewing their work—but I can also see that this might present problems. Because if you do an honest review and the authors are not happy with your comments, you might get some kind of retribution later on.
I do think that data should only be available following a reasonable request, because if you completely open all your data, they could be misused. Sometimes at conferences people show unpublished data and there have been cases of people photographing it and publishing it before the authors. It doesn't happen very often, but there is a possibility that it can happen. That's why we prefer to protect and not show our data until after official publication.
Where do you see OA in 10 years' time?
I think it will continue to develop, particularly at academic and research institutions. Usually institutes will have enough money to also pay for access to journals. But very often universities do not have enough money to subscribe to all the resources they need, and that's why I think open access will continue to grow—at least, I hope so.
What do you think you'd be doing if you weren't a researcher?
That's actually difficult for me to answer. I always thought I would be maybe a dentist or veterinarian, but then I studied geology and mineralogy, and I ended up working in the field of transmission electron microscopy. I really like the work that I am doing at the moment. I am using advanced electron microscopy methods, that are typical for material science applications, on hybrid organic-inorganic materials. Such interdisciplinary research is very challenging and therefore even more interesting. I find the work really rewarding and cannot imagine myself doing anything else now!
Check out the other interviews in this series:
Ian Cousins, Stockholm University
Hongxia Duan, TU Eindhoven
Vojtěch Vaněček, Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences
Louise Otting, TU Delft
Kristine Horvat, University of New Haven
David W. McCamant, University of Rochester
Fernando Sartillo Piscil, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla
Lillian Chong, University of Pittsburgh
Sue Cardinal, University of Rochester
Rubén Mendoza-Cruz, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Alison Bradley, Partnership for Academic Library Collaboration and Innovation