Below is a photo of a laboratory at KongiLab – my partner-experimentalists. This is the lab where most of the experiments on CO₂ capture have been conducted over the last 3 years. After 2 years of multiple revisions, our work has just been accepted for publication. With this post, I am greeting Iuliia Vetik and congratulating all collaborators.
Read: Demonstrating Electrochemical CO2 Capture with Redox-Active Metal-Organic Frameworks
MSCA is often seen as a decision point.
Before the result, many think:
this will define my future.
After the result, some think:
now I am safe.
But both views come from a fixed mindset,
which leads to insecurity feeling closer to the fellowship end.
Statistically, MSCA does not define your career.
It increases your probabilities to be employed.
You are not selecting just one path.
You are expanding the number of possible paths.
These ideas come from the growth mindset framework –
it explains how mindset prepares people for success.
The people on this slide followed it consistently,
often without naming it.
So the question is not whether you win or lose the MSCA PF.
The question is how you use this step to move forward.
Let us take a look at how careers in biology
in the US careers evolve in numbers.
These are shown in black numbers.
If we add MSCA data in colour numbers,
we see a similar pattern.
Right after the fellowship,
more than half are employed.
After two years, almost 90% are employed.
And almost all say the skills gained are useful.
Herewith, the most used skills are: communication, networking, and project management.
Around 70% stay in academia, about 20% go to industry.
But only one in three in academia have permanent positions, while in industry, four out of five are permanent.
At the same time, about half of researchers desire to become a professor, but only one in ten reach that path.
So there is a clear gap between expectations and probabilities.
This picture shows that careers are not a single predefined path.
They are a set of probable stepwise paths.
Thus, the rational approach is to align expectations with probabilities to step up,
not with initial desires.
Please think on this idea.
Fixing on “precious” results is destructive.
It creates pressure before MSCA,
and false security after it.
Growing along your career,
with purpose, is constructive.
It means using each step,
not depending on a single result.
MSCA is one of many steps.
Not the destination.
So keep calm, and keep going.
Here are two links to assess FAIRness:
Join the DoubleLayer hub as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Latvia!
If you are a post-doc seeking independence through training skills & gaining knowledge in a supportive environment, then this post is for you. That is an opportunity to advance your career through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) by focusing on competencies – academic writing, research methods, and supervision – essential for succeeding in academia and industry.
You need to submit just one proposal on 9 September 2026 to participate in at least three funding calls. The proposal is only 10 pages long. The first application is for the MSCA or MSCA4Ukraine postdoctoral fellowship, which provides funding for up to 24 months of research and training. To get this prestigious grant, one must gain more than 95% in the evaluation. However, passing the 85% threshold already opens the opportunity to be funded through the ERA Fellowship. Moreover, passing the 70% threshold makes you eligible to be funded by the state of Latvia. Submitting to all these 3! opportunities per 1 proposal increases your chances of fulfilling your research idea and advancing your career. These fellowships include funds for salary, mobility, research, and allowances described in the following table.
Disclaimer: The data in the table might be incorrect. CCC value is taken form 2026–2027 program. Salary is estimated using this calculator.
| MSCA | ERA | |
| Submission | 90th Sept 2026 | 9th Sept 2026 |
| Decision | Feb 2027 | Feb 2027 |
| Start | May–Dec 2027 | May–Dec 2027 |
| Threshold / % | 95 | 85 |
| Link | ec.europa.eu | ec.europa.eu |
| Duration / M | 12–24 | 12–24 |
| Total salary / €/M | 5990*0.856 | 5990*0.856 |
| Minimum net salary / €/M | 2760 | 2760 |
| Research / €/M | 1000 | 1000 |
| Overhead | 650 € | 650 € |
| Mobility / €/M | 710 | 710 |
| Family / €/M | 660 | 660 |
| Move / € | 6700 | 6700 |
| Secondment / M | (optional) | (optional) |
Why University of Latvia?
Why the DoubleLayer hub?
Why Vladislav Ivanistsev as a mentor?
Further details
To be considered for the opportunity, you will undergo a pre-selection process based on your CV, project idea, and motivation letter. There are three main eligibility requirements:
For any other further questions, please contact vladislav.ivanistsev@doublelayer.eu. Prefix your email subject title with “DoubleLayer hub:”
The best way to present a 3D model in a figure is an isometric projection. I use it whenever I draw atomic structures or simulation cells because it is easy to comprehend.
In perspective rendering, objects farther from the camera appear smaller. That is useful in photography, but it is often misleading in scientific figures. Equal lengths should look equal. Parallel edges should remain parallel. In an isometric projection this is exactly what happens: the scale is the same along all three spatial directions.
The idea comes from technical drawing and engineering graphics in the 19th century. Engineers needed a way to draw three-dimensional machines on paper while preserving measurable proportions. The solution was to project the object along the direction of a cube’s body diagonal. When viewed this way, the three Cartesian axes appear symmetrically separated by 120°. As a result, edges parallel to those axes appear with equal foreshortening.
This produces the familiar look of isometric drawings: vertical lines remain vertical, and the other two axes appear as lines tilted by 30° from the horizontal.
For scientific graphics this view is ideal. It preserves symmetry, keeps dimensions comparable, and produces consistent figures across different structures.
I use the following rotations to produce an isometric view in ASE.
Rotate the structure:
x = 225°
y = 215.264°
z = 30°
The first two rotations orient the model so the viewing direction is along the cube body diagonal. The last rotation only rotates the image in the plane so that the projected axes appear at ±30°.
Example:
from ase import Atoms
from ase.io import write
import numpy as np
atoms = Atoms('H', positions=[[0, 0, 0]], cell=[20, 5, 10], pbc=False)
atoms.center()
atoms.rotate(225, 'x', rotate_cell=True)
atoms.rotate(180 + np.degrees(np.arctan(1 / np.sqrt(2))), 'y', rotate_cell=True)
atoms.rotate(30, 'z', rotate_cell=True)
write('iso.png', atoms, show_unit_cell=2)I was searching for YouTube videos about ERC, when noticed this cover with me at the Estonian Research Agency homepage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBMsxvifxhw
That feel like:
As it is the 31th of December 2025, wish everyone a Happy New Year!
The university of Latvia supports publishing in the following journals (as for 2025 and filtered). You must be the first or corresponding author. Write to zd@lu.lv.
Chemistry
• ACS Nano
• Advanced functional materials
• Advanced materials
• Applied catalysis B: environmental
• Chemical reviews
• Chemical science
• Chemical society reviews
• Chemistry of materials
• Corrosion science
• Green chemistry
• Journal of catalysis
• Journal of physical chemistry letters
• Nano letters
• Nanoscale
• Nature chemistry
• ACS catalysis
• Advanced energy materials
• Nano energy
• ACS central science
• Chem
• 2D materials
Physics
• Advances in physics
• Applied physics letters
• Atmospheric chemistry and physics
• Physical review letters
• Physical review X
• Physics letters B
• Physics reports
• Nature energy
• Nature electronics
• npj quantum materials
Materials science
• Acta materialia
• Materials & design
• Materials today
• Nanotechnology journals also overlap: Nano letters, Nano today, Nanoscale, Nano energy
• Nature materials
• Small
• Surface science reports
Cross-area (chemistry + physics + materials)
• Energy
• Energy and environmental science
• Nature communications
• Science
• Science advances
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (cross-disciplinary)
• Joule
• Nature sustainability
Our tutorial review is finally out: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/cs/d5cs00597c
1. Definition of scaling relations. The review explains scaling relations in three complementary ways:
(1) by expressing them through adsorption energies;
(2) by formulating them as chemical and physical equations; and
(3) by illustrating them as straight path lines on the theoretical volcano plot, which connects adsorption energy with catalytic activity.
2. Origin of scaling relations. The commonly accepted thermodynamic explanation of scaling relations is presented, together with additional geometrical and chemical perspectives that give the reader a broader understanding of how these relations arise.
3. Classification of strategies to manipulate scaling relations. The review identifies five general strategies for manipulating scaling relations. Each strategy is:
(1) explained using examples from the literature;
(2) supported by original numerical estimates;
(3) ordered chronologically to reflect how the field has developed; and
(4) discussed in the context of future directions.
4. Two governing principles in electrocatalysis. Two main principles are discussed: the well-established Sabatier principle, which states that optimal activity is achieved when binding is “neither too strong nor too weak”, and the emerging principle that both activity and selectivity depend on two adsorption sites being “neither too far nor too close”.
5. Verification of the principles and strategies. The review explains why it is important, and also feasible, to use these principles and strategies in both experiments and simulations.
Feel free to reuse all figures in your presentations: https://gitlab.com/doublelayer/chemsocrev_2025_scaling-relations
I love TeX, LaTeX and other scripting and markup languages.
I have strong feeling about all publishers! I have spend days and weeks fighting submission systems. I remember once it was about choosing between some version 2 and 3. This time I had to upload bbl file. Why can not I simply submit from overleaf.com to editorialmanager (like to arXiv)?
In overleaf it is “vital” to set your main document as the main document in the settings! – that was not intuitive at all. Still, overleaf did not show compilation files. So I had to fake submission to arXiv to download the zip with all files, including bbl, like in this instruction – that was not obvious at all.
What I have learned today is this way of submitting a LaTeX source. Start submission to arXiv, get the zip file, remove unnecessary files, upload this refined zip to editorialmanager or other platform. Save your time and nerves!
Vladislav Ivanistsev, Ritums Cepitis, Jan Rossmeisl, Nadezda Kongi
to be published in Chemical Society Reviews
https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/67ed469081d2151a02b33a98
All figures:
https://gitlab.com/doublelayer/chemsocrev_2025_scaling-relations
Some cool notebooks:
https://gitlab.com/doublelayer/electrocatalysis-on-a-laptop
AI-created podcast:
Youtube video:
