Chemical Society Reviews

1.0 Scope and standards 

Chemical Society Reviews (Chem Soc Rev) publishes accessible, succinct and reader-friendly articles on topics of current interest in the chemical sciences. The promotion of international and multidisciplinary awareness and co-operation is particularly encouraged. 

The majority of reviews will be solicited by members of the Editorial Board in accordance with the policy of the Editorial Board. However, the Editorial Office welcomes suggestions for reviews that would be suitable for the journal. 

To aid the Editorial Board to judge the suitability of a proposed review for the journal, all authors should complete a review proposal form. The aim is not to provide an extra burden for the author, but to ensure the article will appeal to the journal's intended readership and to reduce the overall time and work needed in the preparation of the final manuscript. Acceptance of the proposal by the Editorial Board does not guarantee publication of the final manuscript. 

Review proposal forms should be sent to the Editorial Office by email. 

2.0 Article types 

2.1 Tutorial Reviews 

Tutorial reviews are short, authoritative overviews of important topics in the chemical sciences. They are of relevance to both the general research chemist who is new to the field as well as the expert. They provide a good introduction to the development of a subject, its current standing and implications for the wider scientific community. 

Tutorial Reviews must be: 

• Accessible: to graduate students and beyond. 
• An essential introduction to the field: serving as a springboard to further reading. 
• Short: Maximum 12,000 word equivalents; 12 journal pages; 35 pages of A4 or American Quarto (double-spaced text and artwork). 
• Lightly referenced: Maximum 50 citations; authors should credit the major contributors only. The 'and references therein' tag is recommended to direct the reader to further reading. Multiple referencing (the use of a, b, etc.) is strongly discouraged. 
• Jargon free: Specialist terms and symbols should be defined and fundamental ideas simply explained.       

Tutorial Reviews that do not meet the above requirements will be returned to the authors for editing before going through the review process. 

Tutorial Reviews should now include a Key Learning Points box. This box should contain up to five key learning points that a reader should expect to gain from reading the review. Authors should include up to five succinct learning points with their submission, either included at the beginning of the review or as a separate document. 

Tutorial Review authors are encouraged to make use of Chem Soc Rev's electronic supplementary information (ESI) facilities to complement and enhance their reviews. For example, videos, PowerPoint slides, soundbites and pictures can be included. Please contact the Editorial Office for more details. 

2.2 Reviews 

Reviews provide an authoritative and in-depth understanding of important topics in the chemical sciences. They give a very high quality state-of-the-art account of the subject matter and a balanced assessment of the current primary literature. The implications of recent developments for the wider scientific community are emphasised and authors should aim to stimulate progress in the field. 

Reviews must be:

• Accessible: Of general interest and enticing to the journal’s wide, community-spanning readership.
• Appealing: A timely account which is needed and which genuinely adds to the existing literature.
• Carefully referenced:  References should be selected to give a balanced view of the field.
• Jargon free: Specialist terms and symbols should be defined and fundamental ideas simply explained.   

More comprehensive reviews may also be acceptable and will be assessed on a case by case basis by the Editorial Board.