Refereeing Procedure and Policy
Refereeing Procedure and Policy for Journals Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry
9.1 Relationship between Full Papers and Preliminary Reports (e.g. Communications)
In cases where a preliminary report of the work described in a submitted paper has been published (for example in Chemical Communications), referees should alert the editor to any excessive and unnecessary repetition of material; this can arise in connection with Communications journals in which the restrictions on length and the reporting of experimental data are less severe than those of Chemical Communications. Furthermore, the acceptability of the full paper must be judged on the basis of the significance of the additional information provided, as well as on the criteria outlined in the foregoing sections.
9.2 Contributions to Chemical Communications
In most cases the preliminary reports published in Chemical Communications should be followed up by full papers in other journals, providing detailed accounts of the work. Referees are requested to comment on the RSC journal in which such full papers should be published. It is Society policy that only a fraction of research work warrants publication in Chemical Communications, and strict refereeing standards should be applied. The benefit to the reader from the rapid publication of a particular piece of work before it appears as a full paper must be balanced against the desirability of avoiding duplicate publication. The needs of the reader, not the author, must be considered, and priority in publication should not be allowed to determine acceptability. Acceptance should be recommended only if, in the opinion of the referee, the content of the paper is of such urgency or impact that rapid publication will be advantageous to the progress of chemical research.
Communications should be brief and should not exceed three pages in the printed form including Tables and illustrations. Communications should not include lengthy introductions and discussion, extensive data, and excessive experimental details and conjecture. Figures and tables will only be published if they are essential to understanding the paper. Authors must supply experimental evidence to support the conclusions drawn in the paper as Electronic Supplementary Information. The referees should comment on this supporting information in their reports with particular emphasis on whether the information does support the conclusions drawn in the paper and whether any additional information should be requested from the authors.
The refereeing procedure for Communications is the same as that for full papers, except that rapidity of reporting is crucial in order to maintain rapid publication.
9.3 Communications submitted to OBC, Dalton Transactions, PCCP, Journal of Materials Chemistry, JAAS, The Analyst or Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts
Criteria for acceptance of Communications submitted to OBC, Dalton Transactions, PCCP, Journal of Materials Chemistry, JAAS, The Analyst or Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts are similar to those for contributions to Chemical Communications, except that the work will be of more specialist interest. For OBC and Dalton Communications inclusion of key experimental data is expected.