Chemical Society Reviews

2.0 Article types

2.1 Tutorial Reviews

Tutorial reviews should be written to be of relevance both to the general research chemist who is new to the field, as well as the expert, and must be accessible to advanced undergraduates and beyond. They should provide an essential introduction to the field, serving as a springboard to further reading, and should have particular appeal to younger researchers seeking new fields to explore. Authors are required to write succinctly and select references carefully in order to give an enticing flavour of the topic rather than a comprehensive treatise. The implications of recent developments for the wider scientific community should be emphasised.

Tutorial Reviews must be:

• Short: 8-10 000 word equivalents: the entire manuscript (double-spaced text and artwork) should not exceed 30 pages of A4 or American Quarto (8-10 journal pages)
• Lightly referenced: A maximum of 35 citations is strongly recommended. Multiple referencing (the use of a, b, etc.) is strongly discouraged. It is recommended that 7-10 citations be used to show the development of the field, whilst a further 10 be used to explain the basics; the rest should lead the reader to the latest developments
• Jargon free: All specialist terms and symbols should be defined. Authors should not presume knowledge beyond undergraduate level. Fundamental ideas should be simply explained  

For most articles a broad outlook is required: authors should credit the major contributors within the citation limit. The 'and references therein' tag may be useful to direct the reader to further reading without having to list whole series of papers from one research group.

Note that excessive length or use of references would provide sufficient reason for non-acceptance of a manuscript and such manuscripts may be returned to the author for shortening prior to peer review.

Tables frequently eat up citations and their use is discouraged. Other forms of data representation are preferred.

When reaction schemes are given, only the significant reagents are necessary. Solvents can be omitted as can, in most cases, temperature. The reader can always refer to the original text should they require more experimental information.

2.2 Critical Reviews

Critical Reviews should provide a deeper understanding of the topic in hand, yet retain their accessibility through an introduction written for the general reader. They should give a critical discussion of the existing state of knowledge of the subject matter, and while not exhaustive in coverage give a balanced assessment of the current primary literature, normally concentrating on the previous 5-10 years. The implications of recent developments for the wider scientific community should be emphasised and authors should aim to stimulate progress in the field.

Critical Reviews must be:

• Carefully referenced: 100-150 citations are recommended. References should be selected to give a balanced view of the field but do not need to be exhaustive. Multiple referencing (the use of a, b, etc.) is strongly discouraged
• Jargon free: All specialist terms and symbols should be defined. Fundamental ideas should be simply explained  

Articles should be of a suitable length to give an in depth discussion of the field but concise writing is encouraged and manuscripts should normally be between 15 and 25 journal pages in length (18-28 000 word equivalents, no more than 75 A4/American quarto pages in length (double-spaced text and artwork)).

A good introduction is of prime importance and should include a historical perspective and set the topic for discussion in the context of current chemical research. The introduction must be accessible to the general chemist. The body of the review should provide an in-depth, critical (yet fair) discussion of the current field and aim to stimulate further research. A section of concluding remarks should include comment on applications or future prospects for the field.