Tutorial Reviews should be of relevance both to a researcher 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 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.

1. Is the article scientifically accurate yet accessible to the general research chemist (including PhD students)? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

2. Would it serve as a useful introduction to the non-expert chemist without being too simple? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

3. Is a review on this topic timely? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

4. Are the aims/objectives of this article sufficiently clear? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

5. Is the article a well-balanced consideration of the subject? *
   
   Yes
   No
   
   Please indicate in your comments any significant omissions or unnecessary inclusions.

   
   

6. Does the author give an indication of possible future trends? *
   
   Yes
   No
   
   If 'No', in your comments please suggest additions.

   
   

7. Is the article's length commensurate with its content? (Please consider any relevant page limits when answering) *
   
   Yes
   No
   
   If the article is too long, please include in your comments recommendations for deleting text, tables or illustrations.

   
   

8. How would you rate this paper? *
   
   Excellent
   Good
   Routine
   Poor/Unacceptable

   
   

9. What is your recommendation? *
   
   Accept - unchanged
   Accept - with minor revisions
   Reconsider - after major revisions
   Reject
   
   Your recommendation cannot be used unless justification is provided. Please support your recommendation in your comments.

   
   

If you recommend acceptance you must provide details to support this decision and you should outline any revisions (which should be achievable within 10 days) and indicate any additional experimental evidence required to support the results (e.g. as Electronic Supplementary Information).

If you recommend rejection you must provide details to support this decision. If you feel that work may be suitable for publication elsewhere please indicate the most appropriate journal and format.

Type/paste your comments here: *

OR Upload a document file - MS Word (.doc), plain text (.txt) or Acrobat (.pdf) files only:

OPTIONAL Comments for Editorial Office only: