Tutorial Reviews should be of relevance both to the general 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. How would you rate this paper? *
   
   Excellent
   Good
   Routine
   Poor/Unacceptable

   
   

2. Is the article scientifically accurate yet accessible to the general researcher (including PhD students)? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

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

   
   

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

   
   

5. Does the article clearly meet the objectives of the article type as laid out in the Author Guidelines? *
   
   Yes
   No
   
   Please give details in your comments of any deficiencies.

   
   

6. Does the article identify areas where further developments are needed? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

7. Are the references up-to-date and accessible, and have all key references been cited? *
   
   Yes
   No
   
   Please give details in your comments of any citations that have been omitted.

   
   

8. Interdisciplinary papers may receive extra publicity - does this paper fall within this category? *
   
   Yes
   No
   

   
   

9. Could any material be transferred to the RSC's Electronic Supplementary Information area? *
   
   Yes
   No
   
   Please give details in your comments.

   
   

10. 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: