Chemical Science

Edge articles

Chemical Science publishes all original research in one format: Edge articles. Chemical Science editors understand that traditional two- or three-page limits for the dissemination of new research are not suitable across all sub-fields of chemistry. Edge articles have absolutely no page limits, although we anticipate that most will fall between four and 10 pages.

Edge articles enable novel research findings to be presented in a succinct and exciting way, without the need for abridged discussions or perspectives. As a result, we hope these frontier research studies will be more widely accessible to a larger chemistry audience.

Lengthy introductions and discussion, extensive data, and excessive experimental details and non-experiment-based conjecture should not be included. Authors are encouraged to place experimental procedures and characterisation data in the electronic supplementary information (ESI) where appropriate.

In addition, authors are encouraged to use the article template, available from our Author templates & services page, for preparing their submissions. However, the use of the template for Edge article submissions is not essential.

Reviews

Reviews in Chemical Science must be authoritative, state-of-the-art accounts of the selected research field, focusing on the key developments that have shaped the topic, rather than comprehensive reviews of the literature. Reviews should be timely and add to the existing literature, rather than duplicate existing articles. Authors are encouraged to summarise important findings instead of re-iterating details already available in the primary work and should provide summary figures instead of multiple figures from original manuscripts, where appropriate.

The purpose of a Review is to bring the reader up to date with research in a particular field and to provide a critical assessment of recent developments. Since the readership of Chemical Science is broad, it is essential that the Review is easily comprehensible to a non-specialist in the field. Authors are encouraged to identify areas in the field where further developments are imminent or of urgent need. Please note that Reviews should not contain any original research.

Reviews can include photographs and brief biographies (max 100 words) for up to six authors, which must be supplied prior to acceptance. All Reviews will undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure, in the same way as Edge primary research papers.

Written by leaders in their fields, Reviews are normally published by invitation of the Chemical Science Editorial Board. However, suggestions from authors are welcome and enquiries should be directed to the editorial office.

Perspectives

A Perspective is a personalised account of a research area and provides a platform for authors to provide a personal or speculative viewpoint on a given subject and its future development. All Perspectives will undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure, in the same way as regular research papers.

A Perspective should report a balanced account of the selected research field. If the author is focussing on their own research contribution to the field, then a balanced discussion of related work should be included to set the authors’ contribution within a wider context. Perspectives should be selective, focusing on the key developments that have shaped the topic, rather than comprehensive reviews of the literature. Authors are encouraged to summarise important findings instead of re-iterating details already available in the primary work and should provide summary figures instead of multiple figures from original manuscripts, where appropriate.

We encourage authors of Perspective articles to include personal biographies that will be placed at the start of the manuscript. This should give an overview of the author’s research career so far, their chosen area(s) of research and future goals. It is expected that this will be no more than 200 words in length and a photograph should also be included. A ‘Future outlook’ section should also be included at the end of the manuscript to provide  a personal view of how the field will develop over the next 5-10 years and how the authors see their own research contributing to this.

Perspectives are normally published by invitation of the Chemical Science Editorial Board. However, suggestions from authors are welcome and enquiries should be directed to the editorial office. Contributions by early career researchers are particularly welcome.

To help the editorial office judge the suitability of a proposed Review or Perspective for the journal, authors may be asked to submit a synopsis. The aim is not to provide an extra burden for the author, but to ensure the article will appeal to the journal's broad readership.

Acceptance of the synopsis by the editorial office does not guarantee publication of the final manuscript. Synopses should include the following.

• a paragraph explaining the current importance of the field, its implications for the wider scientific community, and the communities of readers who will find the article of interest
• a structured outline of the review, giving section headings and expanding on each of these
• a selection of representative references to indicate its breadth and timeliness.

All Reviews and Perspectives undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure, in the same way as regular research articles.

Articles submitted to Chemical Science that are too specialised for the general chemistry audience should be directed to the appropriate RSC specialist title.

Reproduction of colour images is unlimited and without charge.

Comments

Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in Chemical Science.

For publication, a Comment should present an alternative analysis of and/or new insight into the previously published material. Any Reply should further the discussion presented in the original article and the Comment. Comments and Replies that contain any form of personal attack are not suitable for publication.

Comments that are acceptable for publication will be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply. The Comment and Reply will both be subject to rigorous peer review in consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board where appropriate. The Comment and Reply will be published together.

It is the responsibility of authors to provide fully convincing evidence for the homogeneity, purity and identity of all compounds they claim as new. This evidence is required to establish that the properties and constants reported are those of the compound with the new structure claimed. Referees will assess, as a whole, the evidence presented in support of the claims made by the authors. The requirements for characterisation criteria are detailed below.

Title

The title should be short and straightforward to appeal to a general reader, but detailed enough to properly reflect the contents of the article.

• Keep it relatively short
• Use easily recognisable words and phrases that can be read quickly 
• Use general terms for compounds and procedures rather than specific nomenclature or very specialised terms
• Avoid using non-standard abbreviations and symbols
• Use keywords and familiar, searchable terms – these can increase the chances of your article appearing in search results. Around 70% of our readers come directly via search engines

Abstract
The abstract is a single paragraph which summarises the findings of your research. It will help readers to decide whether your article is of interest to them.

• The length can vary from 50 to 250 words, but it should always be concise and easy to read with recognisable words and phrases
• It should set out the objectives of the work, the key findings and why this research is important (compared to other research in its field)
• It should emphasise (but not overstate) the significance and potential impact of the research in your article
• Avoid including detailed information on how the research was carried out; this should be described in the main part of the manuscript
• Like your title, make sure you use familiar, searchable terms and keywords 

Contributions should be explained concisely. We strongly recommend you use CRediT (the Contributor Roles Taxonomy from CASRAI) for standardised contribution descriptions. All authors should have agreed to their individual contributions ahead of submission and these should accurately reflect contributions to the work. Please note that for any manuscript with more than 10 co-authors the corresponding author must provide the editor with a statement to specify the contribution of each author. Please refer to our general author guidelines for more information about authorship.

Appeals

Appeals on Chemical Science decisions are handled in line with other RSC journals and more details can be found in the Appeal procedure. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor against any decision taken on their manuscript, and all appeal applications will be considered carefully by the journal editors. Appeals are granted at the discretion of the editor.

If you disagree with the decision on your manuscript please contact the editorial office via the journal email chemicalscience@rsc.org and provide us with your reasoning and a detailed response to any reviewers’ comments.

All appeal requests are handled on a case by case basis and the editor's decision is final. If an appeal is granted your manuscript will undergo further assessment by an independent reviewer.

Please note that manuscripts should not be revised before an appeal procedure. An appeal will be considered on the original manuscript files.

Resubmissions

If a manuscript which has been previously considered by the journal is revised and resubmitted, the case will be considered carefully by the journal editorial office. A member of the Chemical Science editorial or advisory board may be consulted on the suitability of the revised manuscript for further review.

Please note: If a resubmission contains no revised files but is accompanied by a rebuttal of the original decision, this will be treated as an application for an appeal on the original submission. Please see the appeals procedure for more details.