Our Communication format is ideally suited to short studies – which can be preliminary in nature – that are of such importance that they require accelerated publication.
Communications must contain original and highly significant work whose interest to the RSC Mechanochemistry readership and high novelty warrants rapid publication. Authors should supply with their submission a justification of why the work merits urgent publication as a Communication. Referees will be asked to judge the work on these grounds.
Communications are given high visibility within the journal as they are published at the front of an issue. Communications will not normally exceed the length of four printed journal pages.
Full papers in RSC Mechanochemistry contain original scientific work that has not been published previously. Although there is no page limit for Full papers, appropriateness of length to content of new science will be taken into consideration.
Reviews should be definitive, comprehensive and provide a critical evaluation of the chosen topic area. These are normally commissioned by the editorial board and editorial office, although suggestions from readers for topics and authors are most welcome and should be directed to the editorial office or Editors-in-Chief.
Reviews must be high-quality, authoritative and state-of-the-art accounts of the selected research field. They should be timely and add to the existing literature, rather than duplicate existing articles, and should be of general interest to the journal's readership.
All review content should consist of original text and interpretation, avoiding any direct reproduction. If a significant amount of other people's material is to be used, either textual or image-based, permission must be sought by the author in accordance with copyright law and must be made clear in the manuscript. Please note that Reviews in RSC Mechanochemistry may not contain any original research.
Tutorial reviews should provide an introduction and overview of an important topic within mechanochemistry. Tutorial reviewers should provide a good introduction to the development of a subject, its current state and indications of future directions the field is expected to take, and can include information and/ or display elements to be used as a resource for those in the field of scientific education. Tutorial reviews can be aimed at audiences ranging from graduate students to faculty and educators. Tutorial reviews should not contain unpublished original research.
Perspectives are contributions offering the personal viewpoint of both emerging and established scientists in their area of research. They present a state-of-the-art account of an area of current interest with an emphasis on future challenges and opportunities. Perspectives should be comprehensible to a broad scientific audience. There are no strict length requirements, and they should be written to their natural length. Perspectives may contain some unpublished research.
Authors of published perspectives will be invited to provide a 5 - 7 min video overview of their paper and the significance of the findings.
Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in RSC Mechanochemistry.
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.