Our publishing process and editorial policies

Learn more about our publishing process such as our initial assessment of submissions, our journal transfer service and the publication of accepted manuscripts.

This page also outlines our editorial policies on prior publication, data and correction and retraction.

Initial assessment of submissions

We are committed to publishing high quality new work that makes a significant contribution within the scope of its journals. In order to meet this aim, submitted manuscripts undergo initial evaluation by an editor to ensure that they meet essential criteria for publication in the journal.

Only those manuscripts that pass this initial review process will be forwarded to reviewers for further consideration.

This process provides a rapid decision to authors of those papers that are unsuccessful and reduces the burden on the reviewers.

A manuscript may be returned to the author(s) without external review if, in the opinion of the editor(s), one or more of the following apply:

the manuscript clearly falls outside the scope of the journal
the work is of poor scientific quality such that it is clearly not suitable for publication in a scientific journal
the manuscript is of insufficient general interest for the journal and would be better suited to a more specialised journal
the novelty of the work falls below that required for the journal
the manuscript represents undue fragmentation of the research into multiple papers
the manuscript contains redundant information or significant amounts of material that has already been published elsewhere or is under consideration by another journal
the quality of the English in the manuscript is so poor as to render the science presented unclear
the manuscript has already been reviewed and rejected by a different Royal Society of Chemistry journal, and the author(s) have made little or no attempt to address the advice that the editor and/or reviewers have provided already
the conclusions drawn by the manuscript are well known or have been published previously.

Authors are also expected to abide by the Royal Society of Chemistry’s ethical guidelines as described in author responsibilities.

Authors have the right to appeal against any decision taken on their manuscript at any stage; an appeal would be granted at the discretion of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Through the appeal process further opinion is sought on the manuscript's suitability for publication in the journal. After the appeal process the editor's decision is final.

Transparent peer review policy

In the interest of transparency and open science, some of our journals offer authors the option of transparent peer review, where the editor’s decision letter, reviewers’ comments and authors’ response for all versions of the manuscript are published alongside the article under an Open Access Creative Commons licence (CC-BY) .

You can see some examples here:

Authors can opt in during the submission and peer review process and can change their mind about transparent peer review at any point prior to acceptance. Reviewer comments remain anonymous unless the individual chooses to sign their report.

Please check the author guidelines to see if transparent peer review is available for your chosen journal.

Find out more about transparent peer review

Allow cookies to view content.

Why offer transparent peer review?

The Royal Society of Chemistry supports the principles of open science, which include working towards a more open and transparent research culture. Transparent peer review is an important strand of our commitment to open science.

Transparent peer review serves to shed light on the aspects of the journal publication process that are usually hidden. The benefits include:

Increased transparency in editorial decision-making.
Readers can learn from the editors’ and reviewers’ insights, and the published peer reviews can serve as an educational tool for those new to peer review.
It showcases the hard work and effort of the editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript, and of the authors in revising their work in response.
It may encourage higher-quality and more constructive reviewer comments.

Is transparent peer review available on all Royal Society of Chemistry journals?

Not yet, but the number of journals offering it is growing. We are actively consulting with our Editorial Boards and journal communities and expect many of our journals to start offering transparent peer review soon.

Is transparent peer review optional for authors?

Yes, authors opt-in to transparent peer review during the submission process. Authors can change their mind about transparent peer review at any point prior to acceptance.

Can reviewers opt out of transparent peer review?

By agreeing to review for a journal that offers transparent peer review, reviewers must agree to have their reviewer comments published, if the author selects transparent peer review. Reviewers cannot opt out, unless there are very exceptional circumstances, which should be discussed and agreed with the editor.

Do reviewers remain anonymous?

Yes. Reviewers’ comments are published anonymously. We take the reviewers’ right to remain anonymous very seriously. Reviewers remain anonymous unless they choose otherwise by including their name in their comments to the author.

What about journals that offer double-anonymised peer review?

Transparent peer review is compatible with both single-anonymised and double-anonymised peer review. Double-anonymised peer review applies before publication, where the identity and affiliation of the authors is kept anonymous from the reviewers during the peer-review process. Transparent peer review is applied after publication where the associated editor’s decision letter, anonymous reviewers’ comments and authors’ response are published.

What can I do if I notice that some of the peer review history is missing?

We are currently unable to show comments or responses that were provided as attachments, and we are not yet able to publish the peer review from a previous journal in instances where a manuscript has been transferred. If the peer review history indicates that attachments are available, or if you believe there is review content missing from an article with transparent peer review, you can request the full review record from our Publishing customer services team.

Why can’t I see the editor’s name on the decision email?

In most cases the full decision email, including the editor’s name, is available as part of the peer review record. However, editors do have the option to publish their decision letters anonymously.

Single- and double-anonymised peer review

Several of our journals offer authors the option of double-anonymised peer review, in addition to single-anonymised peer review. Please check the author guidelines to see if double-anonymised peer review is available for your chosen journal.

Single-anonymised peer review – where reviewers are anonymous and author names and affiliations are known to reviewers.
Double-anonymised peer review – both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are anonymous.

Guidelines for single- and double-anonymised peer review

Guidelines for authors

As an author, you can choose if your manuscript undergoes double-anonymised peer review or traditional, single-anonymised peer review during the submission process.

If you select double-anonymised peer review, you should ensure that your manuscript and all associated files are suitably anonymised before submission. Please refer to our checklist when preparing your submission. Please note that it is your responsibility as an author to ensure that your manuscript is suitably anonymised.

When you submit your revised manuscript, you will be asked to provide:

A version of the main article without author and affiliation details and acknowledgements.
Supplementary information (if any) without author and affiliations details.
A ‘double-anonymised title page’ which contains these details. Please use the following Microsoft Word 'double-anonymised title page' template. We require a completed version of this template in .doc(x) form so that we can data capture the author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements for our production system; it will not be sent to reviewers.

Guidelines for reviewers

As a reviewer assessing manuscripts where the author(s) have selected double-anonymised peer review, you will receive an invitation where the identity of the authors is kept confidential, and all further communication will omit author and affiliation details.

Please note that, for submissions undergoing single-anonymised peer review, author details will be absent in some places on our system, but will be present in all emails and manuscript files.

If you determine the identity of the authors who have chosen double-anonymised peer review, please continue with your review, focusing on the suitability of the manuscript for the journal’s audience in line with our reviewer responsibilities. However, please highlight that you were able to identify the authors in the confidential comments to the editor on submitting your review.

Appeal procedure

Our appeal procedure provides authors with the opportunity to respond to the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor against any decision taken on their manuscript at any stage; an appeal will be considered at the discretion of the Royal Society of Chemistry.

How do I appeal?

Step 1: Send a rebuttal letter to the editor via the journal email. Your letter should explain clearly why you disagree with the decision on your manuscript, and should include a detailed response to any reviewers’ comments

Step 2: The editor will consider your appeal. All appeal requests are handled on a case by case basis and the editor's decision is final.

If your appeal is granted:

Step 3: Your manuscript will undergo further assessment by an independent reviewer.

Step 4: The editor will make a final decision on your manuscript.

Comments and Complaints

Please visit our contact us regarding any comments or complaints about any of our journals, including published articles.

Similarity Check

The Royal Society of Chemistry is a member of Similarity Check – a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality.

Through Similarity Check, we use the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted or published manuscripts.

By depositing all of our content in the Similarity Check database we allow other Similarity Check members to screen their submissions against our published articles.

Further details on our plagiarism policies can be found in our author responsibilities.

Transfer between Royal Society of Chemistry journals

The Royal Society of Chemistry is committed to providing authors with a high level of customer service throughout the publication process. One of the ways we do this is to consider the suitability of a manuscript for another Royal Society of Chemistry journal if the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal to which it was submitted originally.

When a paper is to be rejected from one Royal Society of Chemistry journal, then we would offer the author(s) the option to transfer the paper to one of our other journals for consideration, when this is appropriate. This offer may occur during the initial assessment of a manuscript or after reports on it have been received from reviewers. As part of the peer review process, the reviewers are asked to comment whether the manuscript would be more appropriate for one of our other journals.

An offer by the editorial office to transfer the manuscript to another journal is made in the decision letter to the corresponding author; the author decides whether or not to take up the offer and then selects the appropriate option provided in the letter. On acceptance of the offer the manuscript is transferred automatically to the new journal without the author needing to supply the submission information again.

The transferred manuscript will appear as a 'draft' in the author’s ‘Author Centre’ in the new journal, and the author will receive an email asking them to finalise the submission. The process provides a quick and easy route for these papers to be considered by another journal.

If the manuscript already has reports from reviewers then the author will be asked to upload the revised files. These files should include a summary of any new work added and a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments. Authors should be aware that the reviewers’ comments are transferred to the editor of the receiving journal together with the manuscript files. On submission to the new journal, the manuscript will then be assessed by an editor as to whether further peer review will be necessary.

Benefits of transfers for authors

Transferring manuscripts between our journals has benefits for authors. When transferring to another journal the author does not need to submit the manuscript or provide the accompanying information again. During the initial assessment by the editor, identification of the most suitable journal for the manuscript optimises the evaluation process. If reports have already been received then further review may not be necessary after a transfer, at the discretion of the editor on the journal to which the manuscript has been transferred. A decision by the new journal about suitability of the manuscript for publication should be made more swiftly.

Benefits of transfers for reviewers

The transfer process reduces the burden on reviewers. A paper that has been rejected may be submitted by the author to another journal where it would undergo evaluation again. By transferring between journals here we would be able to consider the reports received already, although some additional review may be necessary. Full peer review is not always necessary thereby reducing the number of reviews required and allowing a decision to be reached more quickly.

Accepted manuscripts

Many of our journals give authors the option to have the unedited and unformatted version of their article published shortly after acceptance as an accepted manuscript. This free service allows authors to make their results available to the community, in citable form, before publication of the edited article.

The edited and formatted advance article will replace the accepted manuscript as soon as it becomes available.* Journals that offer this service will give authors the opportunity to opt in during the online submission process.

*Please note that RSC Advances will no longer publish accepted manuscripts; this is because the average time from acceptance to publication in RSC Advances is typically less than 10 days and therefore we no longer feel the accepted manuscript service provides a significant benefit to our authors.

Accepted manuscripts FAQ

What are accepted manuscripts?

Accepted manuscripts are articles that have been published prior to technical editing, formatting and proof reading. All accepted manuscripts have been through the peer review process at the Royal Society of Chemistry and have been accepted for publication.

In what format does an accepted manuscript appear?

Accepted manuscripts appear online as a PDF file. An accepted manuscript is published in the format in which it is received from the author. Any supplementary material will be available as a separate file(s).

How does an accepted manuscript appear in the online article listing?

Accepted manuscripts are listed in the 'recent articles' tab of the journal homepage. The authors' forenames and surnames (excluding middle initials) will appear in the form and the order in which they were entered into the journal's online submission system by the corresponding author. Once the Advance Article version is published, the names in the listing will appear as given in the manuscript.

What files need to be supplied before acceptance?

Information about the required file formats will be supplied to the author at the same time as they receive the referees' comments on their manuscript. Submission using the Royal Society of Chemistry's article template is encouraged, but is not required. Where text and image files are received separately they will be collated for publication.

What happens to an article once it has been published as an accepted manuscript?

Once an article has been published as an accepted manuscript it will be edited and formatted by a team of professional editors. A proof of the prepared files will be sent to the corresponding author for them to check prior to publication in the final form. The accepted manuscript will be replaced by the fully edited, formatted and proof-read advance article as soon as this is available.*

Are accepted manuscripts the final scientific article of record?

The articles published as Accepted Manuscripts are not the final scientific version of record. The Advance Article version of the article represents the final scientific version of record.*

How do I cite an accepted manuscript?

Accepted manuscripts can be cited using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which is printed in the left-hand margin of each page of the manuscript. The DOI for each manuscript will be retained once the fully edited Advance Article is published, so that any citations to the accepted manuscript will link to the final version.*

Does an article have to be published as an accepted manuscript?

Authors have the opportunity to opt in to publication of their manuscript as an accepted manuscript at submission; the decision to publish in this form may be changed by the author at any point prior to acceptance. Therefore, not all articles will be published as an accepted manuscript.

When is the official publication date of a manuscript?

The official publication date of an article is the date when the accepted manuscript version is published.

Can an accepted manuscript be published before the Royal Society of Chemistry's Licence to Publish is completed?

A completed licence to publish must be in place before an article can be published.

For further information about accepted manuscripts please contact the appropriate journal editorial office or our publishing customer services team.

CrossMark policy

The Royal Society of Chemistry recognises the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scientific record to researchers and librarians and we attach the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of our electronic content.

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative that provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a piece of content. Applying the CrossMark icon is a commitment by us to maintain the content published and alert readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking on the CrossMark icon within an article will inform the reader of the current status of a document and whether an update or correction exists. It will also provide additional publication record information about the document, such as:

Funding sources (Funding Data)
Similarity Check deposition
Associated articles
Related data (supplementary information and crystal structure data)
Identifiers (ORCID and ResearcherID)
Copyright and licensing
Publication history

The CrossMark icon will apply only to our content published after 14 July 2014.

Funding data

Funding Data is a registry that provides a consistent way to report funding sources for published scholarly research. We collect funding information from our authors and match this information to funders listed in the Open Funder registry. This funding information is then made publicly available through Crossref's search interfaces for funders, colleagues and other interested parties to analyse.

Attribution identifiers

ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) and ResearcherID are unique persistent digital identifiers that distinguish you from every other researcher and automatically links you and your professional activities – ensuring that your work is recognised.

ORCID

We require the submitting author to provide an ORCID iD when submitting a revised manuscript, and we also encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID iD to their account on our submission system.

Benefits of ORCID

An ORCID iD stays with you throughout your career, even if you change your name, or email address, or move to a different area of research.
It ensures you get recognition for your own work and makes it easier for others to discover your research.
You can create a single record of all your publications and choose which items to make publicly visible.
You can also add your education, employment and funding information, to keep a record of all of your professional activities in one place.
You and your institute can easily manage and report on research outputs, funding applications and other activities.
You can create and maintain a record free of charge (ORCID is a not-for-profit organisation).

Find out more about the benefits of ORCID for researchers.

What we do with your ORCID iD

Once you have registered for an ORCID iD and linked it to your account on our online submission system (see our guide below):

Next time you submit an article to any of our journals, or you are named as a co-author, your ORCID iD will be automatically attached to the article
We publish this information with the article next to the author’s name, in both the PDF and the HTML versions of the published article
We display a green ORCID icon which links directly to the author’s ORCID record, see an example
You can choose to have your ORCID record automatically updated by Crossref with every article or dataset you publish, as long as it has a DOI. You will need to grant permission to Crossref for this to happen – look out for a message about this from Crossref which will be sent to your ORCID inbox. Find out more about the ORCID auto-update

How to link your ORCID account to ScholarOne

Step 1

To get started, log in to your ScholarOne account.

Step 2

Click on your name near the top right hand corner, and from the drop-down menu select 'E-mail / Name'.

Step 3

On the ‘Edit My Account’ page, you will now see a section named ORCID.

If you already have an ORCID account select 'Associate your existing ORCID iD' and skip to step 5.

If you have not yet set up an ORCID account select 'Create an ORCID iD', and continue to step 4.

Step 4

Fill out the form with your details and click ‘Register’ at the bottom of the page.

This will take you to the confirmation page. You will need to tick the box saying ‘Allow this permission until I revoke it’ and click ‘Authorize’ which will take you back to your account on ScholarOne.

Skip to Step 6.

Step 5

If you already have an ORCID account and you selected ‘Associate your existing ORCID iD’ at step 3 you will be taken to the ORCID login page.

Step 6

Click ‘OK’ on the popup that appears. This will save your account details and validate your ORCID account on ScholarOne for future use.

Step 7

ORCID accounts that have been validated on ScholarOne will include your ORCID iD on your account details, as well as a green tick to show validation has been completed.

ORCIDs that are no longer valid will be indicated here with a red cross.

Alternatively, you will also be prompted to link your ScholarOne account to an ORCID account (if this has not already been done) during submission of a manuscript to any of our journals.

Linking your ScholarOne and ORCID accounts in this way is quick and means not having to stop your submission to validate.

If you do decide to link your ScholarOne and ORCID accounts at this stage, please follow the instructions as set out above.

Correction and retraction policy

It is our policy not to amend, alter or remove the published scientific record, in line with the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers' (STM) guidelines:

Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered to the maximum extent possible
STM Guidelines on Preservation of the Objective Record of Science

We will respond to any suggestions of scientific misconduct or to convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a published manuscript is erroneous, usually through consultation with the author. This may require the publication of a formal ‘retraction’ or correction. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts as the basis for our best practice guidelines when investigating allegations of misconduct. An expression of concern may be published by the editor whilst an investigation into alleged misconduct or publication of erroneous data is ongoing.

Authors who wish to enquire about publication of a correction for their article, or who have serious concern that they believe may warrant retraction, should contact the journal editorial office.

We follow the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) guidelines for correcting and retracting articles, outlined below.

Expression of concern

We will consider issuing an expression of concern if:

we receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
we receive evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case
we believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

The expression of concern is free to view and is linked to the article of record to which it relates.

Correction

We will consider issuing a correction if:

the scientific record is seriously affected, for example with regard to the scientific accuracy of published information
a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

We will not usually publish a correction that does not affect the contribution in a material way or if the issue does not significantly impair the reader's understanding of the contribution, such as a spelling mistake or grammatical error. The correction is free to view and is linked to the article of record that it corrects.

Retraction

In line with COPE guidance, we will consider issuing a retraction notice if:

We have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
The publication constitutes plagiarism
The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (that is, cases of redundant publication)
The publication contains material or data without authorisation for use
Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
The publication reports unethical research
The publication has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

The retraction notice is free to view and is linked to the article of record that it retracts; the article of record will be digitally watermarked 'RETRACTED'.

Inappropriate or offensive content

Our aim is for all published material to be respectful, accurate and relevant. We have a shared responsibility to guard against all forms of discrimination or exclusion. As an author or reviewer, please consider that words, depictions and imagery have the potential to cause offence. The concept of offence/offensiveness is subjective, and may mean different things to different people, therefore there we need to consider how content might be perceived by others.

Terminology and expressed attitudes must show respect for the identity, experience and sensibilities of everyone.

Listed below are some indicators that can be used to help identify what may be concluded as inappropriate content. This list is indicative and not conclusive:

Insulting, hostile, defamatory
Discriminates, excludes, undermines
Harmful, hateful
Threatening, abusive
Likely to be upsetting, insulting or objectionable to some or most people
Perpetuate discriminatory and stereotypical ideas
Harassment: unwanted [content] that makes others feel intimidated or humiliated
Bigotry: animosity, hostility, malice, ridicule
Intolerance
Aberrations: depiction of ideas, beliefs, symbols or events
Stereotypes: stereotype threat, assumptions
Innuendo
Derogatory demographic descriptors
Material (images, video, audio, or text) that presents explicit/exploitive, obscene or degrading text, pictures, or illustrations*
Any content that could reasonably offend someone on the basis of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, marital or parental status, physical features, national origin, social status or disability

*We are aware that some areas of research, such as animal experiments, can be considered controversial or offensive. We require that such work has been performed according to all relevant legal frameworks of the territory in which they take place, which will be clearly described in the manuscript or supporting information. All data will then be presented in an appropriate manner for the scientific content.

Use of Lena / Lenna standard test image

The RSC no longer considers submissions containing the Lena (sometimes ‘Lenna’) image. This decision has been taken in consultation with relevant parties and applies to all RSC journals.

This head crop picture of Lena Söderberg has been used as a standard picture in research papers in the fields of image processing and nanophotonics during the last fifty years. However, the image has attracted controversy in recent years as its history goes against efforts to promote equality for women in science and engineering, and an increasing number of alternative images with comparable, if not superior, scientific value have become available.

This policy will not be applied retrospectively, but we would ask authors submitting to our journals to use alternative images, such as those found on the SIPI database.

Author name changes after publication

Authors may change their name for many reasons including marriage, divorce, religion, gender identity and other personal reasons. The Royal Society of Chemistry is committed to respecting the rights of our authors to their own identities, fully supporting author inclusion and ensuring that authors receive credit for all their work. It is therefore our policy to facilitate changes to author names, email addresses, biography photos, pronouns, and any other identifiers that may be necessary as a result of a change in author name.

These changes will be made directly to the article pdf and html. We will re-send article metadata to abstracting and indexing services such as Scopus and Web of Science, although we acknowledge that we are not able to enforce replacement of the metadata on their platforms.

The RSC will retain an original version of the paper in its records, but this will not be made publicly available. This is to ensure that changes are made accurately and so that any changes can be reverted in future if requested.

Authors wishing to make such changes should contact [email protected] or the editorial office for any RSC journal in which they have published.

Please note that we will not normally facilitate changes to correct spelling errors that were present in the author versions, out-of-date affiliation details, or changes to email addresses that do not result from name changes. We are also unable to correct citations to papers in which a name change has been made.

Collection of gender, race and ethnicity information

We are committed to improving inclusion and diversity within chemical sciences publishing. As part of our work in this area, we ask authors, reviewers and editors to provide information on their gender, race and ethnicity. The information we gather is used to analyse trends within our journals and to identify where improvements are needed. We ask authors to self-describe their gender, race and ethnicity – we also give the option of “prefer not to say”.

Diversity data includes information that is both personal and sensitive. Therefore, the utmost care is taken in protecting it. Individuals’ ethnic, racial, or gender identities will in no way be used when evaluating journal submissions; these data will only be reported and analysed at the aggregate level in order to improve our policies and processes.

For more information about how we use your data, please see the RSC’s privacy policy and the FAQs below.

FAQs

Why am I being asked for my gender identity and race and ethnicity data in the RSC’s submission and peer review system (ScholarOne)?

In the past few years, the RSC has been working to highlight issues around and remove barriers to achieving greater diversity within chemical sciences publishing. Gathering robust data is key to understanding and combating these issues. Our report Is publishing in the chemical sciences gender biased? highlighted issues around gender diversity, and our recent joint public statement and the Inclusion and Diversity Framework for Action have helped us identify our next steps in order to make a lasting difference in this area. Our report Missing Elements: Racial and ethnic inequalities in the chemical sciences showed that talented Black chemists leave the profession at every stage of their career path after undergraduate studies and that people from Black and minoritised ethnicities are underrepresented at senior levels in both industry and academia.

Collecting this information is important because it gives us a richer understanding of our community and allows us to address these issues.

Why does a journal or publisher need to know this information?

Research shows that a broad range of perspectives lead to better science. Collecting this information is important because it gives us a richer understanding of the diversity of our community. With a robust, broad spectrum of data, we can better address barriers and make our products, services and activities as inclusive as they should be.

I am part of a majority, why is it important that I give my data?

Whether you are part of a majority or a minority, you are part of the chemical sciences community. When we talk about inclusion, we mean inclusion for all, not just those who are over- or under-represented in the chemical sciences. To effect real change, we need as many people as possible to take part in our diversity data monitoring.

Why should I give you my data? What are the benefits to me?

The more people and different perspectives we have contributing to chemistry, the richer the discussions we have and the greater ideas we develop. When every chemist feels like they belong to the profession, the chemical sciences prosper. Collecting diversity data gives us a richer understanding of the diversity of our community and allows us to better address barriers and make our products, services and activities as inclusive as they should be.

What will this data be used for?

It will be used to improve inclusion and diversity across our journal processes. The data will only be reported in an aggregated and anonymised way. It is not visible to editors in the peer review system and will not be used in any editorial or financial decision-making.

Who can access this data and how is it stored?

Your full data is only accessible to you and is encrypted for secure storage. You will not be identifiable from any data that is shared. Aggregated data will be shared with a small number of RSC staff.

I’ve already told you my gender why do I have to do it again?

Our submission and peer review system (ScholarOne) has developed new functionality to collect sensitive demographic data. This means we need to collect the data again using the new method, and we have taken the opportunity to update the question we use to collect gender identity so that it aligns with best practices across the scholarly publishing sector.

What if I am not comfortable answering a question?

There is an option to answer ‘prefer not to disclose’, or you can choose to skip the questions.

Do I have to answer these questions every time I log in?

No, you will only have to answer each question once. You can change your answers at any time by logging in to any RSC journal site and selecting “edit my account”.

What if I want to change my answer to a question?

You can change your answer to the questions any time by logging in to any RSC journal ScholarOne site and selecting “edit my account”.

How were the questions formulated?

We are a signatory of a cross-publisher initiative called the Joint Commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing, which brings together over 50 publishing organisations to accelerate progress on inclusion and diversity in publishing. Collectively, that group has developed a set of recommended questions for the collection of gender identity and race & ethnicity data and has been working with major peer review system providers to develop the functionality to collect demographic data in a way that prioritises the privacy and security of such potentially sensitive information.

Why are you asking about gender and not sex?

A standardised approach to asking a question on gender identity was developed at the Joint Commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in scholarly publishing as a response to understanding the makeup of the publishing community. The 53 members of the joint commitment worked together on this basis to approve the question to which you refer. Each organisation that forms a part of the Joint commitment has the opportunity to use the gender identity question or not.

The reason for RSC’s adoption of the gender-identity question is due to a lack of representation of women in publishing. As outlined in the Is Publishing in the Chemical Sciences Gender Biased? report, released by RSC in 2019, women are under-represented across our publishing. For this purpose, we are interested in improving gender equality.

When we talk about gender bias in the work that we do at the RSC, we refer to the bias that someone might receive due to their gender identity, not their biological sex, which may or may not, match their gender identity. As part of future endeavours, we will look at the bias that may arise from socioeconomic status or background, whether someone identifies as disabled and whether someone identifies as LGBT+. We will continue to build on this work to ensure that trans inclusion is also fully considered. While we have not yet gathered the robust data required to support decisive actions on these further issues, it is an area that is very important to us and which we are focused on.

Why isn’t transgender one of the options?

When we talk about gender bias in the work that we do at the RSC, we refer to the bias that someone might receive due to their gender identity, not their biological sex, which may or may not, match their gender identity. As part of future endeavours, we will look at the bias that may arise from socioeconomic status or background, whether someone identifies as disabled and whether someone’s sexual orientation. We will continue to build on this work to ensure that trans inclusion is also fully considered. While we have not yet gathered the robust data required to support decisive actions on these further issues, it is an area that is very important to us and which we are focused on.

What do you mean by ethnic origins?

The ethnic origins question asks you to self-report your ethnicity in terms of geographic ancestry, i.e., geographic-based ethnic origins. The options presented are regional, following the UN geoscheme; diasporic groups based on religion, language, or culture, are not offered as options. It isn’t unusual for individuals to have roots in multiple regions of the globe, therefore you can select multiple options that resonate with you from the list of options provided.

What is the difference between race and ethnicity?

Race is an abstract category based on a belief that people can be divided into separate groups mainly but not only on the basis of physical attributes or traits. It is recognised that race is an arbitrary social construct and does not exist in genetic terms (its meaning has changed in time and between societies). However, because people attach stereotypes to members of those artificial arbitrary groups this creates systemic barriers, obstacles and advantages, having a real impact on people’s lives and opportunities.

Ethnicity has usually been used to refer to shared cultural and geographic heritage, religious practices, traditions, ancestry, language, dialect or national origins.

What about other diversity characteristics?

As part of future endeavours, we will look at the bias that may arise from socioeconomic status or background, whether someone identifies as disabled and someone’s sexual orientation. We will continue to build on this work to ensure that trans inclusion is also fully considered. While we have not yet gathered the robust data required to support decisive actions on these further issues, it is an area that is very important to us and which we are focused on.

Journal policy on prior publication

As scientific research is becoming more open and discoverable, the Royal Society of Chemistry supports our community of chemical scientists in sharing new research findings before and after publication through a variety of methods.

Authors publishing in our journals may present their research ahead of publication in the following ways.

Through the deposition of a preprint version of the article in commercial and non-commercial repositories (e.g. ArXiv, ChemRxiv), institutional repositories or authors’ individual websites. A preprint is defined here as an un-refereed author version of the article; commercial and non-commercial repositories are defined here as any platform or archiving service that makes digital content free to deposit and access. Preprints deposited in ChemRxiv can be revised, but must still be a pre-acceptance version.
At scientific conferences; this includes recorded presentations, poster presentations and abstracts that are made openly available on-line.
In commercial or non-commercial databases (data without interpretation, discussion, conclusions or context with a wider experimental project).
In an open electronic lab notebook.
In blogs, wikis, tweets, and other informal communication channels.
As a thesis or dissertation published as part of an academic or professional qualification, in print and on-line.
In any digital medium which is operated by the Royal Society of Chemistry, excluding journals, books and magazines.

We will not consider for publication work that has been previously published, or is under consideration for publication, in another journal. Full papers as a follow up to a previously published communication will be considered for publication in suitable Royal Society of Chemistry journals, subject to the new work meeting the journal’s criteria.

Please consult the journal’s editor if you have questions about whether or not a particular use constitutes prior publication.

For information about what you can do with your article following acceptance and publication see our guidance on deposition and sharing rights.

Naming of territories

The Royal Society of Chemistry remains neutral with regards to jurisdictional claims in our published material, including the naming of territories in maps and institutional affiliations. Where a journal is co-owned by and/or published on behalf of a third party, we respect the third party’s responsibility to comply with relevant local laws and regulations.

Data sharing policy

The Royal Society of Chemistry believes that where possible, all data associated with the research in a manuscript should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR), enabling other researchers to replicate and build on that research.

We strongly encourage authors to deposit the data underpinning their research in appropriate repositories.

For all submissions to Royal Society of Chemistry journals, any data required to understand and verify the research in an article must be made available on submission. To comply, we suggest authors deposit their data in an appropriate repository. Where this isn’t possible, we ask authors to include the data as part of the article Supplementary Information.

See our data sharing guidance for more details on specific data types and recommended repositories and the requirement to include a data availability statement (DAS) in all articles.

Some journals may have additional subject requirements for both sharing and/or publishing supporting data, so please ensure you check the author guidelines for your chosen journal.

Please refer to our experimental reporting requirements for further guidance on the experimental details and observations you should include in your manuscript or Supplementary Information.

Patents and intellectual property

Due to our journals’ fast times to publication, authors are advised to resolve any pending intellectual property or patent applications before they submit their article, so they do not contravene the terms of any outstanding applications. Accepted manuscripts are published online less than 24 hours after acceptance; while the version of record is published online within a few days of receiving proof corrections.

Author responsibilities

Ethical guidelines and code of conduct for authors.

Reviewer responsibilities

Guidance on procedures and policies for reviewers.

Licences, copyright and permissions

Information about copyright, our licence to publish and your deposition and sharing rights for journal articles