Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Submission Guide

ARCBE covers chemical engineering's intersection with biology, materials science, and sustainability. Recent articles cover topics like machine learning for chemical information extraction, the role of chemical engineers in the pharmaceutical industry, sustainable refrigerants, and polymer engineering for tissue engineering.

The journal's aims and scope say it draws from disciplines as diverse as biology, physics, and engineering, with development of chemical products and processes as the unifying theme. Think "Chemical Engineering Approaches to Synthetic Biology" rather than "Recent Advances in Distillation." They want synthesis, not just compilation.

Article types are limited. Annual Reviews publishes invited literature review articles and does not publish primary research articles or special issues. Each article's length is set by the editors and given in the invitation letter.

The journal has published since 2010, and volume 17 appeared in 2026.

Editors look for reviews that identify gaps in current knowledge and suggest future research directions. Purely descriptive reviews without critical analysis get rejected. Your review needs to argue for specific research priorities, not just summarize what's been done.

Geographic diversity matters to the editorial board. They actively seek authors from different regions and institutions. Being at a top-tier US university isn't required, but you need a strong publication record in your review topic.

The journal avoids overly narrow topics. "Machine Learning in Chemical Process Optimization" works. "Support Vector Machines for Distillation Column Control" doesn't.

Start with the premise that this is not a standard cold-submission journal. Annual Reviews says articles are written by experienced researchers upon invitation from Editorial Committees, and it does not accept unsolicited manuscripts. The practical question is therefore not "how do I upload my review?" It is "is this topic and author team strong enough to be worth editorial consideration?"

Include these elements in your proposal email to volunteerproposals@annualreviews.org (name the journal in the subject line and send no attachments):

• Proposed title

• List of authors

• Links to author CVs

• An approximately 150-word abstract

• A few sentences explaining why the topic needs a literature review

Wait for a response before writing the full manuscript. Many Editorial Committees consider proposals at their annual meetings, so feedback can take up to nearly a year, and Annual Reviews says faster publication is not available even if a draft is already written.

If editorial interest exists, Annual Reviews will provide the author instructions and submission path for the commissioned article. Do not write a full manuscript assuming the portal is an open intake route.

Required submission documents include:

• Complete manuscript as an editable Word or TeX file, plus a PDF of the final manuscript

• Separate title page with all author information

• Abstract (150 words maximum)

• Disclosure of bias form (completed after the article is accepted)

• Annual Reviews Copyright License and Authors' Rights Agreement

• High-resolution figures as separate files

Formatting requirements are specific. Use 12-point type and double-spaced text for all material in the submission PDF. Number all pages. Place tables and figures at the end of the manuscript, not embedded in text.

Citations are numbered: the Annual Reviews handbook lists Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering among the journals with numbered citations, so put reference numbers in parentheses in the text (not square brackets or superscripts) and follow the bibliographic style your Production Editor gives. The detailed style guidelines are in the Annual Reviews author handbook and the Annualreviews author instructions.

The Annual Reviews Author Graphics Guide asks for editable or vector figure files and says photos must be at least 300-dpi resolution at final layout size; it also suggests making figures larger and higher resolution than they need to be. Color figures are printed at no cost to the author.

For a topic suggestion, the important evidence is different: topic timing, field-level scope, author authority, recent-volume differentiation, and a synthesis argument that helps the Editorial Committee imagine a future review slot.

Annual Reviews does not publish a cover-letter requirement; the proposal email asks for a short set of items, and a review still has to justify its timing, scope, and approach upfront.

Your topic suggestion should address three questions: why this topic now, why this author team, and how the review would advance the field beyond existing reviews.

Include specific details about your literature search strategy. Mention databases searched, date ranges covered, and inclusion criteria. This shows thoroughness without taking space in your main text.

Here's a template structure:

Dear Annual Reviews proposals team,

I am writing to suggest a possible Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering topic: "the manuscript title." This review would synthesize recent developments in the specific area and identify priority research directions for the next five years.

The timing is appropriate because the specific reason - new techniques, regulatory changes, recent breakthroughs. No comprehensive review has covered [your specific scope] since [reference and date]. My review differs from the specific existing review by focusing on [your unique angle].

I bring [X] years of research experience in this area, with [number] publications including [1-2 most relevant papers]. My recent work on the specific project provides practical insights into the relevant aspect.

The review covers [brief outline] and includes [number] references from [date range]. I searched [databases] and consulted with [number] experts in the field to ensure comprehensive coverage.

I believe this review will be valuable to the ARCBE readership because the specific benefit. Thank you for your consideration.

Do not present this as a normal manuscript submission. Focus on content justification, timing, and author qualifications.

For detailed examples of successful journal cover letters, see our cover letter template guide.

Review journals like ARCBE are usually slower than standard research journals because reviewers are judging scope, synthesis quality, and field balance, not just experimental correctness.

The first screen is typically about three things:

• whether the topic is broad and timely enough

• whether the author team has the right credibility for the review

• whether the manuscript is offering synthesis rather than summary

If the paper proceeds, reviewers usually focus on coverage, balance, missing literatures, and whether the review generates a useful framework for the field. The common revision asks are not small cosmetic edits. They are usually deeper requests for better organization, stronger synthesis, or a clearer argument about future directions.

That is the right preparation mindset here. You do not need to promise an exact calendar. You need to assume the manuscript will be judged on authority, structure, and judgment.

Before submitting to Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, an Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering manuscript fit check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

The biggest mistake is submitting without an invitation. Annual Reviews does not consider unsolicited articles, whatever their quality. Send a proposal first.

Poor scope definition kills submissions. Topics that are too narrow ("Zeolite Catalysts for Methanol Synthesis") or too broad ("Sustainable Chemical Engineering") both get rejected.

Inadequate literature coverage draws revision requests. Annual Reviews asks reviewers whether the citations are broad and representative of the published primary literature, and your Production Editor gives the maximum number of references. Include recent work, but don't ignore foundational work.

Missing critical analysis gets reviews rejected. Simply summarizing existing papers isn't enough. You need to identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps. Compare different approaches. Argue for specific research directions.

Authors often submit reviews that duplicate recent coverage. Search Web of Science for reviews in your topic area from the past 5 years. If similar reviews exist, explain how yours differs in scope, perspective, or conclusions.

Poor writing quality causes immediate rejection. Review articles need to be accessible to broad audiences. Avoid excessive jargon. Define technical terms. Use clear topic sentences and logical transitions between sections.

Some authors submit reviews of their own work. This doesn't work. Your review should cite your papers where relevant, but the focus should be on synthesizing the broader literature.

Inadequate author qualifications are obvious to editors. If you haven't published in your review topic recently, explain the gap. If you're an early-career researcher, include senior co-authors with established track records.

Format violations seem minor but can slow invited review handling. Follow the journal's style guidelines exactly. Don't embed figures in text. Use proper citation format. Include all required forms and statements.

Across Manusights submission reviews for chemical and biomolecular engineering review proposals targeting Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, the named failure patterns are visible in the topic memo, outline, author-authority section, recent-volume scan, references, and cover email before a manuscript exists. Annual Reviews' public author information says articles are written by experienced researchers upon invitation from Editorial Committees and that unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted.

Manusights therefore treats this as an invitation-readiness problem: does the topic belong in an Annual Reviews volume, does the author team have visible authority, and does the proposed synthesis add information gain beyond recent reviews?

Failure pattern: Topic suggestion is a narrow method review, not a field synthesis

Across Manusights submission reviews for chemical and biomolecular engineering proposals targeting Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, this pattern appears when the title and outline are technically strong but too small for the venue. A proposal on one catalyst family, one membrane material, one bioreactor geometry, one machine-learning model, or one process-control method can matter deeply inside a specialty, yet still fail the Annual Reviews reader job.

ARCBE needs reviews that help a broad chemical and biomolecular engineering audience understand a field-level question, not only a method-specific frontier.

The fix is visible in the manuscript components. The topic memo should name the broad engineering question and the reason the answer matters across subfields. The outline should bridge enough adjacent literatures to show Annual Reviews-scale synthesis: separations with AI, biocatalysis with electrochemistry, synthetic biology with bioprocessing, pharmaceutical manufacturing with systems engineering, carbon capture with process intensification, or materials design with sustainability.

The figures should be conceptual maps of the field, not only mechanism diagrams for one technique. The references should show recent coverage and foundational work across multiple communities. The cover email should route against Chemical Reviews, Chemical Society Reviews, Accounts of Chemical Research, Biotechnology Advances, AIChE Journal, and specialty chemical-engineering venues so the Editorial Committee can see why ARCBE is the better home.

Check whether your Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering topic is field-level enough →

Failure pattern: Author authority section does not prove Annual Reviews fit

Across Manusights submission reviews for Annual Reviews-style proposals targeting Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, this failure appears when the author team is credible but the topic memo does not prove exact-field authority. Annual Reviews invitation decisions are not only about whether authors can write well. They are about whether the Editorial Committee can trust those authors to interpret a field for readers who may be outside the specialty.

A generic CV paragraph, a list of publications in adjacent areas, or a claim of "broad interest" does not carry that burden.

The proposal should make authority legible without sounding self-promotional. The author-authority section should name the team's most relevant primary-research contributions, review experience if any, and field roles that explain why they can synthesize the topic. The outline should show command of competing schools, not only the authors' own work. The references should avoid over-weighting self-citations and instead demonstrate a balanced map of the field.

The cover email should explain how senior and junior coauthors divide expertise, especially when the topic crosses chemical engineering, biomolecular engineering, materials science, biology, computation, or sustainability. If the authority case is narrower than the topic, the better move is to recruit a coauthor or retarget to a venue with a narrower readership.

Check whether your Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering authority case is strong enough →

Failure pattern: Proposal repeats recent review coverage instead of naming the gap

Across Manusights submission reviews for topic suggestions targeting Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, this pattern appears when the idea is timely but the recent-volume scan and references do not explain what the proposed review would add. Annual Reviews has limited slot inventory.

A topic that overlaps a recent Annual Reviews chapter or a major external review can still be viable, but only if the proposal names a changed premise, new evidence base, unresolved controversy, or cross-field synthesis that the previous review did not cover. Without that gap, the proposal reads like a duplicate.

The fix belongs in the topic memo, outline, references, and figures. The memo should include a concise "what is new now" paragraph. The outline should organize around the new synthesis rather than repeating common review headings. The reference list should include recent Annual Reviews chapters and peer review articles so the Editorial Committee can see you have checked coverage.

The proposed figures should make the information gain visible, such as a framework, decision tree, design map, or field taxonomy that readers do not already have. The cover email should avoid claiming novelty in vague terms; it should name exactly what the review will reorganize for chemical and biomolecular engineering readers.

Check whether your Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering proposal adds a real coverage gap →

The review tells you whether your paper passes Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering topic-scale, author-authority, and recent-coverage checks. Manusights checks do not train on your manuscript, and paid reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee.

We reviewed Annual Reviews author resources, the Information for Unsolicited Authors and Reviewers page, the Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering journal page, and recent Annual Reviews records on October 10, 2026. Sources used include Annual Reviews' statement that articles are written by experienced researchers upon invitation from Editorial Committees and that unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted, plus current journal pages showing broad chemical and biomolecular engineering scope.

Through our diagnostic work, we have found that editors specifically look for field-level topic scale, visible author authority, and a recent-coverage gap. In practice, the named failure pattern is not a formatting error. It is a topic memo, outline, references, or cover email that cannot prove Annual Reviews-scale synthesis.

That doesn't mean a topic suggestion is impossible. But it does mean your approach needs to be different.

• For full journal context, see the Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering journal overview.

• How to publish a paper for the first time

Fit problems do not announce themselves in the submission checklist. Weigh Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. before I reformat against closer-fitting venues.