Chemical Communications Submission Guide: RSC Requirements & Tips

Source: RSC ChemComm author guidelines, Clarivate 2026 JCR release, accessed May 2026.

ChemComm editorial workflow at ScholarOne (ScholarOne submission portal) is fast by chemistry standards: RSC lists medians of 16 days to first decision across all submissions and 22 days for peer-reviewed submissions. RSC publishes no stage-by-stage day counts, so the stages below follow RSC's manuscript tracker. Editors screen for chemistry novelty, characterization completeness, and significance framing in the first read.

Receipt and completeness check

RSC checks the submitted files for completeness. If a manuscript is incomplete, RSC's editorial team contacts the author by email to resolve it. Before upload, check the 5-page Communication limit, the 50-word Communication abstract, the significance/novelty statement and 5 suitable referees, the conflicts of interest statement and the data availability statement.

With the editorial office and editor assignment

Once checked, a submission waits for assignment to an editor, either a publishing editor at RSC or an associate editor. The scope read decides whether the contribution is urgent broad-impact chemistry or better routed to a specialist RSC journal (Org. Biomol. Chem., Inorg. Chem. Front., J. Mater. Chem. A/B/C, Catal. Sci. Technol., Soft Matter, Analyst) or to Nature Communications / Cell Reports Physical Science for higher-impact venues.

Editorial scope assessment

The editor decides desk-reject, transfer-offer to a specialist RSC journal, or send for peer review. RSC says a manuscript may be returned without external review if it falls outside the journal's scope, is of poor scientific quality, is of insufficient general interest, falls below the novelty required, or shows undue fragmentation or redundant information, among other listed reasons. RSC publishes no desk-rejection rate.

External peer review

Peer review is single-anonymised by default, and ChemComm offers double-anonymised review as an opt-in at submission. RSC publishes no reviewer count. RSC says reviewers assess the evidence for the homogeneity and structure of all new compounds, and strong submissions benchmark rigorously against the nearest existing chemistry.

First decision

Outcomes include rejection, a transfer offer to another RSC journal, a revision request, or acceptance. RSC lists medians of 16 days (all decisions) and 22 days (peer-reviewed submissions) to first decision. RSC publishes no revision-to-decision timing.

For manuscripts targeting Chemical Communications, three failure modes account for most desk rejections among the papers we analyze.

In our pre-submission review work we see many desk rejections at Chemical Communications trace to scope or framing problems that prevent the paper from competing in this venue. These cases often involve insufficient methodological rigor or missing validation evidence. A related pattern is a novelty claim that outpaces the supporting data.

RSC's initial-assessment criteria (scope, general interest, novelty and scientific quality) underlie each pattern below, and addressing these before submission reduces early-rejection risk.

In our pre-submission review work the highest-risk submission pattern we see is a manuscript where the title and first scheme promise a new chemical advance, but the data package shows a narrow substrate set, a predictable structural modification, or characterization that would be normal for a full paper but thin for an urgent communication.

Routine chemistry extensions framed as breakthrough discoveries

Chemical Communications' author guidelines describe Communications as urgent research of outstanding significance. The failure pattern is a manuscript that extends a previously reported catalytic system to a few additional substrates or synthesizes an obvious structural analogue of a known material without demonstrating superior properties.

Editors and reviewers identify this pattern immediately: if the core chemistry was predictable from existing literature and the improvement is incremental, it is a desk rejection. We find that manuscripts where the novelty claim depends on "to our knowledge, the first example of X" without mechanistic justification for why X matters are particularly vulnerable. SciRev's 17 author reports, which are community estimates and not RSC figures, put the average first review round at 0.8 months and the average decision time for an immediate rejection at 2 days (read October 2026), while RSC lists 16 days (all decisions) and 22 days (peer reviewed).

Check routine chemistry extensions framed as breakthrough discoveries before submitting to Chemical Communications →

Incomplete or inadequate characterization of new compounds

RSC's experimental reporting requirements ask for evidence of both purity and identity for all new compounds, with elemental analysis wherever possible or, failing that, high-resolution mass spectrometry plus assigned NMR spectra for diamagnetic compounds, and a deposited CIF plus checkCIF report for reported crystal structures. The failure pattern is a paper where the main manuscript reports selected characterization data and assumes reviewers will accept references to prior methods for the rest. Chemical Communications reviewers consistently flag missing data as a ground for rejection, not just revision.

We observe this most frequently in papers from groups working at the interface of synthesis and materials science, where the synthesis section is strong but the characterization package is borrowed from an earlier generation of the project.

Clarivate 2026 JCR release bibliometric data provides additional benchmarks when evaluating journal fit.

Check incomplete or inadequate characterization of new compounds before submitting to Chemical Communications →

Editor-facing notes that describe significance without stating the chemical advance

Chemical Communications editors read the cover letter first. A cover letter that opens with "The development of new catalysts for C-H functionalization has attracted enormous attention" and then never states what the paper actually achieves in the first paragraph is already losing. The cover letter must state: what specific transformation or material was accomplished, what it enables that was not possible before, and one quantified advantage over the nearest existing method.

A ChemComm chemical advance framing and characterization completeness check can identify cover letter framing gaps and characterization weaknesses before the submission window.

Editors consistently screen submissions against these patterns before sending to peer review, so addressing them before upload reduces desk-rejection risk.

Check editor-facing notes that describe significance without stating the chemical advance before submitting to Chemical Communications →

RSC checks ChemComm uploads at ScholarOne (ScholarOne submission portal) for completeness against the following artifacts, and its editorial team contacts the author by email if something is missing.

The required artifacts are:

• the cover letter (with the explicit chemical-advance statement, novelty justification, and any prior-rejection / ChemRxiv preprint disclosure)

• the manuscript file (within the 5-page Communication limit, or the Feature Article length agreed with the editors)

• the table of contents entry (graphical abstract), requested at the revision stage (TIFF, 600 dpi or greater, at most 8 cm x 4 cm)

• the supporting information (full experimental procedures, NMR, MS, HRMS or elemental analysis, and CCDC numbers with checkCIF files for crystal structures)

• an ORCID iD for the submitting author (required when a revised manuscript is submitted; co-authors are encouraged to link theirs)

• the author contributions statement (CRediT taxonomy recommended)

• the conflicts of interest declaration

• the funding statement and source listing with grant numbers

• the data availability statement

• the ethics approval and consent statement where applicable (ARRIVE 2.0 for animals, Declaration of Helsinki for humans)

• details of 5 suitable referees, entered in the submission system.

Communications are limited to 5 pages: up to 3.5 pages for the title, authors and main text up to and including conclusions, which must not go beyond the end of the first column on page 4, plus a maximum of 1.5 additional pages for the conflicts of interest, data availability and author contributions statements, acknowledgements, and references. This constraint forces extreme concision in presenting your chemistry, and RSC asks authors to include only a small number of figures and tables.

RSC requires the Communication template for all Communication submissions, so download and use it rather than formatting manually. RSC also offers a submission checker tool that checks formatting, sections, figures and compliance statements before you submit.

• Figures require specific technical standards. Submit figures, schemes and charts as TIFF files at 600 dpi or greater; EPS or PDF files are accepted but converted to TIFF in the final article. Images should fit within single-column (8.3 cm) or double-column (17.1 cm) width and be no longer than 23.3 cm. Chemical structures should be drawn consistently using ChemDraw or equivalent software with standard bond lengths and angles. Avoid hand-drawn schemes or inconsistent structure rendering.

Each figure needs a comprehensive caption explaining all elements. Don't assume readers understand abbreviations or reaction conditions without definition. Include scale bars for microscopy images and error bars for quantitative data.

The graphical abstract appears in the table of contents and RSS feeds, making it your primary discovery advertisement. Design it to show the key chemical transformation or discovery in one clear image. Include minimal text - the image should communicate your breakthrough without explanation.

• Supporting information must contain complete experimental procedures. This isn't optional. Include full synthesis protocols, characterization data (NMR, MS, elemental analysis), and computational details if applicable. Reviewers will reject papers with incomplete experimental sections regardless of scientific novelty.

Organize supporting information logically: general procedures first, then individual compound syntheses, followed by characterization data in the same order. Include copies of all NMR spectra and mass spectra for new compounds. Computational chemistry papers need complete calculation details and coordinates for optimized structures.

Reference formatting follows RSC style guidelines strictly. Journal abbreviations must match Chemical Abstracts Service standards. DOIs are optional in RSC references, except that when page or article numbers are not yet known the article should be cited by DOI.

Your cover letter should be exactly one page and answer three questions: What did you discover? Why does it matter beyond your lab? How does it advance chemical science significantly?

Start with a single sentence stating your discovery. "We report the first catalytic asymmetric synthesis of tertiary alcohols bearing quaternary stereocenters through copper-catalyzed alkyne hydroalkylation." Don't build up to it or provide background context first.

The second paragraph explains chemical significance. Focus on what this enables that wasn't possible before. If you developed a new reaction, what synthetic challenges does it solve? If you synthesized new materials, what properties do they exhibit that existing materials lack?

• Avoid generic significance claims. Don't write "this work will be of broad interest to the chemical community." Instead: "This transformation provides direct access to pharmaceutical building blocks that currently require 8-10 step syntheses through existing methods."

The third paragraph addresses novelty directly. Acknowledge the closest prior work and explain exactly how your approach differs. Editors see too many papers claiming novelty without distinguishing from existing methods. Be specific about what makes your chemistry new.

End with a brief statement about why Chemical Communications is the right venue. Reference recent papers the journal published in your area and explain how your work builds on or complements that research direction.

• Template elements that work: Quantified improvements over existing methods ("50% higher yield," "10-fold faster reaction times"), specific application examples ("enables synthesis of compound X currently available only through [difficult method]"), and clear novelty statements ("first example of the specific transformation using [your approach]").

Keep sentences short and active voice. Don't apologize for submitting or ask editors to consider your work. State what you accomplished and why it matters. Strong cover letters read like confident scientific communication, not requests for permission.

For detailed cover letter examples and templates, see our journal cover letter guide with filled-in examples for chemistry journals.

Incomplete synthesis details put a submission at risk of early rejection. Don't assume reviewers will accept "standard procedures" or references to other papers for critical steps. Include complete protocols for every new compound, including workup procedures and purification methods.

• Poor significance justification kills otherwise solid chemistry. Many papers get rejected because authors can't articulate why their discovery matters beyond academic curiosity. Connect your chemistry to real problems or applications. Explain what becomes possible that wasn't before.

Generic novelty claims don't work. "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of..." isn't sufficient. Explain mechanistically why your approach differs from existing methods and what advantages that provides.

Inadequate literature coverage reveals insufficient preparation. If you miss important prior work in your field, editors assume you don't understand the landscape well enough to evaluate your contribution properly. Comprehensive literature searches are mandatory.

• Figure quality problems are surprisingly common. Blurry spectra, inconsistent chemical drawing styles, and poor image resolution immediately signal careless preparation. If you can't present your work professionally, editors wonder about your experimental rigor.

Missing supporting information elements put a submission at risk, even after positive peer review. Include complete experimental procedures, characterization data for all new compounds, and copies of key spectra. RSC says that if necessary data are not made available, authors may be asked to provide them during peer review, or in light of post-publication concerns.

Scope overclaiming backfires consistently. Don't present isolated examples as general methods unless you've tested substrate scope thoroughly. Don't claim broad applicability based on narrow studies. Be precise about what you've demonstrated versus what you hypothesize.

If you're unsure whether your chemistry meets publication standards, check our guide on 10 signs your paper isn't ready to submit before beginning the submission process.

Official guidance and generic submission pages for Chemical Communications usually explain RSC mechanics, format limits, article types, or portal steps. They rarely answer the submission decision authors need before upload: whether the first scheme, substrate scope, characterization package, supporting information, and cover letter make the chemistry urgent enough for ChemComm rather than Chemical Science, Organic Letters, or a specialist RSC title.

• How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Chemical Communications

• Chemical Society Reviews submission guide

• ACS Catalysis submission guide

• Is Chemical Society Reviews a Good Journal?

• Chemical Science Under Review status

The submission template is the last decision, not the first. Compare my abstract's fit with Chemical Communications before I reformat.