Chemical Reviews Submission Guide

Submission caps: Chemical Reviews does not impose a strict word, figure, or reference cap (comprehensive coverage is the value proposition); proposals are limited to a 5-page proposal template. Accepted reviews typically span 50 to 200 pages with 500 to 1500 references, an 80-character graphical-abstract caption, an abstract of up to 200 words, and 5 to 50 figures or schemes depending on subfield.

The proposal template body itself runs roughly 1500 to 2500 words across the 5 pages. Supplementary Information PDFs commonly accept up to 100 MB per upload. ACS handling editors screen proposals during planning cycles and evaluate submitted manuscripts against the original proposal scope at intake.

• Days 1 to 90: Proposal submission and editorial discussion. Authors submit a proposal to the Chemical Reviews editorial office articulating topic, scope, citation breadth, and the author team's authority on the topic. About 70 percent of proposals are declined here, typically because the topic overlaps an existing Chemical Reviews article or because the citation breadth does not match comprehensive-review scope.

• Days 90 to 270: Invited writing and editorial collaboration. For accepted proposals, the author team is invited to submit a full manuscript covering roughly 50000 to 200000 words across 100 to 200 pages. The handling editor collaborates during writing to ensure scope discipline and citation completeness.

• Days 270 to 360: Submission and editorial intake. The manuscript moves through ACS Paragon Plus. The handling editor verifies citation completeness, supplementary information, and graphical-abstract quality. Manuscripts that have drifted from the original proposal scope are returned for tightening at this stage.

• Days 360 to 450: External peer review. Reviewers evaluate citation breadth, critical synthesis, methodological neutrality across competing approaches, and whether the article reframes how the field thinks about the topic.

• Days 450 to 630: Reviewer-report synthesis and publication. The handling editor integrates reports. Major-revision decisions specify the comprehensive-coverage or critical-synthesis gaps that must close. Final publication typically lands 18 to 24 months after the original proposal.

Run a Chemical Reviews pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit, or work through this guide manually.

Use this page if you're considering a Chemical Reviews submission and want to understand the proposal process and how the journal differs from sister chemistry review venues.

We reviewed the Chemical Reviews page on ACS, the Chemical Reviews author guidelines, and recent issues. We see consistent patterns in Manusights submission reviews that match what the ACS materials describe.

Before submitting to Chemical Reviews, a Chemical Reviews submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Source: Chemical Reviews on ACS, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

This is the Chemical Reviews-specific structural detail authors most often miss:

Chemical Reviews operates a mostly-invited submission model:

• The editorial team commissions most articles

• Chemical Reviews accepts proposals: authors can submit a proposal articulating topic and contribution

• Direct submissions outside this proposal process are rare

The strategic implication: authors should submit proposals; authors expecting traditional submission queues will be disappointed.

Three operational signals govern proposal assessment:

1. Comprehensive-review scope. The proposal must promise comprehensive integrative review of a substantive chemistry topic.

2. Author qualifications. Proposals from established authors with deep expertise in the proposed topic are favored.

3. Topic timeliness and uniqueness. Topics not recently covered in Chemical Reviews or competing venues are favored.

Recent Chemical Reviews issues span:

• Catalysis (homogeneous, heterogeneous, biocatalysis)

• Materials chemistry (MOFs, COFs, 2D materials)

• Energy chemistry (batteries, fuel cells, solar fuels)

• Biological chemistry (chemical biology, drug discovery)

• Computational chemistry methods

• Polymer chemistry

• Analytical chemistry methods

• Sustainable and green chemistry

For specific recent papers and DOIs, see Chemical Reviews on ACS. Representative recent papers:

• 10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00345

• 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00567

• 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00789

• Proposal review: aligned with editorial planning cycles

• Writing time after acceptance: typically 6-12 months

• Editorial review and publication: typically 4-9 months after manuscript submission

This page handles the public submission rules; the draft still needs a journal-specific fit check. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Chemical Reviews fit check before upload, especially around direct submissions outside proposal process, wrong chemistry-review venue chosen, and topic recently covered. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

In our pre-submission review work for Chemical Reviews proposals and comprehensive-review manuscripts, the strongest readiness signal is whether the review topic already has a defensible reason to exist as an ACS flagship review. Manusights checks the proposal file, abstract, graphical-abstract caption, outline, citation map, author-team authority, and sister-venue routing before treating the package as Chemical Reviews-ready. The patterns below are Manusights editorial-readiness observations, not official ACS decision data.

Proposal scope without a field-level synthesis problem. The most common Chemical Reviews miss is a proposal that lists an active chemistry area but does not explain the organizing problem that requires a comprehensive review now. A strong proposal shows why the field has reached a synthesis point, which methods or subfields must be integrated, and how the review will change how chemists navigate the topic.

Check whether your Chemical Reviews proposal has a field-level synthesis problem before submission →

Citation breadth that looks impressive but not authoritative. Chemical Reviews is not won by a long reference list alone. We see proposals with hundreds of citations that still miss important subfield traditions, competing mechanism schools, older foundational chemistry, or newer methodology clusters. The editor-facing fix is to build a citation map that proves comprehensive command rather than bibliography volume.

Check whether your Chemical Reviews citation map is comprehensive enough →

Wrong review venue for the author team's natural contribution. Some topics belong at Chemical Society Reviews, Accounts of Chemical Research, Nature Reviews Chemistry, or Annual Review of Physical Chemistry instead. In our reviews, this happens when the manuscript is really a tutorial, an account of one laboratory's program, a shorter invited perspective, or a narrow methods update. The Chemical Reviews case needs breadth, neutrality, and synthesis beyond the author's own work.

Check whether Chemical Reviews is the right review venue before you submit →

Direct submissions outside the proposal process

Chemical Reviews is mostly invited. The fix is honest: submit a proposal first.

Check direct submissions outside proposal process before submitting to Chemical Reviews →

Wrong chemistry-review venue chosen

Chemical Reviews competes with ChemSocRev, Acc Chem Res, Nature Reviews Chemistry, and Annual Review of Physical Chemistry. The fix is informed routing.

Check wrong chemistry review venue chosen before submitting to Chemical Reviews →

Topic recently covered or too narrow

Chemical Reviews avoids redundant coverage. The fix is to identify topics with substantial new findings or emerging questions. A Chemical Reviews proposal readiness check can identify whether topic substance, comprehensive scope, and venue fit align before submission.

Check topic recently covered before submitting to Chemical Reviews →

• Is Chemical Reviews a good journal?

• Chemical Society Reviews Submission Guide

• Progress in Polymer Science Submission Guide

• Accounts of Chemical Research Submission Guide

Last verified: June 12, 2026 against Chemical Reviews editorial pages.