Chemical Reviews Submission Guide

Submission caps: the Chemical Reviews author guidelines give no specific length recommendation, figure cap, or reference cap for a regular review (a Focus Review is limited to 20 published pages), and the entire proposal should not exceed five pages. The abstract is 100 to 200 words.

The proposal is examined by the Editor and often expert reviewers, and a decision is usually reached within two months.

• Proposal stage. Authors submit a proposal through the ACS Publishing Center on the Chemical Reviews proposal template, articulating topic, scope, previous reviews, and the author team's closely related papers. ACS publishes no proposal acceptance rate; a July 2024 Chemical Reviews editorial says a significant number of proposals are rejected.

• Writing. For accepted proposals, the author team receives an invitation to submit a full review. The proposal template asks for a tentative submittal date.

• Submission. The author submits the review through the invitation on the ACS Publishing Center dashboard. ACS journal metrics list a median of 12.7 days from submission to first editorial decision without peer review (data as of 2025).

• External peer review. All manuscripts are peer reviewed. Reviewers evaluate citation breadth, critical synthesis, methodological neutrality across competing approaches, and whether the article reframes how the field thinks about the topic. ACS journal metrics list a median of 58 days from submission to first decision with peer review.

• Decision and publication. The handling editor integrates reports. Major-revision decisions specify the comprehensive-coverage or critical-synthesis gaps that must close. ACS journal metrics list a median of 146.9 days from submission to acceptance, including author revision time, and 20.2 days from acceptance to ASAP publication.

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 2026 JCR release, accessed April 2026.

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

Chemical Reviews considers full reviews through two routes, invitation or an approved proposal:

• Editors invite some authors directly, individually or through Thematic Issues

• Chemical Reviews accepts proposals: authors without an invitation submit a proposal on the ACS template (no more than five pages), and an accepted proposal results in an invitation; a July 2024 Chemical Reviews editorial says many published articles are unsolicited reviews proposed by authors

• Manuscripts submitted without an invitation or an approved proposal will not be considered

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.4c00567

• Proposal decision: usually within two months (ACS author guidelines)

• Writing time after an approved proposal: agreed with the editor; the proposal template asks for a tentative submittal date

• ACS median days (journal metrics, data as of 2025): 58 from submission to first decision with peer review, 146.9 from submission to acceptance, and 20.2 from acceptance to ASAP publication

The rules are documented; the fit question stays open until you test it. 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 at the proposal stage: a topic that lacks a field-level synthesis problem, citation breadth that reads as volume rather than command of the field, and a contribution that belongs at a sister review venue. All three are visible in the proposal file before a full manuscript exists, so all three are worth resolving before you submit the proposal.

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

ACS does not consider manuscripts submitted without an invitation or an approved proposal. 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: October 9, 2026 against Chemical Reviews editorial pages.