Chemical Society Reviews Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

Chem Soc Rev is unusual among high-impact journals in that it doesn't impose rigid word limits on its main article types. The expectation is that you'll write as much as the topic requires and not more.

The lack of a word limit doesn't mean length is irrelevant. Editors expect authors to be thorough but focused. A 45,000-word review will get pushback unless the topic genuinely demands it. Tutorial Reviews, in particular, should be accessible and concise. They're aimed at researchers entering a field, not at experts who already know the literature.

Review Articles in Chem Soc Rev are overwhelmingly invited. The editorial board identifies topics and commissions authors with strong track records. If you haven't been invited but want to write for the journal, submit a proposal to the editorial office. Include a detailed outline, a list of your relevant publications, and an explanation of why the review is timely. Proposals are reviewed by the editorial board, and acceptance isn't guaranteed.

Tutorial Reviews are also mostly invited, but the journal is more receptive to unsolicited proposals for this format. Tutorial Reviews are pedagogical in nature. They should teach a method, concept, or area rather than merely cataloging the literature.

Chem Soc Rev uses unstructured abstracts for all article types.

• Word limit: Approximately 150-250 words (no strict enforcement, but editors will ask you to trim if it's excessive)
• Structure: Single paragraph, no section headings
• Citations: Not allowed in the abstract
• Content: Should outline the scope of the review, the time period covered, and the main conclusions or insights

The abstract for a Chem Soc Rev review shouldn't read like an article abstract. You don't need to present specific data or results. Instead, frame the review's scope, state what sets your coverage apart from previous reviews, and highlight the most important conclusions or trends you've identified.

One thing that catches authors off guard is the expectation for a "critical" review rather than a survey. Your abstract should signal that you're not just listing papers. You should indicate where you've identified gaps, contradictions, or opportunities. The journal values perspective and synthesis over cataloging.

Chem Soc Rev publishes all figures in color at no charge, both online and in print. For a review journal in chemistry, figures are especially important because they include reaction schemes, mechanism diagrams, comparison tables, and structure-property relationships.

Figure requirements:

Chemical structures and schemes:

• Draw using ChemDraw with ACS Document 1996 settings or RSC settings
• Bond lengths: 14.4 pt (ACS) or comparable
• Use consistent style throughout the manuscript
• Stereochemistry must be clearly shown (wedge/dash bonds)
• Atom numbering should follow IUPAC conventions

Table requirements:

• Every column needs a header
• Horizontal rules only (top, bottom, below headers)
• No vertical rules or background shading
• Footnotes use lowercase superscript letters
• SI units throughout
• Tables should be editable (Word table format), not images

For review articles, figure quality matters even more than for primary research papers. Editors expect that schemes and structures are redrawn to a consistent standard, not copied from the original publications. Low-quality screenshots of figures from other papers will be rejected. You need to either redraw the figure or obtain a high-resolution version from the original author.

Chem Soc Rev uses the standard RSC numbered reference style.

In-text citations: Superscript numbers, placed after punctuation. Groups of references at one citation point: ^1-3 or ^1,3,5.

Reference list format (numbered):

1. A. B. Smith, C. D. Jones and E. F. Brown, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2025, 54, 1234-1267.

Key formatting rules:

• Author initials before surname (e.g., "A. B. Smith")
• "and" before the last author
• Journal titles abbreviated per RSC conventions and italicized
• Year, volume, and page range included
• DOIs required for all journal articles
• For books: A. B. Smith, Title of Book, Publisher, City, Year, ch. X, pp. XX-XX.
• "et al." after first two authors if more than three total

Review articles in Chem Soc Rev commonly cite 200 to 500+ references. Managing this volume requires a solid reference manager setup. Make sure your RSC style file is current in Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote. The most common error is having journal abbreviations from a different publisher's convention mixed in with RSC abbreviations.

The RSC's initials-first format (A. B. Smith rather than Smith, A. B.) is the opposite of Vancouver/NLM style. If you're reusing a reference library from a medical journal submission, every reference will need reformatting. Check this carefully before submission.

Chem Soc Rev allows Electronic Supplementary Information (ESI) for review articles, though it's less commonly used than in primary research journals.

Typical ESI content for Chem Soc Rev:

• Extended data tables comparing studies across the field
• Additional figures that support but aren't essential to the narrative
• Complete literature survey tables (all papers reviewed, organized by parameter)
• Biographical notes on the authors (sometimes included)

ESI formatting:

• Submit as a single PDF
• Number supplementary figures as Fig. S1, S2, etc.
• Include its own table of contents if extensive
• References in ESI should follow the same RSC style

For Chem Soc Rev, the main text should stand on its own. ESI is for truly supplementary material, not for critical content that didn't fit. Reviewers may or may not read the ESI thoroughly, so don't put your strongest arguments there.

Both formats are accepted, but the practical choice for Chem Soc Rev leans heavily toward Word.

Word submissions:

• RSC Word template available from the RSC author information page
• Times New Roman, 12-point
• Double-spaced throughout
• Line numbers and page numbers
• Figures placed at the end or embedded (author choice at submission stage)

LaTeX submissions:

• RSC class file (rsc.cls) and BibTeX style (rsc.bst)
• Available from the RSC website and Overleaf
• Submit both source files and compiled PDF
• Include all custom macros and bibliography files

For review articles, Word is the pragmatic choice. Review manuscripts involve heavy editorial input, track changes, and collaborative revision. Word handles this better than LaTeX in most workflows. If you're collaborating with multiple co-authors (common for Chem Soc Rev), Word's track changes and comment features make the revision process smoother.

LaTeX is a reasonable choice if your review is heavily mathematical (computational chemistry, theoretical chemistry) or if you're more productive in that environment. Just be aware that the RSC production team will convert your LaTeX to XML, and complex table formatting or unusual packages sometimes cause issues at the proof stage.

Chem Soc Rev has several expectations that distinguish it from other review journals.

1. Critical perspective is mandatory. The journal explicitly distinguishes between a "review" (critical analysis with the author's perspective) and a "survey" (a catalog of published work). Chem Soc Rev publishes reviews, not surveys. Your manuscript should include your assessment of the field, identify unresolved questions, and propose future directions. If your paper reads as a list of "Group A did X, Group B did Y," it won't survive editorial review.

2. Author biography and photograph. Chem Soc Rev requires a short biography (about 100 words) and a professional photograph for each author. These are published alongside the article. Have these ready before submission. The biographies should include current position, research interests, and notable achievements.

3. Figures should be redrawn to a consistent standard. As mentioned above, don't copy figures from published papers. Redraw schemes, structures, and diagrams so they have a uniform appearance throughout your review. This is particularly important for reaction schemes where different source papers use different drawing conventions.

4. Time period and scope should be stated explicitly. Your introduction should clearly state what time period the review covers and what's included/excluded. If you're reviewing catalytic C-H activation from 2015 to 2025, say that. If you're excluding heterogeneous catalysis, say that too.

5. Comparison tables are expected. Chem Soc Rev readers value tables that compare methods, catalysts, materials, or approaches across multiple studies. These summary tables are often the most-cited part of the review. Invest time in creating thorough, well-organized comparison tables.

6. Review Articles can be very long, but Tutorial Reviews shouldn't be. There's an unwritten length expectation for Tutorial Reviews of roughly 8,000-12,000 words. Going much beyond 15,000 words for a Tutorial Review will prompt editorial feedback requesting cuts.

Because review articles reuse figures from published work, copyright permissions are a significant concern.

• Figures reproduced from RSC journals: Automatic permission granted; include proper attribution
• Figures reproduced from other publishers: You must obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher, not the author)
• Figures adapted or redrawn: Clearly state "Adapted from ref. X with permission from [Publisher]"
• Open access figures (CC BY): Can be reused with proper attribution; no permission needed

Start the permissions process early. Getting permission from some publishers (especially Wiley and Elsevier) can take 2-4 weeks. The RSC won't publish your review until all permissions are cleared.

Based on production feedback from Chem Soc Rev:

• Inconsistent chemical drawing styles across figures (mixing ChemDraw settings)
• Using figures copied from other papers without redrawing them
• RSC reference style errors (surname before initials is the most common)
• Missing author biographies or photographs
• Not stating the scope and time period of the review
• Writing a literature survey rather than a critical review
• Missing copyright permissions for reproduced figures

For quick answers to the most common Chem Soc Rev formatting questions, see the FAQ section at the top of this page.