Chemical Society Reviews Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

Chem Soc Rev uses unstructured abstracts for all article types.

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 chemistry drawing software with RSC's chemical structure settings (bond length 0.43 cm or 12.2 pt, chain bond angle 120 degrees, fixed bond angle 15 degrees), or use RSC's ChemDraw templates

• Use consistent style throughout the manuscript

• Stereochemistry must be clearly shown (wedge/dash bonds)

• For crystal structure images, RSC asks for the atom numbering scheme to be clearly shown in one of the diagrams

Table requirements: RSC's author guidelines say figures, tables and equations should be used for clarity and brevity and that data should not be reproduced in more than one form without good reason. They publish no further table formatting rules, so use the RSC article template.

For review articles, figure quality matters even more than for primary research papers. RSC asks authors of Reviews and Tutorial Reviews to use new graphics where possible (for example by redrawing schemes) and to aim for no more than 20% of graphics in the article to be reused from previously published work. Where more previously published graphics are needed, RSC asks for a very brief justification on submission.

RSC asks authors to use numbered, Vancouver-style references (not Harvard style) and says it will format references to its house style before publication.

In-text citations: Superscript numbers, usually placed at the end of the sentence after the punctuation. Where references are not consecutive, separate the numbers with commas and no spaces; for more than two consecutive numbers, use an en-dash between the first and last.

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"), as in RSC's example format

• "and" before the last author

• Journal titles abbreviated following the Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index (CASSI)

• Year, volume, and page or article number included

• The DOI is optional in RSC's journal-article format; when page or article numbers are not yet known, cite the article by DOI

• For books, RSC's format is: A. Name, B. Name and C. Name, Book Title, Publisher, Publisher Location, year.

• RSC says the names and initials of all authors should be given in the reference

RSC publishes no reference limit for Reviews, and says there is no strict reference limit for Tutorial Reviews. Make sure your RSC style file is current in Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote; RSC provides EndNote style files. The most common error is having journal abbreviations from a different publisher's convention mixed in with RSC abbreviations.

RSC's example format puts author initials before the surname (A. B. Smith rather than Smith, A. B.). If you're reusing a reference library from a medical journal submission, check every reference against RSC's example format before submission.

RSC says authors may supply videos, PowerPoint slides, soundbites, pictures and other additional material as electronic supplementary information (ESI) to complement their articles, and asks them to contact the editorial office for details. ESI is 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 (RSC guidance):

• Supplementary data is peer-reviewed and should be included with the original submission

• Supplementary Information files are published "as is", so RSC editorial staff do not edit them for style or content

• Use common, widely known and machine-readable file formats where possible

• References cited in the ESI may be listed at the bottom of the reference section of the main manuscript, with a note in the data availability statement

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.

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

• Word submissions: RSC provides a Word article template on its author guidelines page and says use of the template is optional. RSC asks for numbered figures either included within or at the end of the text.
• LaTeX submissions: RSC provides LaTeX templates hosted with Overleaf. If you use LaTeX, RSC asks for both the native files and a PDF of your manuscript including all of your figures.

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

1. Critical perspective is mandatory. RSC says Reviews and Tutorial Reviews should focus on key developments in a field, with the author providing their own analysis and insight, and that articles which simply summarise research with minimal or no analysis or insight are not suitable. 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 photographs. RSC's Chem Soc Rev guidelines give sizes for biography photographs (4 cm wide x 5 cm high for an individual photograph, 8.3 cm wide x 5 cm high for a group photograph) and publish no biography word count. Ask the editorial office what biography and photograph material it needs for your article type.

3. Figures should be redrawn to a consistent standard. As mentioned above, RSC asks for new graphics where possible and no more than 20% reused graphics. 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. Reviews can be long, but Tutorial Reviews shouldn't be. RSC recommends a maximum of 45 pages for Reviews and says Tutorial Reviews are typically up to 15 journal pages.

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

• Figures reproduced from RSC journals: Check RSC's copyright and permissions page for current terms; 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.

For manuscripts targeting Chemical Society Reviews, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

Tutorial Review vs. Review distinction not matched to the content. Chemical Society Reviews publishes three article types: Tutorial Reviews (concise, accessible overviews for advanced undergraduates, the general research chemist new to the field, and the expert), Reviews (in-depth, authoritative accounts of important topics) and Viewpoints (short, opinion-based articles). Submitting a comprehensive literature survey framed as a Tutorial, or vice versa, signals a mismatch with the article type. Editors expect the format choice to reflect the genuine state of the field and the target audience.

Proposal not completed before manuscript preparation. RSC's author guidelines require a completed proposal form before a review is written, which gives the board the opportunity to provide feedback and helps RSC avoid over-commissioning in the same field. Authors who write a full manuscript before receiving editorial feedback on scope and format risk discovering that the topic overlaps with other reviews or that the framing does not match editorial priorities.

Article does not include the "key learning points" box. RSC says Tutorial Reviews should include a key learning points box containing up to five key learning points, provided on submission either at the beginning of the review or as a separate document. RSC publishes no equivalent requirement for Reviews.

TOC graphic wrong RSC dimensions or missing. RSC requires a table of contents entry (graphical abstract) with a graphic no larger than 8 cm wide by 4 cm high, supplied as a TIFF at 600 dpi or greater, plus 1-2 sentences of text using a maximum of 250 characters. RSC asks for it at the revision stage, not on first submission. For CSR, the graphic should communicate the conceptual scope of the review rather than a single result.

A Chemical Society Reviews submission readiness check evaluates manuscript type fit, structural completeness, and TOC compliance against these desk-rejection patterns before you submit.