Chemical Society Reviews Submission Guide: Proposal, Scope, and Files

The RSC explicitly welcomes Review and Tutorial Review proposals from the research community. Authors download the relevant proposal form and submit the completed form through the online system. The stated reason is practical: the board can give feedback before the article is written and avoid over-commissioning the same subject area.

Your proposal should let an editor answer four questions quickly:

1. Why this topic now? Name the development, disagreement, or maturity point that makes synthesis useful.
2. What will readers understand differently? Describe the conceptual map, comparison, or decision the finished article will provide.
3. Why this format? Explain why the work is a Tutorial Review, Review, or Viewpoint rather than a research article or specialist review.
4. Why this author team? Connect the team's relevant work and complementary expertise to the proposed scope without treating publication count as the argument.

Search recent Chem Soc Rev coverage before proposing. The journal's reason for collecting proposals includes avoiding duplicated commissioning. A topic can be important and still be a poor proposal if an authoritative recent review already owns the same framing.

The official guidelines draw a bright line: Reviews and Tutorial Reviews that simply summarize research with little or no author analysis are not suitable. They also ask authors to use new graphics where possible and aim for no more than 20% reused graphics, with a brief justification when more reuse is necessary.

Use that requirement as an outline test:

This is the page's main information-gain test. The manuscript should help a chemist reason across the field, not merely find papers that a database search could surface.

The current RSC instructions accept article text as a Word, PDF, or LaTeX file. LaTeX submissions should also include a PDF that contains the figures. The article templates are optional, because accepted articles are professionally edited and typeset to the journal's house style.

Before opening ScholarOne, assemble:

• article text in an accepted format;
• numbered figures placed within or at the end of the text;
• a cover letter that states the importance of the work;
• preferred reviewers entered in the submission system;
• any supplementary information;
• applicable CCDC numbers and CheckCIF files for crystal structures;
• a data availability statement, which RSC requires for all articles;
• the Tutorial Review key-learning-points box when that format applies.

RSC uses ScholarOne Manuscripts and does not accept submissions by post or email. The current guidelines also note that the system needs browser pop-ups enabled. Use the portal reached from the official journal page rather than a saved third-party link, because submission routes can change.

The current Chem Soc Rev journal page describes the journal as the RSC's leading reviews journal and lists a 2025 Journal Impact Factor of 48.3. It reports 11 days to first decision across all manuscripts and 27 days for peer-reviewed manuscripts. Those are journal-level historical metrics, not deadlines for your paper. Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting a name in a cover letter.

The journal uses a hybrid publishing model. The current page says there is no fee to submit or publish through the subscription route. Authors choosing gold open access are shown a GBP 3,100 APC, while institutional agreements may cover the charge. Verify the amount and eligibility on the journal page at the time of submission.

Evidence basis: This guide was checked on 2026-08-21 against the official Chem Soc Rev journal page, its author guidelines, and the current RSC editorial-team page. The decision map above is Manusights synthesis of those published requirements. It cannot predict acceptance, editorial priority, reviewer availability, or an individual outcome. Hold the proposal if recent coverage owns the same angle, hold the manuscript if its figures only decorate a literature list, and stop before submission if the article type or required files remain unresolved.

An editor should be able to see the article's purpose before reading deep into the review.

For a Tutorial Review, test the opening with a chemist outside the specialty. The official standard is accessible enough for advanced undergraduates and general research chemists while remaining useful to experts. Define specialist language and make the learning progression visible.

For a full Review, test whether the text presents a balanced view of the primary literature. A persuasive review can still acknowledge contradictory findings, weak measurement regimes, and open questions. Selective citation that protects one narrative weakens the article's authority.

These failures matter because they reveal a mismatch between the proposed article's promise and the job of its chosen format. Fix the conceptual route before spending time on sentence-level polish.

The proposal names a subject but not a synthesis gap

“A review of recent advances in X” does not show why Chem Soc Rev needs the article. Name the unresolved comparison, conceptual fragmentation, or change in the evidence base that makes a new review useful now.

The manuscript inventories papers instead of judging evidence

If every paragraph begins with another author and year, the reader is doing the synthesis. Reorganize around claims, mechanisms, evidence quality, and consequences. Use tables to make disagreements inspectable.

The graphics repeat the literature

The official guidance favors new graphics and limits reused graphics as a proportion of the article. Build figures that reconcile terminology, compare mechanisms, or show where evidence is missing. Obtain permission and label reuse when another author's material is necessary.

The article type is doing the wrong job

A Viewpoint should not become a compressed Review. A Tutorial Review should not assume specialist knowledge from the first paragraph. A Review should not avoid critical judgment. Fix the promise before polishing sentences.