Chemical Society Reviews 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Chemical Society Reviews handling editor evaluates whether the review topic importance, literature comprehensiveness, and novel synthesis warrant Chemical Society Reviews's editorial slots. About 30 to 40 percent of unsolicited submissions are desk-rejected at this stage. A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the topic does not warrant a review article in Chem Soc Rev (insufficiently timely, already covered by recent reviews, lacking novel synthesis) or that the work would fit better at a sister RSC journal (Materials Chemistry Frontiers for materials reviews, Organic Chemistry Frontiers for organic reviews). For unsolicited reviews, authors should contact editors about the proposed topic before submission; editors may invite submissions if they consider the topic timely.

The handling editor reads the review manuscript and evaluates topic importance, literature comprehensiveness, critical analysis, and novel synthesis. The handling editor's evaluation is more substantive than research-article desk screens because review articles require evaluation of the entire literature landscape covered.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, unsolicited submissions are discussed across the RSC editorial team where peer handling editors and Editorial Board Chair Duncan Graham weigh in on whether the review topic warrants a Chem Soc Rev slot. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 7 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Chemical Society Reviews handling editors typically invite 2 to 3 expert reviewers. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days. RSC uses a single-anonymized review model where the author's name and institution will be known by the peer reviewer, but the author will not know the identity of the peer reviewer (standard for most chemistry journals).

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical Chemical Society Reviews peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 6 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 47-day median first decision. Reviewers are asked to evaluate literature comprehensiveness, critical analysis, novel synthesis, and topic importance.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Publication typically occurs 2 to 4 weeks after acceptance.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Handling editor desk rejection per the 30 to 40 percent figure for unsolicited submissions.
• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Chemical Society Reviews handling editor desk screen.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the RSC submission portal is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Chemical Society Reviews authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 6 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of Chemical Society Reviews's 47-day median first decision distribution. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for chemistry review experts (the review-article format requires reviewers willing to evaluate 200+ references) rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 9-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at Chemical Society Reviews.

What you should NOT do during the 6-to-9-week window is email the editorial office. Chemical Society Reviews handling editors are working academic chemists managing 40+ active papers per year around their own laboratories; an inquiry at 6 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Chemical Society Reviews paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Materials Chemistry Frontiers (RSC) is the natural RSC cascade for materials chemistry reviews. When a paper is to be rejected from one Royal Society of Chemistry journal, authors are offered the option to transfer the paper to one of the other journals for consideration.

Organic Chemistry Frontiers (RSC) is the RSC cascade for organic chemistry reviews.

Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers (RSC) is the RSC cascade for inorganic chemistry reviews.

Chemical Reviews (ACS) is the external ACS chemistry review cascade. Chemical Reviews uses ACS Paragon Plus at acsparagonplus.acs.org; editorial contact chemrev@acs.org.

Nature Reviews Chemistry is the external Springer Nature top-tier chemistry review cascade. The Nature Reviews Chemistry Manuscript Tracking System at mts-natrevchem.nature.com handles submission; natrevchem@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

ACS Catalysis review section for catalysis-specific reviews.

RSC asks reviewers at Chemical Society Reviews to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with Chemical Society Reviews-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen.

Unsolicited submission without prior editor contact flagged at handling editor desk screen. When unsolicited reviews are submitted without prior editor contact about the proposed topic, Chem Soc Rev desk rejection is common (the journal explicitly recommends contacting editors first). The strongest unsolicited submissions are preceded by editor contact about the proposed topic.

Summary-without-synthesis framing surfaces as reviewer concerns. When the review merely summarizes existing literature without novel synthesis (new framework, comparison approach, integration insight), reviewers consistently flag concerns. The strongest reviews offer novel synthesis explicitly framed in the introduction.

RSC chemistry cascade offers from handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the review is rigorous but the broad chemistry impact bar of Chem Soc Rev is not met, transfer offers to Materials Chemistry Frontiers (materials reviews), Organic Chemistry Frontiers (organic reviews), or Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers (inorganic reviews) are common. RSC editors take these transfers seriously.

This page was created from RSC's public Chemical Society Reviews journal page at pubs.rsc.org/en/journals/journal/CS, RSC publishing process documentation (47-day median time to first decision for peer-reviewed full manuscripts, ~30 to 40 percent desk rejection for unsolicited submissions, 2 to 3 expert reviewers, RSC single-anonymized review model, most content invited with editors recommending pre-submission topic contact, Editorial Board Chair Duncan Graham), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Chemical Society Reviews-targeted manuscripts.

For the RSC chemistry review landscape beyond Chemical Society Reviews, see Materials Chemistry Frontiers (materials reviews), Organic Chemistry Frontiers (organic reviews), Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers (inorganic reviews), and external chemistry review alternatives (Chemical Reviews from ACS, Nature Reviews Chemistry, Accounts of Chemical Research). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top RSC chemistry review (Chem Soc Rev), materials reviews (Materials Chemistry Frontiers), organic reviews (Organic Chemistry Frontiers), inorganic reviews (Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers), top ACS chemistry review (Chemical Reviews), top Nature Portfolio chemistry review (Nature Reviews Chemistry), or personal-perspective accounts (Accounts of Chemical Research).

Reviewers at Chemical Society Reviews typically draw from 2 to 3 chemistry review subspecialty experts under the RSC single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a comprehensive review with novel synthesis is essential.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Chemical Society Reviews topic-importance-plus-novel-synthesis bar before submission, our Chemical Society Reviews pre-submission diagnostic flags the comprehensiveness and synthesis weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.