Coordination Chemistry Reviews Submission Guide
A practical Coordination Chemistry Reviews submission guide for authors evaluating their proposed inorganic-chemistry review against the journal's scope and author authority bar.
Senior Researcher, Chemistry
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for chemistry journals, with deep experience evaluating submissions to JACS, Angewandte Chemie, Chemical Reviews, and ACS-family journals.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
Quick answer: This Coordination Chemistry Reviews submission guide is for authors evaluating whether to send a proposal. CCR is invited-leaning: most published reviews are commissioned but unsolicited proposals are accepted. The standard path is a 1-2 page proposal establishing scope, timing, author authority, and candidate length.
If you're considering CCR, the main risk is not formatting. It is proposing a topic where a recent comprehensive review already exists, where the author team's primary-research depth doesn't match the proposed coordination-chemistry subfield, or where the scope is too narrow for the 30-100 page treatment expected.
From our manuscript review practice
Of pre-submission proposals we've reviewed for Coordination Chemistry Reviews, the most consistent rejection trigger is author authority gaps relative to the proposed topic. CCR commissions or accepts reviews from coordination chemists with sustained primary-research records in the exact subfield.
How this page was created
This page was researched from Coordination Chemistry Reviews's author guidelines, Elsevier editorial-policy materials, Clarivate JCR data, SciRev community reports on Elsevier review journals, and Manusights internal analysis of pre-submission proposals we've reviewed for CCR and adjacent venues (Chemical Society Reviews, Chemical Reviews).
It owns the submission-guide intent: the proposal process, what makes a viable proposal, what the editorial screen evaluates, and what should be true before reaching out.
The specific failure pattern we observe most often is author authority mismatch: coordination chemists proposing comprehensive reviews of subfields adjacent to their primary-research record rather than at its center.
Coordination Chemistry Reviews Journal Metrics
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (2024 JCR) | 17.4 |
5-Year Impact Factor | ~22+ |
CiteScore | 30.5 |
Acceptance Rate | ~20-30% |
First Decision (proposal) | 4-6 weeks |
Full Manuscript Decision | 8-16 weeks |
APC (Open Access) | $4,650 (2026) |
Publisher | Elsevier |
Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).
CCR Submission Requirements and Timeline
Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
Submission portal | Elsevier Editorial Manager |
Initial step | Pre-submission proposal preferred |
Proposal length | 1-2 pages: scope, why now, author qualifications, proposed length |
Review article length | 30-100 pages typical |
References | 200-500+ for comprehensive reviews |
Display items | Extensive structural figures, schemes, tables |
Cover letter | Required with full submission |
Proposal response time | 4-6 weeks |
Full manuscript decision | 8-16 weeks for invited reviews |
Total to publication | 9-15 months for invited reviews |
Source: Coordination Chemistry Reviews author guidelines, Elsevier.
Submission snapshot
What to pressure-test | What should already be true before proposing |
|---|---|
Topic timing | No comprehensive review on this exact topic in CCR or Chem. Soc. Rev. in last 5 years |
Author authority | Corresponding author has sustained primary-research publications in the exact coordination-chemistry subfield |
Scope breadth | Topic supports a 30-100 page comprehensive treatment with broad coordination-chemistry relevance |
Synthesis argument | Proposal articulates a specific framework or framing the field needs now |
Length realism | Proposed length matches the topic's natural scope |
What this page is for
Use this page when you are still deciding:
- whether the proposed topic has timing headroom relative to recent comprehensive reviews
- whether the author team's standing supports the authority CCR requires
- whether the scope justifies a 30-100 page comprehensive treatment
What should already be in the proposal
Before submitting a proposal, the package should make four things easy to see in 1-2 pages:
- the specific topic or argument the synthesis will advance
- why the synthesis is needed now (5-year accumulation of new evidence, methodological consolidation, paradigm shift)
- what differentiates the proposal from existing reviews on adjacent topics
- why the proposing authors are the right team
Package mistakes that trigger proposal rejection
- Recent comprehensive coverage of the same topic. CCR editors check existing literature.
- Author standing is in adjacent rather than central coordination chemistry. CCR commissions reviews from chemists who have built the topic's primary-research foundation.
- Synthesis argument missing. "A review of recent advances in [topic]" is not a synthesis argument.
- Scope wrong for the venue. Topics that fit a 20-page Chem. Soc. Rev. piece often don't justify CCR's depth.
What makes Coordination Chemistry Reviews a distinct target
CCR is Elsevier's flagship coordination-chemistry review journal, with an editorial standard tuned to comprehensive synthesis by leading authorities.
Authority-driven selection: CCR reviews are read as authoritative because the authors built the field they're synthesizing.
The 5-year timing window: CCR rarely commissions a comprehensive review of a topic covered by an existing CCR or Chem. Soc. Rev. piece within the last 5 years.
The breadth standard: CCR serves coordination chemistry across metal complexes, organometallics, supramolecular chemistry, catalysis, bioinorganic chemistry, and metal-organic frameworks.
The proposal needs:
- a synthesis-level argument or framework
- one defensible "why now" inflection
- author CVs that establish primary-research authority
- a clear point of view
What a strong proposal sounds like
The strongest CCR proposals sound like a senior coordination chemist briefing the editorial office on a synthesis the field needs.
They usually:
- state the synthesis argument in one sentence
- explain the timing inflection in two sentences
- distinguish from existing reviews briefly
- establish author credentials with primary-research evidence
- propose a working title and approximate structure
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Diagnosing pre-proposal problems
Problem | Fix |
|---|---|
Topic was recently covered | Sharpen to a clearly distinct angle (contrarian framework, methodological consolidation); if no distinct angle exists, choose a different topic |
Author authority is thin in the topic | Bring in a senior co-author with primary-research depth; or reproduce to a Chem. Soc. Rev. or Chem. Rev. piece |
Synthesis argument unclear | Articulate the specific framework or framing that distinguishes this synthesis |
How CCR compares against nearby alternatives
Method note: the comparison reflects published author guidelines and Manusights internal analysis. We have not personally been CCR authors; the boundary is publicly documented editorial behavior. Pros and cons are based on documented editorial scope.
Factor | Coordination Chemistry Reviews | Chemical Society Reviews | Chemical Reviews | Accounts of Chemical Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Best fit (pros) | Comprehensive coordination-chemistry synthesis (30-100 pages) | Tutorial review of broader chemistry topic (~20 pages) | Comprehensive synthesis of major chemistry area, often longer | Personal account of researcher's own contributions |
Think twice if (cons) | Topic is broader chemistry rather than coordination-specific | Synthesis is highly specialized | Topic is too narrow | Synthesis is broader than personal research narrative |
Submit If
- the proposed topic supports a 30-100 page comprehensive synthesis
- the corresponding author has sustained primary-research publications in the exact coordination-chemistry subfield
- a specific recent inflection justifies the timing
- no comparable CCR or Chem. Soc. Rev. piece covered the topic in the last 5 years
Think Twice If
- the author team is established in adjacent rather than central coordination chemistry
- a comprehensive CCR or Chem. Soc. Rev. piece appeared in the last 5 years
- the proposal is "advances in [topic]" without a synthesis argument
- the topic would land better in Chem. Soc. Rev. or a specialty review venue
What to read next
Before drafting the proposal, run it through a Coordination Chemistry Reviews proposal-readiness check.
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Coordination Chemistry Reviews
In our pre-submission review work with proposals targeting CCR, three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.
In our experience, roughly 35% of CCR proposal rejections trace to author-authority mismatch with the proposed coordination-chemistry subfield. In our experience, roughly 30% involve timing collisions with recent CCR or Chem. Soc. Rev. pieces. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from proposals reading as comprehensive surveys without a specific synthesis argument.
- Author standing is in adjacent rather than central coordination subfield. CCR editors weigh authority heavily. We observe that proposals from authors with primary research in adjacent areas are routinely declined. SciRev data on Elsevier review journals confirms successful CCR proposals come from chemists with 10+ primary-research papers in the exact subfield.
- A comprehensive review of the topic appeared in adjacent venues recently. CCR editors check Chem. Soc. Rev., Chemical Reviews, and Nature Reviews Chemistry. We see proposals overlapping recent comprehensive reviews routinely declined unless the new piece offers a distinct synthesis.
- The proposal is a survey, not a synthesis. Editors look for a specific framework or argument. We find that proposals framed as "a comprehensive review of recent progress" are routinely returned with the suggestion to articulate what specifically the synthesis will reorganize. A CCR proposal-readiness check can identify whether the proposed argument and authority case are strong before submission.
Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places CCR among top inorganic chemistry review journals. SciRev author-reported data confirms 4-6 week proposal evaluation windows.
Frequently asked questions
Coordination Chemistry Reviews accepts pre-submission proposals through Elsevier Editorial Manager. The journal is invited-leaning: most published reviews are commissioned, but unsolicited proposals are evaluated against the same authority and timing standards. Submit a 1-2 page proposal first, including scope, why now, candidate authors, and proposed length.
Comprehensive reviews on coordination chemistry topics: metal complexes, organometallic chemistry, supramolecular chemistry, catalysis, bioinorganic chemistry, and metal-organic frameworks. Reviews typically run 30-100 pages with 200-500+ references. Original research is not published.
Acceptance rate runs ~20-30% across proposals. The journal handles moderate volume and the editorial standard emphasizes comprehensive synthesis by authors with primary-research depth in the proposed coordination-chemistry subfield. Median time from proposal acceptance to publication is 6-12 months.
Most rejections are timing-related (a comprehensive review on the topic appeared recently in CCR or Chemical Society Reviews), authority-related (proposing authors lack primary-research depth in coordination chemistry of the topic), or scope-related (topic too narrow for 30-100 page comprehensive treatment).
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.