Rejected from Chemical Reviews? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

Chemical Reviews occupies a unique position: it publishes thorough, authoritative reviews that serve as definitive references for entire subfields. The editorial criteria reflect this ambition.

The editorial bar

Comprehensiveness. Chemical Reviews expects reviews that cover a subfield completely and systematically. A review that focuses on your group's contributions with some context from other labs won't meet the standard. The editors want reviews where readers won't need to look elsewhere for background.

Authoritative synthesis, not just summary. Listing papers and summarizing findings isn't enough. Chemical Reviews wants you to identify trends, resolve contradictions in the literature, point out gaps, and provide a forward-looking perspective. The review should generate new understanding through its organization and analysis.

Timeliness and demand. Even a well-written review gets rejected if the field was recently covered by another review in Chemical Reviews or a competing journal. The editors check whether the community actually needs this review right now.

Scope that matches the journal. Chemical Reviews covers all of chemistry, but the reviews need to interest a broad audience of chemists. A review on a very narrow subtopic, say "ruthenium-catalyzed C-H activation of heterocyclic substrates in aqueous media," might be too specialized even if it's thorough.

Common rejection scenarios

"A recent review covers similar ground." Chemical Reviews won't publish competing reviews on the same topic within a few years of each other. If someone published a thorough review on your topic in 2024 or 2025, you'll need a genuinely different angle or a different journal.

"The scope is too narrow for our readership." Your review might be excellent within its niche but doesn't interest the broader chemistry community. This is the most common desk rejection reason for unsolicited submissions.

"The manuscript reads more as a summary than a critical review." Chemical Reviews expects analysis, not bibliography. If the editors feel you're cataloging results without synthesizing them into a coherent narrative, they'll reject it.

"We suggest shortening this to a perspective." Sometimes the editors recognize good content but feel it doesn't warrant the 80-100 page treatment Chemical Reviews is known for. They might suggest Accounts of Chemical Research or another shorter-format venue.

1. Chemical Society Reviews

Chemical Society Reviews (Chem Soc Rev) is the Royal Society of Chemistry's answer to Chemical Reviews, and it's the most direct alternative. The journal publishes thorough reviews across all areas of chemistry with an IF around 40. The editorial standards are comparable, though Chem Soc Rev tends to accept slightly shorter reviews (40-60 pages versus Chemical Reviews' 80-100 page manuscripts).

One advantage: Chem Soc Rev is more open to tutorial-style reviews that teach readers about a field, not just survey it. If your review has a strong pedagogical element, that's actually a strength here.

Best for: Thorough chemistry reviews across all subfields, tutorial reviews, reviews that bridge multiple chemical disciplines.

2. Nature Reviews Chemistry

Nature Reviews Chemistry publishes reviews that are accessible to a broad scientific audience, not just specialist chemists. The writing style is less technical than Chemical Reviews, with more emphasis on clear figures, conceptual frameworks, and connections to real-world applications. If Chemical Reviews found your review too narrow, Nature Reviews Chemistry wants you to zoom out and explain why non-specialists should care.

The journal is selective (IF ~30) and publishes fewer articles per year than Chemical Reviews or Chem Soc Rev. But if your review topic has interdisciplinary appeal, connecting chemistry to biology, energy, or environmental science, this is a strong fit.

Best for: Reviews with interdisciplinary appeal, accessible writing, topics connecting chemistry to broader scientific or societal questions.

3. Accounts of Chemical Research

Accounts of Chemical Research is Chemical Reviews' sister journal at ACS, but it publishes shorter, more focused accounts (typically 3,000-5,000 words). These aren't thorough field surveys. They're personal accounts of a research group's contributions to a topic, with enough context to place the work in perspective.

If Chemical Reviews rejected your manuscript because it was "too focused on your own work," Accounts is designed for exactly that format. You can tell the story of your research program, explain your group's unique approach, and contextualize your contributions within the broader field.

Best for: Focused accounts of a research group's work, personal perspectives on a subfield, shorter format reviews (3,000-5,000 words).

4. Coordination Chemistry Reviews

For reviews in inorganic chemistry, coordination chemistry, organometallics, and bioinorganic chemistry, Coordination Chemistry Reviews is the top specialty venue. The journal publishes thorough reviews with an IF around 20 and a higher acceptance rate than Chemical Reviews.

Coordination Chemistry Reviews accepts both invited and unsolicited reviews, and the editors are generally receptive to proposals. If your Chemical Reviews rejection was about scope (too narrow for a general chemistry audience), Coordination Chemistry Reviews' specialist readership is an asset.

Best for: Inorganic chemistry, coordination chemistry, organometallic chemistry, bioinorganic chemistry, metal-organic frameworks.

5. Progress in Polymer Science

Progress in Polymer Science (IF ~26) is the premier review journal for polymer chemistry and polymer physics. It publishes long, thorough reviews that rival Chemical Reviews in depth and thoroughness. If your review covers polymer synthesis, polymer materials, or polymer-based applications, this is the most respected home in the field.

The journal accepts fewer articles per year than Chemical Reviews, but the acceptance rate for on-topic submissions is more favorable. Reviews here tend to be 50-80 pages and are expected to be definitive references.

Best for: Polymer chemistry, polymer physics, polymer materials, polymer-based biomaterials and devices.

6. Progress in Materials Science

Progress in Materials Science (IF ~40.0) publishes authoritative reviews at the intersection of chemistry and materials science. If your Chemical Reviews submission covered materials chemistry topics (catalysis, energy materials, nanomaterials, or biomaterials), Progress in Materials Science offers a comparable venue with a materials-focused readership.

The journal is known for publishing very long, encyclopedic reviews. If Chemical Reviews thought your review was too long, Progress in Materials Science might actually appreciate the depth.

Best for: Materials chemistry, energy materials, catalysis, nanomaterials, biomaterials, materials processing.

7. Advanced Science

Advanced Science (IF ~15) is a broad-scope, open-access journal that publishes reviews alongside original research. It's less traditional than the other options on this list, but it offers fast turnaround, open-access visibility, and a growing reputation in interdisciplinary chemistry.

The APC ($5,500) is significant, so check your institution's agreements. But for reviews that benefit from immediate, unrestricted global access, Advanced Science delivers.

Best for: Interdisciplinary reviews, shorter reviews (15-25 pages), topics benefiting from open-access visibility.

Thorough review rejected at desk? Chemical Society Reviews is the most natural alternative. Same format, similar prestige, different publisher. If your review is too long even for Chem Soc Rev, consider splitting it into two focused reviews.

Review too narrow for Chemical Reviews? Submit to the top specialty review journal in your subfield: Coordination Chemistry Reviews for inorganic, Progress in Polymer Science for polymers, Catalysis Reviews for catalysis, or Chemical Reviews in related fields.

Review too focused on your own work? Accounts of Chemical Research is designed for this exact format. Shorten your manuscript to 3,000-5,000 words, emphasize your group's contributions, and frame it as a personal account.

Rejected because a similar review exists? Differentiate your angle. If the existing review is thorough, write a focused perspective on the most active subtopic. If the existing review is old (3+ years), frame yours as an update covering recent developments.

Audit your coverage balance. Count how many of the cited papers are from your own group versus others. If more than 20-25% of citations are self-citations, the review will read as promotional rather than authoritative. Broaden your coverage.

Add genuine synthesis. Go through each section and ask: "Am I just summarizing papers, or am I drawing conclusions?" Every section should end with a synthetic statement that couldn't be found in any individual paper you cited.

Update your literature search. Reviews that miss recent papers from the last 6-12 months look outdated before they're published. Run a fresh search and incorporate anything significant that appeared since you started writing.

Improve your figures. Chemical Reviews and its competitors value original figures that explain concepts visually. Reproduced figures from primary literature are less impressive than original schematics, comparison tables, and conceptual diagrams you create specifically for the review.

Trim ruthlessly. If Chemical Reviews thought your review was too long, don't just submit the same 100-page manuscript to Chem Soc Rev. Cut it to 50-60 pages. Remove tangential sections, combine repetitive examples, and tighten the prose.

Run your manuscript through a free Manusights scan to check formatting, reference accuracy, and structural coherence before your next submission. Review manuscripts are particularly prone to formatting inconsistencies and missing references after multiple rounds of editing, and catching these issues early prevents unnecessary delays.