Journal Guide
Publishing in Chemical Reviews: Fit, Timeline & Submission Guide
Invited and commissioned chemistry reviews with broad field relevance.
Should you submit here?
Submit if reviews must comprehensively cover significant chemistry areas. Be careful if chemical Reviews typically invites reviews.
Best fit if
Reviews must comprehensively cover significant chemistry areas
Not ideal if
Chemical Reviews typically invites reviews
Also compare
55.8
Impact Factor (2024)
~5%
Acceptance Rate
~120 days to first decision
Time to First Decision
Submission guide
Chemical Reviews Submission Guide: How the Invitation Process Works
Chemical Reviews submission guide covering invitations, proposal positioning, scope, and how editors evaluate review submissions.
Journal assessment
Is Chemical Reviews a Good Journal? Impact Factor, Comparison, and Fit Verdict
Chemical Reviews fit verdict with key metrics, comparison to Chemical Society Reviews and Nature Reviews Chemistry, and practical guidance for review authors.
Desk rejection
How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Chemical Reviews
How to avoid desk rejection at Chemical Reviews: what invitation-led commissioning means and how to judge fit realistically.
What Chemical Reviews Publishes
Chemical Reviews is a leading chemistry review journal publishing comprehensive reviews of major topics in chemistry. The journal emphasizes authoritative, comprehensive treatments of significant chemistry subdisciplines written by world-leading experts.
- Comprehensive reviews of major chemistry topics
- Synthesis and synthetic methodologies
- Molecular structure and reactivity
- Catalytic chemistry and mechanisms
- Materials and nanochemistry
- Biological and medicinal chemistry
- Environmental and green chemistry
Editor Insight
“Chemical Reviews publishes authoritative reviews by world experts comprehensively covering important chemistry topics. We want reviews that aren't just literature surveys but provide critical synthesis, identify gaps, and point toward future research. Your review should be the definitive treatment of its topic for years to come.”
What Chemical Reviews Editors Look For
Comprehensive coverage of important chemistry topics
Reviews must comprehensively cover significant chemistry areas. Comprehensive means thorough treatment of literature, key advances, and future directions.
Written by recognized world experts
Chemical Reviews expects authoritative reviews from scientists who have made major contributions to the field. Expertise is essential.
Critical analysis, not just literature summary
Excellent reviews don't just catalog literature. They provide critical evaluation, identify gaps, and discuss future research directions.
Novel synthesis of existing knowledge
Integrate diverse literature into coherent narrative showing how field has evolved and where it's headed. Original perspectives strengthen reviews.
Clear organization and accessibility
Comprehensive reviews must be well-organized and accessible to chemists across all specialties. Clarity enables broader impact.
Forward-looking perspective
Reviews should identify challenges, opportunities, and future research directions. Looking forward increases lasting impact.
Why Papers Get Rejected
These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past Chemical Reviews's editorial review:
Submitting reviews without explicit invitation
Chemical Reviews typically invites reviews. Unsolicited submissions are rarely considered. Contact editor first.
Incomplete literature coverage
Reviews must comprehensively cover the field. Significant omissions of important work reduce review credibility.
Purely descriptive treatment without critical analysis
Excellent reviews critically evaluate literature, identify trends, and discuss implications. Mere summarization isn't sufficient.
Unclear organization or poor accessibility
Comprehensive reviews must be readable. Poor organization or accessibility to non-specialists limits impact.
No original perspectives or novel insights
Reviews synthesizing existing knowledge with original critical perspective have more impact than comprehensive literature summaries.
Ignoring recent developments
Reviews must include recent work. Omitting important recent literature makes reviews outdated.
Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?
The Free Readiness Scan reads your full manuscript against Chemical Reviews's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.
Insider Tips from Chemical Reviews Authors
Chemical Reviews typically invites reviews
Contact the editor to propose review topics rather than submitting unsolicited. Invitations are far more likely to be accepted.
Review by recognized leaders highly selective
Chemical Reviews publishes reviews by world experts. Early-career scientists are rarely published here unless co-authoring with established leaders.
Comprehensive scope extremely important
Reviews should cover major subtopics within the area. Narrow or incomplete coverage reduces competitiveness.
High-quality figures and tables strengthen reviews
Visual organization of complex information helps readers. Excellent schemes, reaction tables, and data presentations enhance comprehension.
Forward-looking perspective increases impact
Reviews identifying research gaps and future opportunities are more impactful than those focused purely on past.
Interdisciplinary connections valued
Reviews showing how chemistry subdisciplines connect to other fields increase breadth and impact.
Critical evaluation more important than comprehensiveness
A critically evaluative 10,000-word review is stronger than a purely comprehensive 50,000-word review.
Update frequency matters
Comprehensive reviews become outdated. Be prepared to update reviews periodically as field evolves.
The Chemical Reviews Submission Process
Contact editor about review proposal
Proposal phaseEmail editor with proposed review topic, scope, and your expertise. Most reviews are by invitation, so pre-proposal communication critical.
Receive invitation and scope agreement
1-2 weeksEditor confirms topic, scope, and approximate length. Agree on timeline and update frequency if applicable.
Conduct comprehensive literature survey
Literature review phase - weeks to monthsThoroughly review all significant literature in field. Identify key papers, major advances, controversies, and gaps.
Write comprehensive critical review
Writing phase - monthsOrganize literature into logical narrative. Provide critical analysis, identify trends, discuss implications, and point forward.
Submit completed review
SubmissionProvide manuscript, figures/tables, comprehensive reference list. Submit via Chemical Reviews portal.
Editorial evaluation and peer review
120+ days for review and decisionEditor and reviewers evaluate comprehensiveness, critical analysis, organization, and accessibility. High standards expected.
Chemical Reviews by the Numbers
| 2024 Impact Factor(Highest in chemistry - Clarivate JCR 2024) | 55.8 |
| 5-Year Impact Factor | 54.2 |
| CiteScore (Scopus) | 106.9 |
| Articles per year | ~40-50 (highly selective) |
| Overall acceptance rate | ~5% |
| Median publication time | ~150-200 days from acceptance |
| Average article length | 10,000-30,000 words |
| Founded(American Chemical Society; premier review journal) | 1922 |
| Publication frequency | Monthly |
| ISSN | 0009-2665 |
Before you submit
Chemical Reviews accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.
Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review. The full report is calibrated to Chemical Reviews.
Article Types
Comprehensive Review
10,000-30,000 wordsAuthoritative, comprehensive treatment of major chemistry topic. Typically 10,000-30,000 words covering all significant literature.
Perspectives (by invitation only)
~5,000-8,000 wordsShorter critical essays on emerging topics or subdisciplines. Rarely solicited from outside world leaders.
Landmark Chemical Reviews Papers
Papers that defined fields and changed science:
- Comprehensive reviews of organic synthesis methodologies - benchmark references for chemists
- Catalysis reviews defining catalytic mechanisms and applications - foundational for catalytic science
- Nanomaterials synthesis and properties - definitive references shaping nanotechnology
- Medicinal chemistry approaches to drug design - guiding pharmaceutical innovation
- Green chemistry principles and sustainable synthesis - driving environmentally responsible chemistry
Preparing a Chemical Reviews Submission?
Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in Chemical Reviews and know exactly what editors look for.
Run Free Readiness ScanNeed expert depth? See Expert Review Options
Primary Fields
Latest Journal-Specific Guides
- Submission guideChemical Reviews Submission Guide: How the Invitation Process WorksChemical Reviews submission guide covering invitations, proposal positioning, scope, and how editors evaluate review submissions.
- Journal assessmentIs Chemical Reviews a Good Journal? Impact Factor, Comparison, and Fit VerdictChemical Reviews fit verdict with key metrics, comparison to Chemical Society Reviews and Nature Reviews Chemistry, and practical guidance for review authors.
- Desk rejectionHow to Avoid Desk Rejection at Chemical ReviewsHow to avoid desk rejection at Chemical Reviews: what invitation-led commissioning means and how to judge fit realistically.
- Review timelineChemical Reviews Review Time: What Authors Can Actually ExpectChemical Reviews does not operate like a normal research-journal review clock. The real timeline includes proposal approval, long-form writing, peer review, revision, and production.
More Guides for This Journal
- Acceptance rateChemical Reviews Acceptance Rate: What Authors Can UseChemical Reviews does not publish a strong official acceptance rate. The better submission question is whether the topic and author team are realistic for an invitation-led flagship review.
- Impact factorChemical Reviews Impact Factor 2026: Ranking, Quartile & What It MeansChemical Reviews impact factor is 55.8. Five-year JIF 67.5, Q1, rank 1/239. See what the number means for chemistry authors.
- Publishing costsChemical Reviews APC and Open Access: Current ACS Pricing, Invitation Reality, and the Cheaper Compliance RoutesChemical Reviews APC is $4,500 for CC BY or $4,000 for CC BY-NC-ND, with lower ACS delayed and green routes.
- Submission processChemical Reviews Submission Process: What Happens From Topic Approval to First DecisionUse this Chemical Reviews submission process guide to understand proposal review, editorial commissioning, common delays, and what to clarify first.
- Manuscript prepChemical Reviews Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to SeeChemical Reviews is primarily invitation-only. If you have not been invited, the path in is a proposal letter, not a traditional cover letter. Here is what editors need to see.
- Publishing guideChemical Reviews SJR and Scopus Metrics: What the Numbers Actually Tell AuthorsChemical Reviews looks extraordinary in Scopus because it is an invited review journal. The useful question is not prestige alone, but whether you are actually writing the kind of review the venue exists to publish.
Ready to submit to Chemical Reviews?
A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what Chemical Reviews editors look for.
Avoid Desk Rejection
Get expert pre-submission review before you submit to Chemical Reviews. 3-7 day turnaround.
Manuscript Rejected?
Expert revision help to strengthen your manuscript and resubmit with confidence.
Reviewer Response Help
Get expert guidance crafting your response to Chemical Reviews reviewers.
Reference library
Compare Chemical Reviews with the broader publishing context
This journal guide is the best starting point for Chemical Reviews. The reference library covers the surrounding questions authors usually ask next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how neighboring journals compare, and what the submission constraints look like across the field.
Checklist system / operational asset
Elite Submission Checklist
A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.
Flagship report / decision support
Desk Rejection Report
A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.
Dataset / reference hub
Journal Intelligence Dataset
A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Need field-expert depth? See Expert Review Options