chemical-society-reviews

name	chemical-society-reviews
description	Use when targeting Chemical Society Reviews (Chem Soc Rev) or deciding whether a chemistry review manuscript fits this RSC venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. NOTE: Chem Soc Rev publishes reviews and tutorial reviews, not primary research; many leading reviews are solicited.

Chemical Society Reviews (chemical-society-reviews)

Journal positioning

Chemical Society Reviews is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry and is one of the highest-impact review journals in chemistry, alongside chemical-reviews (ACS). It publishes critical review articles and tutorial review articles across the full scope of chemistry, with an emphasis on accessible, pedagogically valuable treatments that help specialists and non-specialists alike understand the state and future of a research area. Unlike Chemical Reviews, Chem Soc Rev explicitly cultivates the Tutorial Review format, making it a natural target for reviews that aim to teach as well as synthesise. Many prominent reviews are solicited, but the journal actively considers unsolicited proposals and manuscripts when the topic and authors are well-matched.

This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the RSC submission portal.

When to trigger

• The author names Chem Soc Rev or Chemical Society Reviews as the target venue.
• A chemistry review needs evaluation against the RSC versus ACS (chemical-reviews) review-journal choice.
• An author wants to write a tutorial review aimed at graduate students and non-specialists entering a sub-field.
• The author needs Chem Soc Rev's desk-reject risks and alternative-venue guidance.

Scope & topic fit

• Critical reviews of research areas in any branch of chemistry: organic, inorganic, physical, materials, biological, environmental, and analytical chemistry.
• Tutorial reviews that introduce a methodology, concept, or research area in a pedagogically structured way, suitable for graduate students and non-specialists.
• Emerging interdisciplinary areas where chemistry interfaces with biology, materials science, or energy research.
• Reviews that critically compare competing methodologies, highlight controversies, and chart future directions.
• Do NOT submit: primary research articles, progress reports exclusively covering one group's work, or very short review formats (highlights/minireview-scale items) — those belong elsewhere in the RSC portfolio.

Method & evidence bar

• Chem Soc Rev does not impose a page-count minimum equivalent to Chemical Reviews; reviews can be substantial but also more focused in scope — clarity of scope statement is essential.
• Critical analysis is expected: the review should evaluate and compare primary results, not simply catalogue them; disagreements in the literature should be addressed.
• Tutorial reviews must achieve a balance between accessibility (starting from first principles) and depth (reaching the research frontier).
• Literature coverage must be current and not selective to the author's own group; independent, balanced citation practice is expected.
• The "key learning points" or equivalent summary elements are characteristic RSC features; re-check current format requirements.

Structure & house style

• RSC house style: numbered references, RSC LaTeX template or Word template; re-check the current RSC template requirements.
• A mandatory abstract is followed by the main text; Chem Soc Rev typically requires a graphical abstract or table-of-contents image.
• Tutorial reviews follow a defined structure: Introduction → Learning Objectives (or equivalent) → pedagogically ordered body sections → Conclusions / Outlook → Key Learning Points.
• Critical reviews follow a more flexible structure but must open with a clear scope statement and close with a substantive Outlook section.
• Box features, highlight panels, and structured comparison tables are editorial conventions valued by the journal.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Chemical Society Reviews author guidelines" and follow the current RSC version.
• Determine whether to submit a proposal first or a full manuscript; re-check current RSC editorial practice for unsolicited reviews.
• Re-check current length guidance, figure/scheme limits, and graphical abstract specifications.
• Confirm RSC template requirements (LaTeX or Word) and reference numbering style.
• Verify figure reproduction permissions and the RSC rights clearance process.
• Check competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure requirements.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The manuscript is a review (critical or tutorial), not a primary research paper.
• The scope is clearly defined at the outset and the coverage is balanced — not skewed toward the authors' own contributions.
• Literature coverage is current; key recent papers are included and accurately described.
• If a tutorial review: learning objectives or equivalent pedagogical markers are present and the progression from first principles to research frontier is logical.
• Graphical abstract and any RSC-required summary features (key learning points, etc.) are prepared.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Submission of primary research data in any form — Chem Soc Rev publishes reviews only.
• A review that substantially covers only the authors' own group's work, without broad literature synthesis.
• A scope so narrow (e.g., one reaction on one substrate class) that it constitutes a long research article rather than a review.
• Missing critical analysis: a literature list presented without evaluation, comparison, or identification of open questions.
• Outdated literature coverage with many recent key contributions missing.

Re-routing decision

• Comprehensive, exhaustive treatment of a major chemistry field → chemical-reviews (ACS).
• A concise account of the author's own research program, by invitation → accounts-of-chemical-research.
• Primary research with mechanistic significance and broad interest → journal-of-the-american-chemical-society, angewandte-chemie-international-edition, or nature-chemistry.
• A short highlight or minireview → RSC's ChemComm, Chemistry — A European Journal, or ACS Central Science.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Chemical Society Reviews
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this a critical or tutorial review with balanced, current literature coverage — or is it primary data?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal vs. full-manuscript submission / RSC template / length / graphical abstract / figure rights / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>