Author responsibilities

This section provides general guidance to authors on their responsibilities and the code of conduct they should follow when submitting to a Royal Society of Chemistry journal. It also describes what are considered to be conflicts of interest, and outlines our policy on human and animal welfare.

On this page

Authorship
Code of conduct & conflicts of interest
Authenticity & professionalism
Safety & hazards
Dual Use Research of Concern
Funding information
Human & animal welfare
Publication of related works
Implicit bias in peer review
Editor's responsibility to authors

The information on this page was reproduced in part with permission from 'Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research', Chem Rev., 1995, 95, pp 11A-13A. © 1985, 1989, 1995 American Chemical Society.

Authorship

There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, but authors should, as a minimum, take responsibility for a particular section of the study. The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.

All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their papers. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this may be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions.

Authors have a responsibility to give due acknowledgement to all workers contributing to the work, including technical staff and data professionals. Those who have contributed significantly to the research should be listed as co-authors. On submission of the manuscript, the corresponding author attests to the fact that those named as co-authors have agreed to its submission for publication and accept the responsibility for having properly included all (and only) co-authors.

In the interests of transparency, we strongly encourage authors of research articles to include an ‘Author Contributions’ section in their manuscript, for publication in the final article. Contributions should be explained concisely. We strongly recommend you use CRediT (the Contributor Roles Taxonomy) for standardised contribution descriptions. All authors should have agreed to their individual contributions ahead of submission and these should accurately reflect contributions to the work. Please note that for any manuscript with more than 10 co-authors the corresponding author must provide the editor with a statement to specify the contribution of each co-author.

The corresponding author signs a 'licence to publish' on behalf of all the authors. Any change in authorship after initial submission must be approved by all authors and justified to the editor. We require consent from all the authors (including from the added/removed co-author) confirming that they are happy with the change. Ideally, this will be in the form of an email, preferably from the institution address of the relevant authors.

In the case of authorship disputes, authors are encouraged to reach a mutual agreement. If this is not possible, unresolved disputes should be referred to the responsible research institution(s) for mediation. The Royal Society of Chemistry cannot act as an adjudicator to determine correct authorship.

Please carefully check the spelling and format of all author names, affiliations and funding information. If your paper is accepted for publication, it is important this information is accurate to ensure your article is correctly indexed, which may affect citations and future funding evaluation.

The author affiliation(s) listed should be the institution(s) where the majority of the research was conducted. If an author has multiple affiliations all the relevant institutions should be listed. If the present address of an author is different from that at which the work was conducted, that address should be stated in a footnote and not as an affiliation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT or other Large Language Models, cannot be listed as an author on a submitted work. AI tools do not meet the criteria to qualify for authorship, as they are unable to take responsibility for the work, cannot consent to publication nor manage copyright, licence or other legal obligations, and are unable to understand issues around conflicts of interest. Any use of AI tools in producing any part of the manuscript must be clearly described in the Experimental or Acknowledgement section. The authors are fully responsible and accountable for the content of their article, including any parts produced by an AI tool.

Code of conduct

One of the foundations of the scientific profession is the acceptance by its members of a 'code of conduct', which outlines desired behaviour and obligations of members of the profession to each other and the public. Such a code of conduct seeks to maximise the benefits of science to society and the profession. The advancement of science requires the sharing of knowledge, even though this may sometimes forego any immediate personal advantage.

The publication of scientific research in journals is one of the fundamental ways in which the Royal Society of Chemistry serves the chemical science communities. Central to this service is the responsibility that editors, authors and reviewers maintain the high ethical standard relating to the publication of manuscripts. In cases where these guidelines are breached or appear to be so, the Royal Society of Chemistry will consult the core practices and best practice guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and act accordingly.

Authenticity & professionalism

Authors have responsibilities as detailed below.

Gather and interpret data in an honest way: Editors, reviewers, readers and publishers have the right to assume that submitted (and published) manuscripts do not contain scientific dishonesty and/or fraud comprising among others fictitious or manipulated data, plagiarised material (either from the previous work of the authors or that of other persons), reference omissions, false priority statements, 'hidden' multiple publication of the same data and incorrect authorship. Authors must not breach any copyright.

When reproducing figures and/or schemes from previous publications, it is the author's responsibility to seek appropriate permission from the relevant publishers.

Present a concise and accurate report of their research and an objective discussion of its significance.

Give due recognition to published work relating to their submitted manuscript by way of correct reference and citation: All sources should be disclosed, and if a significant amount of other people's material is to be used, permission must be sought by the author in accordance with copyright law. An author should not use privately obtained information (for example, information obtained through conversation), or information obtained through the performance of a confidential service (for example, the reviewing of a manuscript), without permission from the person from whom the information originated. We encourage the citation of primary research over review articles, where appropriate, in order to give credit to those who first reported a finding. Find out more about our commitments to the principles of San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

Declare all sources of funding for the work in the manuscript, and also to declare any conflict of interest.

Ensure that their submitted articles contain no personal criticism of other scientists; however, criticism of the work of another scientist may be justified; an article may not contain any defamatory or otherwise actionable material.

Safety & hazards

Authors must highlight very clearly, in the experimental details, any hazards or risks associated with the reported work and include appropriate warnings. Authors must call attention to any hazardous materials or operations and it is vital that any relevant safety precautions or standard codes of practice are explicitly cited, or included as supplementary information, as appropriate.

Dual Use Research of Concern

Authors should notify the editor upon submission, and clearly identify in their submitted manuscript if the work contains content that could be considered to be dual-use research of concern (DURC).

The World Health Organization defines DURC as research that “is intended to provide a clear benefit, but which could easily be misapplied to do harm. It usually refers to work in the life sciences, but the principles are also applicable to other fields including engineering and information technology. It encompasses everything from information to specific products that have the potential to create negative consequences for health and safety, agriculture, the environment or national security.”

We may refer manuscripts containing DURC content to the RSC DURC panel who will assess the risks and benefits of publishing the research. If the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential benefits, then the manuscript may be rejected.

Authors should ensure that their submitted manuscript does not contain information prohibited from publication by export controls, which can vary by country.

Funding information

Providing accurate funding information will enable us to help you and your co-authors comply with multiple funder reporting mandates, and increase the visibility of your work through the Funding Data Search tool. Your funder or research institute may also have certain requirements or mandates for open access publication; please see our funder requirements guidance for more information.

Why do I need to acknowledge my funder?

Increase chances of securing future funds: Clear acknowledgement of funder support is an important consideration in funder evaluation and will improve your chances of securing funding in the future.

Increase the visibility of your work: We collect funding information from our authors and match this information to funders listed in the Open Funder registry. This funding data is made publicly available through Crossref's search interfaces for funders and other interested parties to analyse.

Enable us to display your article on our website as part of the CHORUS initiative: By providing us with accurate funding information we will be able to identify if your article is funded as part of the CHORUS initiative and display the Accepted manuscript on our website after an embargo period of 12 months.

Enable us to deposit your article on your behalf: By providing us with accurate funding information we will be able to identify if your article is required to be deposited in PubMed Central (PMC). If your funding bodies mandate PMC deposition, we will do this on your behalf.

Increase funding transparency: Accurately recording funding information helps to increase transparency in the funding of research. Funders also have the ability to track the impact of the work they support through the Funding Data search tool.

You can find out more about Funding Data on our policies webpage.

How do I acknowledge my funder?

In the acknowledgements section of your article.

On submission of your manuscript: Our online submission system will help you to report funding information accurately. If you have received financial support for your research you should provide the following information:

Name of funder – enter the name of your funding body. A drop-down menu will appear when you start typing. For some funders you may be prompted to enter a sub-organisation; if appropriate choose the relevant sub-organisation from the drop-down menu.
Grant/award number – enter all related grant/award numbers accurately. You will have the option to enter multiple grant/award numbers for each funder.

Human & animal welfare

When a study involves the use of live animal subjects, authors should adhere to the ‘Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments’ (ARRIVE) 2.0 guidelines. When a study involves the use of human subjects, authors should adhere to the general principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Authors must include in the 'methods/experimental' section of the manuscript a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant guidelines. The statement must name the institutional/local ethics committee that has approved the study, and where possible the approval or case number should be provided. Details of all guidelines followed should be provided. A statement regarding informed consent is required for all studies involving human subjects. Reviewers may be asked to comment specifically on any cases in which concerns arise.

For studies involving the use of animal subjects, authors are encouraged to make the completed ARRIVE 2.0 checklist available during peer review, for example by sharing it as part of the ESI or citing the deposited item.

The journals’ editorial teams reserve the right to request additional information in relation to experiments on vertebrates or higher invertebrates as necessary for the evaluation of the manuscript e.g., in the context of appropriate animal welfare or studies that involve death as an experimental endpoint.

Implicit bias in peer review

We all have implicit biases (also known as unconscious bias) – shaped by our environment, background and experiences – that often lead to biases in our decision-making. Watch our video to learn more about implicit bias and fair decision-making.

In peer review, our implicit biases can lead us to make instinctive but incorrect assessments of an article. For example, a reviewer’s report and recommendation can be unconsciously influenced by:

The gender, career stage, country or institute of the author
The journals in which the author’s previous work was published
The reviewer’s previous level of awareness of the author and their research

The Royal Society of Chemistry is committed to reducing bias in peer review, and we ask our Editors, authors and reviewers to minimise the influence that their implicit biases have on their decisions by:

Being aware of potential implicit biases that you may have
Focussing on the research in the article, not the names or locations of the authors
Slowing down your decision making
Relying on facts rather than feelings to shape your recommendation
Considering and reconsidering the reasons for your recommendation
Using gender-neutral language where appropriate, rather than making assumptions (please see here for more information and guidance on inclusive language)

The Royal Society of Chemistry has produced a variety of resources to help improve understanding of implicit biases, alongside identifying and overcoming implicit biases.

Editor’s responsibility to authors

The Royal Society of Chemistry upholds the right of authors to be treated fairly and professionally throughout the peer review process and beyond. To uphold this right our editors have the responsibilities detailed below.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts will be handled in a confidential manner, with no details being disclosed to anyone - with the exception of the reviewers - without the permission of the author, until a decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published.
Confidentiality of the names and other details of reviewers is ensured; adjudication and appeal reviewers may be informed of the names of prior reviewers, if appropriate. Reviewers can choose to voluntarily sign their comments to authors if they wish, see our policy on reviewer anonymity for more information.
We are fully compliant with data protection regulations, as appropriate.

Professionalism

To acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within two working days of submission and to ensure the efficient, fair and timely assessment of submitted manuscripts.
To make the final decision concerning acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.
To decide to accept or reject a manuscript for publication with reference only to the manuscript's importance, originality and clarity, and its relevance to the journal.
To respect the intellectual independence of authors.
To make known any conflicts of interest that might arise. Specifically, in cases where an editor is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be passed to another editor for independent peer review.
Not to use work reported in unpublished submitted articles for their own research.
To consider the use of an author's suggested reviewers for their submitted article. However, the editor maintains the right to use reviewers of their own choice.
Not to use reviewers which an author has requested are not to be consulted, unless the editor reasonably considers there to be a significant over-riding interest in so doing.
To respond to any suggestions of scientific misconduct or to convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a published manuscript is erroneous, usually through consultation with the author. This may require the publication of a formal ‘retraction’ or correction. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts as the basis for our best practice guidelines when investigating allegations of misconduct.
To deal fairly with an author's appeal against the rejection of a submitted manuscript.
Only in the most extreme and unusual cases, and with the specific agreement of the editorial board and the chair of the Publishing Board, may sanctions of limited duration be applied to an author.

Data protection

The Royal Society of Chemistry will use the information you supply for the provision and administration of its activities, products and services. We do not share your personal data to any individual or organisation unless they are working directly with us as a contractor, as part of maintaining our activities, products, or services. Such contractors are subject to a non-disclosure agreement. There is more information on our Privacy & cookies page.