Reviewer responsibilities

This section provides general guidance to reviewers on the procedure and requirements to assess manuscripts submitted to journals published by the Royal Society of Chemistry.

For additional information that is specific to one of our journals please refer to the About our journals page.

On this page

• Code of conduct
• Conflicts of interest
• Ethical responsibilities
• Reviewing procedure
• How to write a review
• Implicit bias
• Help using our peer review system

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.

Becoming a reviewer 

To apply to become a reviewer please complete the reviewer application form on our website to be considered for the position. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and experience. As a minimum, we will only consider as reviewers those who:

• are qualified to PhD level (or equivalent) or above in a relevant subject
• are current active researchers
• have one or more recent publications in peer-reviewed journals of comparable impact and reputation to our journals

Benefits of being a reviewer for our journals include a 25% discount on all books we publish. We also recognise the contribution that our reviewers make to the journal by announcing each year our Outstanding Reviewers who have made a significant contribution to the journal; who each receive a certificate of recognition from the editor.

Your knowledge and expertise deserve credit. Find out how to achieve this with the Web of Science reviewer recognition service. Simply opt in via our submission system the next time you review for us and receive recognition for your reviews. Your contributions will be automatically linked to your Web of Science account, so you can continue to record and measure your peer review output. Find out more information about the Web of Science reviewer recognition service.

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.

Conflicts of interest

The relevant Royal Society of Chemistry journal concerned should be informed of any significant** conflict of interest that editors, authors or reviewers may have, in order to determine if any action may be appropriate (such as adding a declaration of an author’s conflict of interest to a published piece, or disqualifying a reviewer). Conflicts of interest are almost inevitable and it is not intended to attempt to eliminate these. For a description and discussion of some leading journals' policies on conflicts of interest see: F van Kolfschooten, 'Conflicts of interest: Can you believe what you read?', Nature, 28 March 2002, vol. 416, pp. 360-363; DOI: 10.1038/416360a.

Financial

Editors, authors and reviewers of a manuscript should inform the relevant journal of any significant financial interest - recent, present or anticipated - in any organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the piece (for example, employment by such an organisation; funds for research; funds for a member of staff; fees for consulting; stock or share holdings; patent interests). If you have such an interest, you may have a conflict of interest, which should be declared. 

Other interests

An editor, author or reviewer may wish to disclose to the editor a conflict of interest that would be embarrassing if it became generally known (for example, an academic link or rivalry or a close relationship with, or a strong antipathy to, a person whose interests may be affected by publication of a manuscript).

**Significance may be judged by considering whether an undeclared conflict of interest could be embarrassing were it to become publicly known after the fact.

Recommended reviewers

We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers on submission of their manuscript. When recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:

• Recommended reviewers must have sufficient expertise in the relevant subject area.
• Authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a conflict of interest, for example, a close collaborator or colleague.
• Recommended reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed on the manuscript.
• The RSC considers diversity in reviewers to be an important aspect of peer review. Therefore, wherever possible please consider diversity when recommending reviewers, for example in terms of career stage, gender, geographic location, race and ethnicity, etc.
• Institutional email addresses should be provided for recommended reviewers, wherever possible.

For further guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest during the peer review process, see the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Conflict of interest statement

Please note that a Conflicts of interest statement is required for all submitted manuscripts. If no conflicts exist, please state that ‘There are no conflicts to declare' under a Conflicts of interest heading as the last section before your Acknowledgements.

Ethical responsibilities

In addition to adhering to the 'Code of conduct and conflicts of interest' guidelines, reviewers have the following responsibilities.

Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases, where specific scientific advice may be sought; in that event the editor must be informed and the identities of those consulted disclosed. Information acquired by a reviewer from such a paper is not available for disclosure or citation until the paper is published. Reviewers may not submit any manuscript, supplementary information or related materials, such as reviewer reports, to any Large Language Models (LLMs) or generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT.

Destroy/erase the manuscript and to inform the editor should they be unqualified to review the manuscript, or lack the time to review the manuscript, without undue delay.

To judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely fashion: Reviewers should not make personal criticism in their reviews.

To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest: Specifically, reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship if this relationship could be reasonably thought to bias the review.

To respect the intellectual independence of authors.

To explain and support their judgements so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments, and to provide reference to published work, where appropriate.

To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration by another journal.

To ensure that all unpublished data, information, interpretation and discussion in a submitted article remain confidential and not to use reported work in unpublished, submitted articles for their own research.

To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or manipulated data.

To only suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) own work where this adds value to the scientific aspects of the paper.

Not to retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form; to comply with data protection regulations, as appropriate.

Not to use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Reviewers should notify the editor if the manuscript reports 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.

Reviewing procedure

The reviewers' reports constitute recommendations to the appropriate editor, who takes the final action on manuscripts submitted. The reviewer should consider the work and assess its suitability for the journal to which it has been submitted using the general guidance provided in this section and the details to be found in the journal specific guidelines.

If the reviewer does not consider the manuscript to be suitable for the journal to which it has been submitted, they should consider whether the manuscript may be suitable for publication in an alternative Royal Society of Chemistry journal and clearly state any suggestions in the report.

In cases where reviewers are unable to assess the manuscript, the editor would welcome suggestions of alternative reviewers who may be able to assess the manuscript. In such instances, the reviewer should provide details of the alternative reviewer and the editor will send an invitation to review the manuscript. Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if there is any conflict of interest. If the reviewer has any ethical concerns regarding the work or the authorship then these must be brought to the attention of the editor.

The editor is responsible for all administrative and executive actions, and can accept or reject papers. Once a manuscript has been revised by the authors then it is the editor's duty to see that, as far as possible, agreement is reached between the authors and reviewers. The reviewers may need to be consulted again concerning an author's reply to comments, but further review is only undertaken when necessary.

Adjudication

If there is a notable discrepancy between the reports of the two reviewers, or if the difference between authors and reviewers cannot be resolved readily, a senior reviewer may be appointed as adjudicator. The role of the adjudicator is to consider the initial reports and provide a final recommendation on the manuscript based on these reports (and author comments where they exist) and their own thoughts on the manuscript.

Appeal process

When a paper is recommended for rejection, the editor will inform the authors. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor if they regard the decision to reject as unfair. Appeals are granted at the discretion of the editor. In such cases the editor will request a letter detailing the reason for appeal, as well as a full response to the reviewers’ reports. The manuscript will then be sent to a senior reviewer who has not previously evaluated the manuscript and who will offer a final opinion on the manuscript.

Reviewer anonymity

The anonymity of reviewers is strictly preserved from the authors, unless a reviewer voluntarily signs their comments to authors. Any additional files which are provided with the reviewer’s comments should be anonymised by the reviewer, for example, the file properties, or comments/annotations within a document. A reviewer should never communicate directly with an author, unless and until such action has been agreed by the Royal Society of Chemistry, through the editor.

Reviewers may disclose publicly that they have served as a reviewer for a named Royal Society of Chemistry journal. However, a reviewer must not identify himself/herself as the reviewer of a specific manuscript nor disclose the contents of the submitted review to any individual or organization. This expectation of peer review confidentiality and anonymity applies both during and after the peer review process, without a time limit.

Though reviewers are always anonymous to authors, some journals now offer double-anonymised peer review. Authors who choose to opt in to this model will also be anonymous to reviewers.

Sharing of reviewer reports

When the editor makes a decision on a manuscript, reviewers are typically notified of that decision and are provided with comments from all reviewers on the manuscript. The reviewers’ anonymity is preserved unless the reviewer has voluntarily signed their report. Reviewers are informed at the point of invitation to review if their report will be shared in this way.

How to write a review 

Information on the scope and standards of each journal can be found in the journal specific guidelines.

Please aim to submit your review promptly: the suggested deadline for receipt of the review is given in the invitation email. Please inform the editor as soon as possible if you are not able to submit your review by the deadline.

When writing a reviewer report please consider:

• Suitability of the article for the journal’s scope
• Impact and novelty of the work
• The length of the article – does it reflect the level of scientific content and fit within any relevant page limits?
• Whether the article type is appropriate
• The title – does it reflect the content and contain relevant search terms for discoverability?
• The abstract – is it self-contained without reference to the main text?
• Which revisions are major concerns preventing publication, and which are minor concerns the authors can easily resolve, and indicate this in your report

Please review all supplementary information (SI) provided.

Please answer the specific questions on the reviewer report form; they help to create a constructive report that will be of the most use to the editor when making their decision.

You don't need to provide detailed comments on language, grammar or spelling errors except where this makes the meaning of the science unclear.

Please inform the editor if:

• The manuscript contains work which closely resembles other publications, or duplicates text and/or figures
• You have concerns about the level of scientific rigour
• The manuscript lacks sufficient novelty or is incremental (list any relevant publications in your report)
• You suspect fragmentation of a substantial body of work into several short publications
• You consider that a manuscript contains personal criticism of others
• You have ethical concerns such as plagiarism or regarding approval for human or animal experimentation  (see here for more information)
• You wish to see any supporting data not submitted for publication, or any previous unpublished paper

Reviewer recommendations

Along with your comments on the review and answers to the editor’s questions, the report should contain a recommendation to the editor. Your options may include:

• Accept - The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form (after copy-editing and proofreading).

• Minor revisions - The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriate. These changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.

• Major revision - The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes could include redoing experiments or a substantial rewrite of several sections.

• Reject – encourage submission in another RSC journal - The manuscript is not suitable for the journal it was submitted to, but the content is good and could be suitable for a different Royal Society of Chemistry journal.

• Reject - The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.

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. This video, provides more information about implicit bias.

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)

Additional requirements

If the manuscript you are reviewing contains any of the following:

• Supplementary information (SI)
• New compounds
• X-ray crystallographic work

Please refer to the guidelines below and any journal-specific requirements listed on the relevant journal homepage.

Help using our peer review system

We handle all our peer review through the online system ScholarOne Manuscripts. This system does require the use of pop-ups, therefore please ensure that they are enabled on your device when using the system.

A reviewer guide and FAQ section is available from ScholarOne Manuscripts to help you use and navigate the system.

Registering a new account FAQ

New users will need to set up an account on the system before starting. To do this go to the ScholarOne homepage and click on 'Register here' under 'New User?' to the right of the page. It  takes only a few minutes to complete the form; once done you will be able to access your account immediately.

I am trying to register my account and am getting a 'Marketing Flag' error. What do I do?

A Marketing Flag error occurs when you have not completed a required field. You are required to respond to the question that reads 'Do you wish to receive emails from the Royal Society of Chemistry about its related activities, products and services?', which can be found in the 'User ID & Password' section of the form, underneath the area where you can add keywords. Please select 'Yes' or 'No' from the dropdown menu.

I’ve forgotten my password, or need to change it, how can I do this?

If you have forgotten your password, go to the journal homepage and click the ‘Submit your article’ link. From this page, select ‘Reset Password’. Your login details will be sent to you.

If you do not receive an email containing your login details, or your email address has changed, please contact the specific journal office.

What is your policy on data protection?

The Royal Society of Chemistry will use the information you supply for the provision and administration of its activities, products and services. It will treat the information you supply in the strictest confidence. There is more information on our Privacy & cookies page.

If you are still having trouble please contact our manuscript support team. 

Submitting a review FAQ