Reviewer Guidelines

1. Overview

This webpage outlines the structure and requirements of reviewer reports for each article type published by this journal. For more detailed information and guidelines on preparing your review please visit Wiley Author Services. For additional resources, please consult the following resources.

1.1. Reviewer Resources

•

Wiley Peer Review

•

Better Peer Review guidance

•

Review Confidentiality Policy

•

COPE′s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

1.2. Infographics

•

Principles of Peer Review

•

To review, or not to review?

•

Reviewing with empathy

1.3. Publication Ethics

•

Wiley′s Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics

•

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

•

International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP)

•

European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EuChemS)

•

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity

2. Understanding Bias in Peer Review

When responding to a review invitation or writing a review, please be mindful of potential biases that may affect your decisions, whether positively or negatively. The aim is to critically examine the impact that potential biases may have on your decision-making process.

2.1. Types of Bias

Explicit Bias (one′s attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices at a conscious level)

A common example of explicit bias that reviewers may encounter is a conflict of interest. Reviewers should consider whether they have any conflict(s) of interests that may have an impact on the impartiality of the review. For example:

i.

Relation to any company and/or commercial product mentioned in the manuscript

ii.

Collaboration with author of the manuscript

iii.

Personal relationship (good friend, advisor, colleague, mentorship, etc.) with the author

iv.

Competing research interests

If a conflict exists, please decline the invitation to review. Should you require clarification regarding a potential conflict of interest, please contact the journal and seek advice. While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is withdrawn.

Implicit Bias (one′s attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices, based on background and experience, which are not consciously recognized)

It is also important for reviewers to be aware of implicit biases. Implicit biases can cause one to take shortcuts in decision making, arriving at decisions that are instinctive but not well founded.

Peer-review assessment of the work may be unconsciously influenced by bias related to:

i.

Gender, sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and age, among others

ii.

Geographical location

iii.

Language or writing style

iv.

Author′s institution

v.

Career stage

vi.

Journals where the author′s previous work has appeared

vii.

Previous awareness of the author and their research

2.2. Ways to Mitigate Bias

i.

Slow down decision making and allow sufficient time for critical assessment

ii.

Focus on the facts rather than your feelings

iii.

Treat the manuscript as though author name, institute, etc. are unknown (if these details are disclosed to you)

iv.

Challenge stereotypes

v.

Challenge how you assess the value and impact of the research content

vi.

Take on the perspective of the author

vii.

Evaluate reasons for your decision and conclusions

3. Research Article and Communication Guidelines

Research Articles present results of experimental or theoretical studies of general interest or great importance to the development of a specific area of research.

Communications report on experimental and/or theoretical studies in all branches of chemistry; they should be short. The results must be of general interest or at least contribute to the development of an important area of research.

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

3.1. Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review. You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations.

Publish without revision

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision

Appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of Figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further peer review for validation.

Reconsider after major revision

Appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include providing results of additional key experiments, or significant rewriting to attend to theoretical, methodological, or other scholarly criteria.

Suitable for another journal

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject

Appropriate to select if you believe that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form but could become so once fundamental improvements are made.

Scientifically unsound or ethically flawed

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise, experiments, or interpretation.

3.2. Please rate the importance compared to published work in this subject area

The judgment of the significance or importance of a paper is to a certain extent subjective. A paper can be considered important for a broad and heterogeneous readership and thus suitable for publication in a broad scope journal, or it may be important to a particular subject area and thus be more suitable for journals targeting a more specific audience.

When evaluating the importance of the work, please put the reported findings into the context of impact on the subject area and breadth of interest to the scientific community. The level of importance can be rated outstanding (top 5% compared to published work in the same subject area), high (top 20%), considerable (top 50%), moderate (bottom 50%), low (bottom 20%). You should give reasons for your judgment of the importance in line with the following guidelines:

Outstanding (Top 5%):

•

The results corroborate or lead to a new important theory or practice or repudiate an established important theory or mechanism.

•

The scientific community has been waiting for such results for a long time.

•

The results are of high general interest and merit recognition by a wide research community.

•

The results represent a breakthrough in the field(s) of research and are critically important for specialists working in the same field.

High (Top 20%)

The work is a very significant step forward to progress in the field and the reported results are of significant interest to a broad area of research.

Considerable (Top 50%)

The reported results are important for specialists and of reasonable general interest.

Moderate (Bottom 50%)

The reported results are less important for specialists and of limited general interest.

Low (Bottom 20%)

The reported results are unimportant and of low general interest.

3.3. Please rate the novelty compared to published work in this subject area

Where applicable, we ask reviewers to rate the novelty of a paper compared to other published works in the same subject area. When evaluating the novelty of the work, please put the reported findings into the context of existing state-of-the-art (supported by references). The level of novelty can be rated as outstanding (top 5% compared to published work in the same subject area), high (top 20%), considerable (top 50%), moderate (bottom 50%), low (bottom 20%). You should give reasons for your judgment of the novelty in line with the following guidelines.

Outstanding (Top 5%)

The results are highly innovative and conceptually new.

High (Top 20%)

The work contains a very high level of new results, providing significant new insights in the field of research.

Considerable (Top 50%)

The reported results have some elements of novelty and provide sufficient new insights in the field of research.

Moderate (Bottom 50%)

The level of novelty is limited as similar results have been reported but some new insights are provided (incremental work).

Low (Bottom 20%)

The level of novelty is low as similar or better results have already been reported and no new insights are provided (redundant publication).

3.4. Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess which aspects of the scholarly presentation require improvement (if any):

•

Clarity: the meaning of the reported findings is clear and unambiguous.

•

The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.

•

The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.

•

The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.

•

Graphics and Tables: the Figures, Schemes, and Tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

•

The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.

•

The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained, and needs no additional editing.

•

Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers′ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite.

3.5. Do the methods, data and analysis (including statistical analysis where applicable) adequately test the hypothesis and support the conclusions?

For publication of an original Research Article, the hypothesis must be tested, and the main conclusions supported by an appropriate choice of methods as well as sufficient quality of data and robust analysis. Please comment on any, partial or crucial, technical or logical inconsistencies in the Comments to Author section. Please be fair and constructive in your requests to the authors for additional efforts and allow some room for scientific assumptions and speculations in the outlook section, as appropriate.

3.6. Are the methods, data and analysis described in sufficient detail to be reproduced?

For publication of an original Research Article, the methods, data and analysis must be described in sufficient detail to be reproducible by the scientific community. Please comment on any technical inconsistencies and missing information (insufficient experimental and theoretical details; use of non-standardized technical setup, methods and analysis; missing error bars in data plots; etc.) in the Comments to Author section. As some research fields are subject to a stringent control of data reproducibility, please ensure that the provided quantitative and qualitative data (number of independent experiments or trials, number of devices or replicates in the batch, minimum working area or cycling length for a device, etc.) satisfy the standard requirements of the subject field.

3.7. Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, human/animal experiments, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox. Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

•

Misconduct related to planning and execution of the research (animal/human experiments, data confidentiality, etc.)

•

Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)

•

Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

•

Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation, etc.

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

3.8. What do you anticipate your overall rating (a mean of importance, novelty and scholarly presentation) would be if the requested revisions are adequately addressed?

When evaluating the overall quality of the work, please refer to your judgements on novelty, importance and scholarly presentation of the reported findings and identify weaknesses and strengths of the paper. On the scale from outstanding (top 5%) to low (bottom 30%), please indicate the rating the paper could potentially achieve as a mean of these 3 aspects if your constructive comments are addressed. Please refer to the previous scale bars to anticipate your rating in terms of importance and novelty. Please state in the Comments to Author section what additional work is required to achieve this rating. Please be realistic in your requests of additional efforts to the authors.

3.9. Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

3.10. If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

If you select the recommendation Suitable for another journal, please indicate which journal(s) you believe to be more suitable for dissemination of the work.

3.11. Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another′s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review and their affiliation should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal′s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

3.12. Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author′s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points.

i.

Summary: begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the findings into the context of the existing state-of-the-art and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the work and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

ii.

Major issues: are there any flaws (technological, design, or interpretation), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the findings? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Do the current results confirm or contradict earlier findings? If findings that contradict current thinking are presented, is the evidence strong enough to support their case? If not, what additional experiments would be required? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or data presentation?

iii.

Minor issues: avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the Figures, Tables, and Schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

3.13. Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office.

4. Review, Minireview, and Highlight Guidelines

Review articles should deal with topics of high current interest in any area of chemistry. Rather than an assembly of detailed information with a complete literature survey, a critically selected treatment of the material is desired; unsolved problems and possible developments should also be discussed.

A Minireview should present topics of high current interest in any area of chemistry in a concise review style. Minireviews offer the flexibility to treat topics at a time, and in a suitable manner when a Review would still be premature or inappropriate. Rather than an assembly of detailed information with a complete literature survey, a critically selected treatment of the material is desired; unsolved problems and possible developments should also be discussed.

In Highlights very important new results of original research should be described by a third person with a view to instruct and to highlight their significance. The results should be presented clearly, but as succinctly as possible, without the comprehensive details required for an original article.

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

4.1. Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review. You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations.

Publish without revision

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision

Appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of Figures, correcting language or typos, rearranging manuscript sections or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations or other small enhancements to the discussion.

Reconsider after major revision

Appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include adding new sections, providing more examples to illustrate the points made, or significant rewriting to improve the clarity, flow, or quality of discussion.

Suitable for another journal

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject

Appropriate to select if you believe that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form but could become so once fundamental improvements are made.

Scientifically unsound or ethically flawed

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise, experiments, or interpretation.

4.2. Is the topic timely and appropriate for the research community?

When evaluating timeliness, please consider whether the topic is of current high interest to the research community and whether sufficient new results have been published to warrant a (or another) Review, Concept, or Highlight at this point in time.

4.3. Does the manuscript contain a critical but fair evaluation of the literature?

The editorial office is interested in your opinion on the quality of the discussion of the literature. When answering this question, please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a thorough, astute, and unbiased appraisal of (rather than a simple compilation of) the work discussed, its relative merits and shortcomings. Aspects that require improvement may be expanded on in the Comments to Author section.

4.4. Does the manuscript provide a new and insightful perspective?

Please indicate the extent to which the manuscript contains a new and insightful interpretation or analysis of the literature, discusses implications for further research and provides a vision for the future. Please expand in the Comments to Author section.

4.5. Is the manuscript balanced, accurate and complete?

Aspects to consider for your assessment include whether all relevant topics are adequately covered; whether the choice of references is appropriate, adequate, balanced, and representative; and whether the discussion is logical, relevant, valid, and complete. Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section. Judicious choice of material is desired rather than a complete literature survey.

4.6. Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess which aspects of the scholarly presentation require improvement (if any):

•

Clarity: discussion of the topic and associated literature is clear and unambiguous.

•

The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.

•

The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.

•

The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.

•

Graphics and Tables: the Figures, Schemes, and Tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

•

The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.

•

The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained, and needs no additional editing.

•

Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers′ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite.

4.7. Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, discrimination, or use of inappropriate language please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox. Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

•

Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)

•

Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

•

Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation etc.

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

4.8. Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

4.9. If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

If you select the recommendation Suitable for another journal, please indicate which journal(s) you believe to be more suitable for dissemination of the work.

4.10. Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another′s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review and their affiliation should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal′s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

4.11. Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author′s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points.

i.

Summary: begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the topic into the context of the broader subject area and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the manuscript and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

ii.

Major issues: Are there any flaws (e.g., topics, ideas or research work misinterpreted or lacking; bias); what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the completeness or quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Does the current manuscript add anything new to the body of knowledge? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict current thinking and is sufficient literature evidence provided? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or quality of discussion?

iii.

Minor issues: avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the Figures, Tables, and Schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

4.12. Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office.

5. Scientific Perspective Guidelines

Scientific Perspectives are peer-reviewed contributions, written by experts, which outline contemporary scientific best practice in the chemical sciences. They distill constructive insights and advice on concepts, techniques, and phenomena, as well as emerging practices, topics, and themes that are of importance to chemical researchers. Such articles aspire to become references of lasting benefit to the chemical community. Scientific Perspectives are founded on experimental and/or theoretical evidence, which is endorsed by leaders in the discipline or field of the article. Use of unpublished results from original research should be limited. The presentation should be supplemented with instructive graphical materials.

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript with lasting benefit and usefulness to the chemical community in mind, with emphasis on a well-supported analysis and a clear presentation. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

5.1. Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review. You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations.

Publish without revision

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision

Appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of Figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations or other small enhancements to the discussion.

Reconsider after major revision

Appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include adding new sections, providing more examples to illustrate the points made, or significant rewriting to improve the clarity, flow, or quality of discussion.

Suitable for another journal

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject

Appropriate to select if you believe that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form but could become so once fundamental improvements are made.

Scientifically unsound or ethically flawed

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise or interpretation.

5.2. Is the topic timely?

When evaluating timeliness and relevance, please consider whether the topic is of current high interest and a subject of discussion or debate within the research community. Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section.

5.3. Does the manuscript demonstrate an expert view of the subject?

The editorial office is interested in your opinion on the quality of the discussion and whether it provides a knowledgeable and balanced view of the topic, based on an engaging and rigorous investigation, and interpretation or analysis of the existing literature. Aspects that require improvement may be expanded on in the Comments to Author section.

5.4. Are the ideas presented reasonable with respect to the supporting literature?

Please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a well-grounded appraisal of the topic in light of the supporting literature; and whether the choice of references is appropriate, adequate, and balanced. Please comment in the Comments to Author section.

5.5. Does the manuscript provide a balanced insightful view, which will be of lasting benefit to researchers?

Please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a balanced appraisal of the topic, and whether insights are presented that are likely to be helpful and/or corrective for researchers working in the field of study. Please comment in the Comments to Author section.

5.6. Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess which aspects of the scholarly presentation require improvement (if any):

•

Clarity: discussion of the topic and associated literature are clear and unambiguous.

•

The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.

•

The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.

•

The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.

•

Graphics and Tables: the Figures, Schemes, and Tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

•

The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.

•

The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained, and needs no additional editing.

•

Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers′ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite.

5.7. If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

If you select the recommendation Suitable for another journal, please indicate which journal(s) you believe to be more suitable for dissemination of the work.

5.8. Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to publication ethics, discrimination or use of inappropriate language please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox. Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

•

Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)

•

Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

•

Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation etc.

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

5.9. Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another′s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review and their affiliation should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal′s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

5.10. Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

5.11. Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author′s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points.

i.

Summary: Begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the ideas and topic of discussion into the context of existing literature and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the discussion and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

ii.

Major issues: Are there any flaws (topics, ideas or research works misinterpreted or lacking, strongly opinionated discussion, bias), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict earlier literature? If in contrast with current thinking, is the discussion sufficiently supported by literature evidence? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or quality of discussion?

iii.

Minor issues: avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the Figures, Tables, and Schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

5.12. Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office.

6. Viewpoint Article Guidelines

Viewpoint Articles are carefully considered, opinion-based contributions on topics relevant to the culture of the chemistry community not directly related to scientific research. Articles may address (but are not limited to) topics such as the role and responsibilities of chemists in society; diversity, equity, and inclusion in science; energy, environment, and sustainable development; recognition mechanisms and their influence (funding, prizes, etc.); and modern science communication and outreach programs.

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript sensitively and fairly. Please formulate the comments for the author(s) in a polite form, even when delivering criticism. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

6.1. Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the applicability of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal as well as to the category of the manuscript under review. You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations.

Publish without revision

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision

Appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of Figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations or other small enhancements to the discussion.

Reconsider after major revision

Appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include adding new sections, providing more examples to illustrate the points made, or significant rewriting to improve the clarity, flow, or quality of discussion.

Suitable for another journal

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal but could interest the readership of another journal. Please specify in the Comments to Editor or Comments to Author section what revisions are required before transfer to a new journal.

Reject

Appropriate to select if you believe that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form but could become so once fundamental improvements are made.

Scientifically unsound or ethically flawed

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed or has serious problems in the premise or interpretation.

6.2. Is the topic timely and appropriate for the research community?

When evaluating timeliness and relevance, please consider whether the topic is of current high interest and a subject of discussion or debate within the research community. Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section.

6.3. Does the manuscript provide a balanced insightful view?

The editorial office is interested in your opinion on the quality of the discussion. Please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a forward-looking and balanced view of the topic, discusses implications and provides a vision for the future based on an engaging though rigorous investigation, interpretation or analysis of the existing literature. Aspects that require improvement may be expanded on in the Comments to Author section.

6.4. Are the ideas presented reasonable with respect to the supporting literature?

Please consider the extent to which the manuscript provides a well-grounded appraisal of the topic in light of the supporting literature, where appropriate; and whether the choice of references is appropriate, adequate, and balanced. Please comment in the Comments to Author section.

6.5. Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess which aspects of the scholarly presentation require improvement (if any):

•

Clarity: discussion of the topic and associated literature are clear and unambiguous.

•

The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.

•

The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.

•

The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.

•

Graphics and Tables: the Figures, Schemes, and Tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

•

The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.

•

The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained, and needs no additional editing.

•

Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers′ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite.

6.6. Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to publication ethics, discrimination or use of inappropriate language please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox. Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

•

Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)

•

Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

•

Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation etc.

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

6.7. Is the author suitable to address this topic?

Opinions can be of a subjective nature and individuals (or groups) are entitled to hold a point of view. Where an opinion is expressed that is relevant to or representative of a wider group, please consider whether the experience of the author(s), and/or their professional and/or society engagement, gives their point of view additional weight.

6.8. Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

6.9. Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or at a more specialized journal. Comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author′s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points.

i.

Summary: Begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the ideas and topic of discussion into the context of existing literature and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the discussion and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

ii.

Major issues: Are there any flaws (topics, ideas or research works misinterpreted or lacking, strongly opinionated discussion, bias), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict earlier literature? If in contrast with current thinking, is the discussion sufficiently supported by literature evidence? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or quality of discussion?

iii.

Minor issues: avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the Figures, Tables, and Schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

6.10. Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office.

7. Correspondence Guidelines

Manuscripts that critically comment on publications in this journal can be published as Correspondences if they make an important contribution to the scientific discussion. The author of the publication to which the Correspondence pertains will have the opportunity to reply.

We ask reviewers to express their recommendation in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strength of the arguments of the author and all reviewers and may not always agree with all the reviewer recommendations.

7.1. Review Recommendation

In making a recommendation you are encouraged to consider the category of the manuscript under review. You will be prompted as a reviewer to select from one of the following recommendations.

Publish without revision

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is ready for publication.

Publish after minor revision

Appropriate to select if you believe only simple revisions are necessary to make the manuscript worthy of publication. These types of revisions include correcting or adding more references, improving the quality of Figures, correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation. Minor revision might also include providing more accurate explanations for some of the results or adding more results of control experiments that can be easily performed, that are not critical to supporting conclusions and that might not need further peer review for validation.

Reconsider after major revision

Appropriate to select if you believe that significant revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it could be reconsidered. These types of revisions include providing results of additional key experiments, or significant rewriting to attend to theoretical, methodological or other scholarly criteria.

Reject

Appropriate to select if you believe that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form but could become so once fundamental improvements are made.

Scientifically unsound or ethically flawed

Appropriate to select if you believe the manuscript is not fit for publication anywhere and is not likely to become so in the future as it is flawed; has serious problems in the premise, experiments, or interpretation; or neither corrects a misconception nor adds to the scientific discussion.

7.2. Is the manuscript justified and worth publishing?

When answering this question, please consider whether the manuscript corrects a misconception or adds value to the scientific discussion. Please elaborate in the Comments to Author section. If you indicate “No”, please select the recommendation term “Scientifically unsound or ethically flawed”.

7.3. Are the arguments valid and supported by evidence?

A Correspondence must contain a logical and valid evaluation of the original publication and be supported by sufficient evidence. Please elaborate on any, partial or crucial, technical or logical inconsistencies and missing information in the Comments to Author section. Please be fair and constructive in your requests to the authors for additional efforts.

7.4. Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

When evaluating the scholarly presentation, please assess which aspects of the scholarly presentation require improvement (if any):

•

Clarity: the meaning of the reported findings is clear and unambiguous.

•

The language is grammatically and linguistically correct.

•

The writing style of the article is appropriate for a scientific publication.

•

The manuscript structure is logical and appropriate for the selected article type.

•

Graphics and Tables: the Figures, Schemes, and Tables are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

•

The reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published works.

•

The Supporting Information (where applicable) is appropriate, self-contained, and needs no additional editing.

•

Other aspects need further improvement.

Please check all boxes that apply and elaborate on the necessity of scholarly presentation improvement in the Comments to Author section in a constructive and objective manner. If you have identified other aspects of presentation that need improvements, please specify in your comments. Please note that it is not the reviewers′ task to eliminate all inconsistencies of the work (including language errors) but to identify the aspects needing improvement (by the efforts of authors). Please provide reasons for each literature reference you suggest the authors should cite.

7.5. Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, please select “Yes” and share your concerns in the textbox. Most common irregularities might appear in the following forms:

•

Misconduct related to planning and execution of the research (animal/human experiments, data confidentiality, etc.)

•

Misconduct that might have occurred during either the writing or submission of the manuscript (plagiarism, concurrent submission, dual/fragmented publication, image/data manipulation, authorship, etc.)

•

Conflict of interest or bias related to nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, commercial considerations, etc.

•

Discrimination or use of defamatory language that may harm others and/or their reputation etc.

If any of these cases or any other ethical concerns prevent you from finalizing your report, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

7.6. Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

When evaluating a revised manuscript, please indicate whether the requested revisions have been addressed by the authors in a satisfactory manner. Please specify in the Comments to Author section any further revisions that are essential for publication.

7.7. Did anyone assist you with this review?

Please respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during peer review for your own or another′s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review and their affiliation should be provided where requested so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal′s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

7.8. Comments to Author

The system will prompt you to enter comments to the author(s). This section of the report is where you provide your arguments for the recommendation described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication. Your comments can be entered directly in this field or attached as a separate, sanitized document.

Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language, be objective and constructive, and treat the author′s manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

As a suggested format, the “ideal” review will cover the following points.

i.

Summary: begin your report with a summary of what the paper is about. Please put the topic of discussion into the context of the publication it refers to. Please indicate the overall significance of the discussion and provide an impression of its overall quality and strengths. Please state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

ii.

Major issues: are there any flaws (technological, design, or interpretation), what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the findings, the quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict the publication the Comment refers to and/or other published findings? If arguments that contradict current thinking are presented, is the evidence strong enough to support their case? If not, what additional experiments would be required? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or data presentation?

iii.

Minor issues: avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the Figures, Tables, and Schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

A good review is a balanced critique of both the positive and negative attributes of the paper; specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

7.9. Comments to Editor

The system will prompt you to enter any confidential comments you may have for the editorial team to consider in its review of the manuscript. These comments factor into the editorial decision-making process and provide a helpful mechanism to convey important information to help guide editorial decision making without being brought directly to the attention of author/s.

Please use the Comments to Editor field to provide any confidential information for the editorial office, to express a potential conflict of interest (positive or negative) as well as any limitations in professional expertise to review specific aspects of the paper, or to recommend alternative reviewers. If any of the aspects mentioned above prevent you from finalizing your report, please seek advice from the editorial office.