International Journal of Quantum Chemistry

Cover image for Vol. 117 Issue 13

Impact Factor: 2.184

ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2015: 17/35 (Physics Atomic Molecular & Chemical); 19/101 (Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications); 77/144 (Chemistry Physical)

Online ISSN: 1097-461X

Associated Title(s): Journal of Computational Chemistry

Reviewer Guidelines for Publication in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry


Aims and Scope

Article types

The evaluation form


We try to ensure that the reviewers we select are experts in the relevant topic and do not have a conflict of interest, and can thus assist us in evaluating whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. In rare cases it can happen that we select an inappropriate reviewer–if this occurs, please inform us immediately.

Time is a scarce resource–especially for reviewers. Therefore, we pre–screen manuscripts for quality, relevance, and interest. Initially, we do not contact more than three reviewers. If a reviewer is not able to review a manuscript at all, or by the deadline provided, they should inform us immediately so that an alternative reviewer can be found. A short extension of the reviewing deadline is certainly possible; please let us know if this is required.

Suggestions for suitable alternative reviewers are greatly appreciated, but reviewers should not approach alternative reviewers directly, as manuscripts should be kept confidential. If we do not hear from a reviewer we assume that a report will be sent in time. Reviewers may be asked to evaluate a revised version of a manuscript; however, we will not send a manuscript back for re-review if we judge the authors have not made a serious attempt to revise their manuscript in response to the reviewer comments.

Reviewers can use their Reviewer Center on our online submission system available at to view and download the manuscript and complete their review.

Aims and Scope

Since its first formulation quantum chemistry has provided the conceptual and terminological framework necessary to understand atoms, molecules and the condensed matter. Over the past decades synergistic advances in the methodological developments, software and hardware have transformed quantum chemistry in a truly interdisciplinary science that has expanded beyond its traditional core of molecular sciences to fields as diverse as chemistry and catalysis, biophysics, nanotechnology and material science.

The Int. Journal of Quantum Chemistry reflects the broad interests of today's quantum chemistry research community, providing a dedicated forum for rapidly reporting breakthroughs in the development and application of quantum mechanical concepts in chemistry, physics, biology and materials science.

The Int. Journal of Quantum Chemistry publishes an exciting mix of comprehensive reviews, instructive tutorials, visionary perspectives, and high-impact rapid communications and full papers that represent the gamut of the field of quantum chemistry, from theory to simulations to applications.

Article Types

Rapid communications are brief reports of original research of unusual urgency, significance and broad interest to the theoretical and experimental chemistry communities alike. The major concepts of the work must not have appeared previously as report, publication and symposium proceedings. Communication reporting on mere technical improvement or optimization with respect to previously published work will not be accepted in absence of novel insights or conceptual breakthroughs.

Rapid communications should be limited to 1500 words, 3 display items (figure and/or tables), 20 references. Rapid communications should include a 150-word abstract and a 75-word graphical table of contents summary. The opening sentence of the manuscript should state the reasons for the undertaking of the work and the main conclusions that can be drawn. The main text should be followed by a Method section containing sufficient detail to reproduce the work. Headings should not be used in the main text. The title of the manuscript should not contain the words "First" or "Novel".

Full Papers are comprehensive reports of important recent advances in the development of basic theory, quantum mechanical computational methodologies and their relevant applications that provide significant insight to problems of broad interest in chemistry, physics, biology, and materials science. Articles that report on routine applications of standard computational approaches to systems of interest to only specialized communities or incrementally expand findings that were previously published will be, unless significant new advances or conceptual breakthroughs are announced, declined. Theoretical reports that are correlated with relevant experimental data or have substantial predictive value of experimental observable or novel materials properties are especially welcome in Int. Journal of Quantum Chemistry.

Perspectives are short discussions of an important emerging topics in quantum chemistry, usually focused on no more than a few recently published papers, and including the authors' vision for the future of the topics, identifying important problems that should be addressed next. Citation should not be comprehensive; rather, highlights from the literature should be selected that demonstrate the recent progress made in the topic.

Perspective should be limited to 3000 words, 4 display items (figures and/or tables), and 30 references.

Reviews are comprehensive survey of recent progress in a topic of broad interest in quantum chemistry, providing the readership with an appreciation of the importance of the work, a summary of recent developments, and a guide to the relevant literature. Citations should be selective and not biased towards a single research group. Reproduction of key images from the cited literature, upon obtaining permission from the figure's copyright holder, is encouraged.

Tutorial Reviews are essential introductions to a particular area of quantum chemisty, especially tailored towards younger researchers or established scientists seeking new fields to explore. Typically they should not contain unpublished data.

The evaluation form

Should the manuscript be accepted?

We ask reviewers to recommend a particular course of action in their report. The final decision by the responsible editor is informed by the strengths of the arguments of the author and all reviewers, and may not always agree with the "majority" of reviewer recommendations.

The possible choices are:

1. Accept: No modifications are necessary; the manuscript is publishable "as is".

2. Minor Revision: The manuscript should become acceptable after minor revisions, including:

  • Correcting references or adding more references
  • Improving the quality of graphics
  • Providing more accurate explanations for some of the results
  • Including more results of simulations that can be easily performed or may have been intentionally left out of the original manuscript
  • Shortening the manuscript
  • Correcting language, typos, or otherwise improving the presentation

3. Major Revision: The manuscript could become acceptable after major revisions, including:

  • Including results of more sophisticated simulations that could take several weeks
  • Completely rewriting the manuscript

4. Reject: The manuscript is not acceptable for publication in the journal and is not likely to become so in the future.

  • It may be flawed or have serious problems in the premise, theoretical approach, or interpretation.
  • Rejection should be recommended for manuscripts that are considered less important.
  • In general, problems with the presentation of results require minor revisions, while problems with the data and results require major revisions or rejection.


The Comments section of the reviewer report provides the arguments for the choices described above and can be used by the author to improve their manuscript for publication at the current or a more specific journal. Reviewers should strive to write clearly, especially for authors for whom English is not their first language; be objective, not subjective; be constructive, not destructive; and treat the author's manuscript and work as they would like their own to be treated.

The "ideal" review will cover the following points1:

1. Summary

  • Begin with a summary of what the paper is about.
  • Put the findings into the context of the existing state–of–the–art.
  • Indicate the overall significance of the work.
  • Provide an impression of the overall quality of the work and its strengths.
  • State whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.

2. Major issues

  • Are there any flaws (in the level of theory, simulation parameters, 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 calculations or experimental confirmation 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?

3. Minor issues

  • Are there places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous?
  • Are the correct references cited? What else should be cited?
  • Is citation adequate, or excessive, limited, or biased?
  • Are there factual, numerical, or unit errors?
  • Are the figures, tables, and schemes appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled?

1. Adapted from Irene Hames, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals, Blackwell, Oxford 2007.