Copyright © 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Guidelines for Referees 2012
1. General Information
We try to ensure that the referees we select are experts in the relevant field(s), do not have a conflict of interest, and can thus assist us in evaluating whether a manuscript is suitable for publication in ChemPlusChem. In rare cases it can happen that we select an inappropriate referee—if this occurs, please inform us immediately.
Time is a scarce resource—especially for referees—therefore, initially we do not ask more than two or three referees. If a referee is not able to review a manuscript at all, or in time, they should inform us immediately so that an alternative referee can be found—suggestions for suitable alternative referees are greatly appreciated. A short extension of the refereeing deadline is certainly possible; please let us know if this is required. If we do not hear from a referee we assume that a referee report will be sent in time.
2. The evaluation form
2.1 How important are the results?
Naturally, the judgment of the importance of a paper is to a certain extent subjective. Our policy is to publish contributions of current general interest or of great significance to a more specialized readership. Communications and Full Papers should present results of multidisciplinary research. In other words, papers published should cover new results in at least two different aspects (subfields) of chemistry or one of chemistry and one of another scientific discipline. We expect that reports are formulated in a polite form, even when heavy criticism is being delivered. Referees should give reasons for their judgment of the importance in line with the following guidelines:
2.2 Do the data obtained by experiment or calculations verify the hypothesis and conclusions?
Assumptions and hypotheses brought forward in a manuscript must be in accord with the experimental and/or theoretical results. The identity and purity of all new compounds must be fully characterized by appropriate analytical methods (e.g. NMR spectroscopy, X-ray crystal-structure analysis, elemental analysis, etc.). These data should be given in the Supporting Information in the event that they exceed the scope of the Experimental Section. The term "Supporting Information" should be taken literally: Readers must be able to read a Communication without needing to retrieve the Supporting Information.
2.3 Should the article be accepted?
Referees should give an overall recommendation as to whether a manuscript should be published without, with minor, or with major alterations, or should be rejected. In the latter case they can recommend a different journal.
Minor alterations include:
- To correct references or add more references;
- To improve the quality of graphics;
- To give more accurate explanations for some of the results;
- To include (more) results of experiments that can easily be performed or to give more data that can easily be obtained;
- To shorten the manuscript;
- To correct typos or other minor mistakes.
Major alterations include:
- To include results of more sophisticated experiments/calculations that could take several weeks;
- To completely rewrite the manuscript.
Manuscripts that require major alterations will usually be re-evaluated by the referee(s).
3. Submitting your Referee Report
Please submit your report through manuscriptXpress. Please note that your login will time out after a while so we recommend you prepare your report in a word processor and then copy it into the web form. Go to www.manuscriptxpress.org now.