浪花直播

There are a few variations of peer review. This section will go into each so you can feel comfortable choosing the best option for your manuscript.

Single-anonymised: Your name and institution will be known by the person reviewing your manuscript. However, you will not know the identity of the peer reviewer. This model allows the reviewer to give full and honest feedback and is the standard for most chemistry journals.

Double-anonymised: This option anonymises both you and the reviewer. So, you will not know who is assessing your manuscript and your reviewer will not know your identity either. This model helps to reduce bias in peer review and makes sure that manuscripts are assessed fairly. It is your responsibility to anonymise your manuscript, but you can use these guidelines to assist you.

Transparent: The peer reviewers鈥� reports, authors鈥� responses and editors鈥� decision letters are published alongside the accepted article. You can choose this option at any stage before acceptance. It is compatible with both single- and double-anonymised peer reviews.

Transferable: If your article is rejected from your first-choice journal, you may be offered a transfer to another 浪花直播 journal. Your manuscript may not need to undergo peer review again as any reviewer reports will be transferred with your manuscript. Article transfers have many benefits which include helping you find the perfect journal for your manuscript. Read more about article transfers.

There are several things we do to prioritise fairness during the publishing process. This starts with making sure our editors and peer reviewers are well-trained and supported so they can provide the most fair, rigorous, and inclusive peer review. Teaming this with a seamless process and competitive times to decision, authors and readers can trust that published content is both high-quality and impactful and has been handled in the best possible way.

We focus on:

For some of our journals, you are welcome to suggest reviewers when you submit your manuscript. If you don鈥檛 have anyone in mind, then you can leave this section blank. The following points can help if you would like to recommend suitable reviewers:

At the 浪花直播, we are committed to making sure your manuscript is handled and assessed fairly and ethically. We reduce bias in peer review by asking our editors and reviewers to:

By making our reviewers aware of their own implicit biases, we are collectively working towards a consistent and fair process. Double-anonymised peer review also helps to protect authors from bias.

In support of our commitment to improving inclusion and diversity in all its forms, there are instances where we ask authors, reviewers, and editors to provide information on their gender. However, we give individuals the option if they would 鈥榩refer not to say鈥�. This data is only seen by the 浪花直播 internal staff and editors to analyse trends and identify where improvements are needed.

Learn more about how we use gender data

Watch our video for more on implicit bias.

Guest post by Professor Robert Baker, Trinity College Dublin. RSC Advances Associate Editor and Editorial Board member

Most of the readers of this blog post are driven by curiosity. The question 鈥渨hy?鈥� is something we have at the forefront of our scientific endeavours. Why did this reaction give black insoluble gunk? Why is the reaction yield 5% (rounded up)? Some of the more interesting results have come from questioning the 鈥渨hy鈥� of failed reactions 鈥� Vaska鈥檚 complex was discovered by accident, Kubas discovered the first dihydrogen complexes because of a poor yield, and there are many more examples from all branches of chemistry. Then we spend ages analysing the data: why did the NMR spectrum have too many peaks? After that, we put all the answers to our 鈥渨hy鈥� on paper and send it to a journal for peer review. But how many times do we receive the following email from an editor rejecting our carefully crafted manuscript?

鈥淒ear author
Thank you for your recent submission. All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editors to ensure they meet the criteria for publication in the journal. After careful evaluation of your manuscript, I regret to inform you that I do not find your manuscript suitable for publication because it does not meet the novelty and impact requirements of the journal. Therefore, your article has been rejected.
Yours sincerely
The editor鈥�

So what went wrong?

From experience, some of the common problems revolve around cover letters, how the manuscript is presented and how to respond to referees鈥� comments. Why did they not get it? Why didn鈥檛 I think of that?

Let鈥檚 start with cover letters. As an associate editor in the areas of spectroscopy, homogenous catalysis and inorganic chemistry at RSC Advances, I come across several manuscripts with cover letters in the following format:

"Dear editor

Here we submit the paper entitled 鈥淴XXXX鈥�. We would be grateful if the manuscript could be reviewed and considered for publication in RSC Advances. Thank you for your kind consideration.

Yours sincerely

The authors"

Such brief cover letters do not help the cause of the manuscript. At the very minimum, the cover letter should clearly state the advances made to the literature in a manner that helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript.

Here are my most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript without review:

• Does the introduction set the scene 鈥� what is the problem the authors are looking at and why is it different to the literature? Context is key. In-depth introductions with specific references can go a long way.
• Remember to include results and a discussion section. Are your results good, bad or indifferent?
• Does the introduction and conclusion match the results? Surprisingly, many manuscripts offer an introduction to results from a previous paper.

Best piece of advice to a submitting author?

You are telling a story of why your results are important. Lead the reviewer and reader by the hand, explain everything that is important, but do it succinctly. The reader of your article wants to learn something new, so tell them what that is.

Having a manuscript rejected by an editor or by peer reviewers is sometimes tough to take, especially in the early stages of your career. It鈥檚 frustrating and annoying but it happens to everyone; the comments are on your work, not you as a person or scientist. The best (though not necessarily easiest) way to look at it is as a learning experience. For example, I submitted a manuscript early in my career with the elemental analysis mixed up between two compounds; a referee picked up on this and the whole report was:

"The bulk purity of the compounds has not been proven, therefore none of the conclusions are remotely valid. Reject."

I have not made the same mistake again!

You are welcome to appeal any decision taken on your manuscript. To do so, please send a rebuttal letter to the editor via the journal鈥檚 email address. It is important to address each of the reviewers鈥� comments individually and explain clearly why you disagree. All appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis by our editors and, if granted, your work will undergo further assessment by a peer reviewer.

We have made it easy for you to check the status of your submission with our manuscript tracker. With this tool, you can find out the progress of peer review and the publication status of your work.

As a reviewer, you can join a growing network of people who are dedicated to upholding quality standards and helping other researchers publish great science. It can boost your CV and demonstrate that your expertise has been recognised by others.

It can also help you keep up to date with current research. This means you can stay informed, become a better writer and increase your chances of gaining publication of your research.

We are always looking for new peer reviewers to maintain our high standards of quality. To be eligible, you must at least:

Learn more about becoming a reviewer.