--- name: nature-reviews-chemistry description: Use when targeting Nature Reviews Chemistry (Nat Rev Chem) or deciding whether a chemistry review proposal fits this commissioned, authoritative-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Nature Reviews Chemistry (nature-reviews-chemistry) ## Journal positioning Nature Reviews Chemistry is a Springer Nature review journal that publishes authoritative, accessible reviews across the whole of chemistry — organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, materials, and chemical biology. Its defining character is that content is overwhelmingly invited and commissioned by a professional in-house editorial team: authors are recognized leaders, and articles are developed in close collaboration with editors rather than submitted cold. The journal publishes no primary research; its value is conceptual synthesis — framing a field, organizing competing ideas into a coherent narrative, and using figures as pedagogy so that a non-specialist chemist can grasp the state and trajectory of a subfield. Readership is the broad chemistry community plus adjacent scientists who need an expert's map of an area. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official guidelines. Before any contact, re-check the live author and proposal information on the Nature Reviews Chemistry site. ## When to trigger - An author wants to propose or has been invited to write an authoritative, field-defining review across any area of chemistry. - A leading researcher is choosing between Nature Reviews Chemistry and Chemical Reviews or Chemical Society Reviews for a synthesis-style article and needs to understand the commissioned, conceptual, accessibility-first model. - A team has primary results and is mistakenly considering a "review" framing here; the trigger is to redirect them to a primary-research venue. - An author needs the journal's expectations on conceptual framing, figure-as-pedagogy, and the pre-submission proposal route before approaching the editors. ## Scope & topic fit - Conceptual syntheses that organize an active chemistry subfield into a clear intellectual framework, highlighting unifying principles rather than cataloguing every paper. - Emerging areas where an expert map clarifies direction: new bonding paradigms, catalysis concepts, supramolecular and systems chemistry, single-molecule and operando methods, computational-chemistry advances reframing experiment. - Cross-disciplinary interfaces — chemical biology, energy materials chemistry, sustainable and green chemistry — where a chemist's perspective integrates scattered literature. - Methodological or instrumental advances whose conceptual implications, not just protocols, can be explained to a broad readership. - Perspective- and roadmap-style pieces that argue a viewpoint about where a field should go, when commissioned as such. - Historical-to-frontier narratives that trace how a concept matured and what open questions define the present. ## Method & evidence bar - The article must deliver a conceptual organizing principle, not an exhaustive literature dump; the central framing should be statable in one or two sentences. - Coverage must be balanced and authoritative: the author is expected to represent competing schools fairly and to be a recognized voice in the area. - Figures are load-bearing pedagogy — schematic, conceptual, and original; reused or purely decorative figures are insufficient, and permissions for any adapted figures must be cleared. - Claims about the state of the field must be evidence-anchored to the primary literature, with citations chosen for authority and representativeness rather than completeness. - No primary research data are presented; any new analysis is illustrative and clearly framed as the authors' synthesis. - Accessibility is a hard bar: a competent chemist outside the subfield must be able to follow the argument, definitions, and figures. ## Structure & house style - Articles are commissioned; the normal route is a pre-submission proposal (synopsis, outline, key figures, author expertise) developed with an editor before a full draft. - House style favors a narrative arc with clear conceptual sections, a Box for technical asides or definitions, and a forward-looking outlook or conclusions section. - Display items are central: expect original schematic figures and concept diagrams designed in collaboration with the journal's art team; figure ideas should be sketched early. - Writing is expository and accessible — minimal jargon, defined terms, and explicit signposting; the tone is that of an expert teaching peers, not a primary-research argument. - Length and reference counts are substantial but bounded; re-check current limits and the use of online-only Supplementary Information. - An abstract and often a key-points summary orient the reader; subheadings must convey the conceptual structure at a glance. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current Nature Reviews Chemistry page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Reviews Chemistry for authors" and follow the current Springer Nature version, including the pre-submission proposal process. - Re-check article-type definitions (Review, Perspective, Roadmap, Comment), and current word, display-item, and reference limits for each. - Re-check figure-permission, original-artwork, and Supplementary Information requirements; confirm the editorial-collaboration and revision workflow. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure requirements; confirm authorship and conflict policies for commissioned content. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence — the conceptual framework this review establishes and why a broad chemistry readership needs it now. - [ ] The content is synthesis, not primary research, and presents no new experimental data as a result. - [ ] The author team is recognized in the area and can represent competing views fairly. - [ ] Key figures are conceived as original pedagogy, with adapted-figure permissions identifiable. - [ ] A pre-submission proposal / outline is prepared rather than an unsolicited full manuscript. - [ ] The argument is accessible to a chemist outside the subfield, with terms defined and structure signposted. ## Common desk-reject triggers - An unsolicited full manuscript sent without a proposal, where the journal's model is commissioning and editor collaboration. - A primary-research paper disguised as a review, or a piece whose core contribution is new experimental data. - An exhaustive, undifferentiated literature catalogue with no organizing concept or perspective. - A narrow, specialist write-up inaccessible to the broad readership, or one with no original conceptual figures. - Imbalanced coverage that promotes the authors' own work or a single school without fair treatment of alternatives. ## Re-routing decision - Comprehensive, deeply referenced authoritative review intended as a definitive reference: `chemical-reviews`. - Tutorial-style or thematic critical review with broad chemistry scope and educational framing: `chemical-society-reviews`. - Primary research presenting new chemistry results: `nature-chemistry` (or a discipline-specific primary venue such as `journal-of-the-american-chemical-society`). - Forward-looking opinion shorter than a full review: a Perspective or Comment within the Nature Reviews family, by arrangement with the editors. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Reviews Chemistry [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```