anie

[Back to list of manuscript types]

Manuscript Type: Reviews

Please only use the form below if you have been explicitly asked by the editorial office not to use Editorial Manager (for example, because a decision was already made) or if Editorial Manager is unavailable.

Reviewer Instructions

Review articles should be written by leading experts and 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. Reviews should be divided into numbered sections. Cross-references in the text should also use these section numbers. The Review should include a lead-in (1000 characters, no references), which should stimulate the readers? interest. The Introduction should primarily introduce the nonspecialist to the subject in as clear a way as possible. A Review should conclude with a section entitled Summary and Outlook, in which the achievements of and new challenges for the subject are presented succinctly. Overall a Review should not be of more than 100000 characters, including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends.

Referee Recommendation

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.

Please formulate the comments for the authors in a polite form, even when heavy criticism is being delivered.

Minor alterations include:

Major alterations include:

Manuscripts that require major alterations will usually be re-evaluated by the referee(s).

Manuscripts that cannot be accepted for publication in Angewandte Chemie could perhaps be acceptable after minor or major improvements—either without further refereeing at all or after further refereeing by the same referees—for publication in one of Angewandte Chemie's sister journals.

In the event of rejection, referees can recommend a different journal, for example one of Angewandte Chemie's sister journals under "6. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate". This procedure should have benefits for both authors and reviewers by facilitating the publication process.

To help us assess the paper we request that you answer the following questions:

1. Please rate the importance of the field under review

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript

Overall a Review should not be of more than 100000 characters, including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends.

4. Please rate the critical selection of presented data

5. Please rate the didactic presentation of the content

Reviews should be divided into numbered sections. Cross-references in the text should also use these section numbers. The Review should include a lead-in (1000 characters, no references), which should stimulate the readers? interest. The Introduction should primarily introduce the nonspecialist to the subject in as clear a way as possible. A Review should conclude with a section entitled Summary and Outlook, in which the achievements of and new challenges for the subject are presented succinctly.

6. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate

7. Please indicate whether you have included attachments

If you have information that is relevant to the comments and recommendation you have made, this can be sent either as an attachment for the Handling Editor or for the Author. Where the attachment is for the author, please ensure that any formulations or file information will not give away your identity.

Review Form

Referee e-mail
Manuscript number

1. Please rate the importance of the field under review [help]

Question 1

  • Very important, wide interest for both specialists and nonspecialists
  • Highly important
  • Important, for the wider field of chemistry, but not suitable for Angewandte Chemie
  • Too specialized, should be published in a sister journal
  • Not important, should be submitted elsewhere

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications [help]

Question 2

  • Good balanced overview
  • Too selective
  • Too many self-citations

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript [help]

Question 3

Overall a Review should not be of more than 100000 characters, including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends.

  • Concise and correct length
  • Too long; contains unnecessary information
  • Too short; requires additional information

4. Please rate the critical selection of presented data [help]

Question 4

  • Good balanced overview
  • Few additions required
  • Better selection required

5. Please rate the didactic presentation of the content [help]

Question 5

  • Good logical approach
  • Can be improved
  • Not well organized

6. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate [help]

Question 6

Comments for the Authors

Attachments (for authors; 3 MB max. size):

Comments for the Editors

Attachments (editors only; 3 MB max. size):