ejoc

[Back to list of manuscript types]

Manuscript Type: Communications

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

Communications are brief reports on results of high significance and urgency. Generally, they are no longer than about 8 pages or 3–4 typeset pages (see "Please rate the length of the manuscript" below for details). An Experimental Section is desirable; if it is not included in the paper, the experimental data must be submitted as Supporting Information. Please indicate clearly whether you agree that the paper is urgent enough to be published as a Communication. Our Communication section does not include "Notes" not only to keep quality of the Journal high but also, and in particular, to avoid unnecessary fragmentation of publications.

The results must be of general interest in organic chemistry or at least contribute to the development of an important area of research. The essential findings presented in a Communication or significant parts of them may not already have appeared in print or in electronic online systems (for example, in online resources, in reviews, proceedings, or preprints). Communications require: 1) An Abstract, which should be brief (maximum 600 characters) and not too technical. 2) An Introduction that includes the motivation for the study which cites relevant references and provides the nonspecialist reader with a general idea of the state of the art of the field and allows the importance of the results to be put into perspective. 3) The Results and Discussion should be combined. 4) Conclusions should summarize the results succinctly and comment should be made on their significance and, if appropriate, the next challenges.

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).

In the event of rejection, referees can recommend a different journal under "5. 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 reported results

The judgment of the importance of a paper is to a certain extent subjective. Please note, we are asking for an evaluation of the importance only with regard to publication in EurJOC. Thus, a paper can be considered to be very important or important for a broad and heterogeneous readership of organic chemists and is thus suitable for publication in EurJOC. A highly specialized paper might not be important for EurJOC but only for a specific area of organic chemistry (e.g., heterocyclic chemistry).

Based on our experience, we anticipate that:

The top 10% of the submitted manuscripts are very important:

Approximately 30% of the submitted Communications are important:

The remainder (60%) of the submitted Communications is either important but too specialized, less important or minor:

2. Please rate the citation of previous publications

Is all relevant prior work cited and discussed in an appropriate manner? Or has relevant prior work been overlooked or is not sufficiently discussed? Does the manuscript include many papers with low relevance to the current study?

3. Please rate the length of the manuscript

As a rule, a Communication should not be longer than 4 template pages. Details that are of importance to specialists, but not to most of the readers, should be submitted as Supporting Information.

4. Please rate the verification of hypotheses and conclusions by the presented data

Assumptions and hypotheses expounded 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, HR-MS, 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.

5. Please indicate which other journal you consider more appropriate

In the event that the work is considered more suitable for another journal, referees can recommend another journal, e.g.:

6. 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 Author or for the Handling Editor.

Review Form

Referee e-mail
Manuscript number

1. Please rate the importance of the reported results [help]

Question 1

The judgment of the importance of a paper is to a certain extent subjective. Please note, we are asking for an evaluation of the importance only with regard to publication in EurJOC. Thus, a paper can be considered to be very important or important for a broad and heterogeneous readership of organic chemists and is thus suitable for publication in EurJOC. A highly specialized paper might not be important for EurJOC but only for a specific area of organic chemistry (e.g., heterocyclic chemistry).

  • Very important (top 10% of Communications)
  • Important (top 30% of Communications)
  • Important but too specialized for the wider field of organic chemistry
  • Less important, should be submitted elsewhere
  • Minor, is not publishable in this form

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

Question 2

  • Appropriate; relevant prior work is cited and discussed
  • Insufficient; relevant prior work has been overlooked or is not discussed appropriately
  • Superfluous; many papers with low relevance to the current study have been cited

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

Question 3

As a rule, a Communication should not be longer than 4 template pages. Details that are of importance to specialists, but not to most of the readers, should be submitted as Supporting Information.

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

4. Please rate the verification of hypotheses and conclusions by the presented data [help]

Question 4

Assumptions and hypotheses expounded 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, HR-MS, 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.

  • Fully consistent and accurate
  • Minor inconsistencies or inaccuracies
  • Major inconsistencies or inaccuracies

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

Question 5

Comments for the Authors

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

Comments for the Editors

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