ejoc

[Back to list of manuscript types]

Manuscript Type: Microreviews

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

A Microreview is a highly focused overview of a selected topic. In general (but not necessarily) it includes a concise overview of the author's own research; reference to all appropriate work by others is essential. A critically selected treatment of the material is desired and Microreviews should be divided into numbered sections. Cross-references in the text should also use these section numbers. The Microreview should include a lead-in (no references), which should stimulate the readers? interest and introduce the nonspecialist to the subject in as clear a way as possible. A Microreview should conclude with a section entitled Summary and Outlook, in which the achievements of and new challenges for the subject are presented succinctly.

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).

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

A short Microreview is about 10–12 pages long (including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends); it can be longer. Please rate the length of the manuscript with respect to the topic.

4. Please rate the critical selection of presented data

5. Please rate the didactic presentation of the content

Microreviews should be divided into numbered sections. Cross-references in the text should also use these section numbers. The Microreview should include a lead-in (no references), which should stimulate the readers? interest and introduce the nonspecialist to the subject in as clear a way as possible. A Microreview 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 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.

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
  • Important, for the wider field of organic chemistry
  • Too specialized, should be published elsewhere. Please indicate which other type of journal you consider more appropriate in the Comments to Author text box.
  • Not important, should not be published

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

Question 2

  • All relevant players and early as well as recent papers are cited
  • Relevant players are not cited or parts of the topic are omitted
  • Too high a proportion of self-citations

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

Question 3

As a rule, a Microreview should not be longer than 12 pages, including footnotes, literature citations, tables, and legends. Longer Microreviews are acceptable as long as they are highly focused.

  • 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

  • All relevant aspects are thoroughly treated
  • Some relevant topics are not covered
  • Some aspects are either less important or overemphasized

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

Question 5

  • Treatment is easy to follow
  • Improvement is recommended – please explain in the "Comments to Author" text box
  • Thorough reorganization is necessary – please explain in the "Comments to Author" text box

6. Have other overviews been published recently which would make this one obsolete? [help]

Question 6

Please give details in the "Comments to Author" text box

Comments for the Authors

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

Comments for the Editors

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