coordination-chemistry-reviews

Coordination Chemistry Reviews (coordination-chemistry-reviews)

Journal positioning

Coordination Chemistry Reviews (CCR) is an Elsevier journal devoted to authoritative reviews across coordination, inorganic, and organometallic chemistry and their applications. Its defining character is critical synthesis of a coordination-chemistry theme: CCR publishes reviews — not primary research — that survey, organize, and critically assess a body of work centered on metal complexes, their bonding, structure, reactivity, and function. This includes metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis grounded in coordination chemistry, bioinorganic chemistry, photophysics and luminescence of complexes, supramolecular coordination assemblies, and energy and sensing applications. A review belongs here when coordination chemistry is the organizing principle and the topic is mature enough to synthesize yet active enough to need orientation. Readership is the inorganic and coordination-chemistry community. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the CCR / Elsevier site.

When to trigger

• The author is writing a critical review centered on coordination, inorganic, or organometallic chemistry and names CCR as the target venue.
• A review surveys MOFs, catalysis, bioinorganic, photophysics, or supramolecular coordination chemistry, and the author is choosing between CCR, Chemical Society Reviews, Chemical Reviews, and Nature Reviews Chemistry.
• A coordination-chemistry topic has accumulated enough primary work to warrant an authoritative synthesis and the author needs CCR's scope and house style.
• The author needs CCR's review-type expectations, evidence bar, and desk-reject criteria before submission.

Scope & topic fit

• Coordination and organometallic chemistry: bonding, structure, electronic structure, reactivity, and stereochemistry of metal complexes across the periodic table.
• Metal–organic frameworks and coordination polymers: design, structure, porosity, and function (gas storage/separation, catalysis, sensing).
• Catalysis grounded in coordination chemistry: homogeneous catalysis, organometallic catalysis, and molecular aspects of heterogeneous and electro/photocatalysis.
• Bioinorganic chemistry: metalloenzyme active sites, metal–biomolecule interactions, metallodrugs, and biomimetic complexes.
• Photophysics, luminescence, and magnetism of coordination compounds, including emitters, sensors, and molecular materials.
• Supramolecular coordination chemistry: cages, helicates, self-assembly, and stimuli-responsive metal-based systems, with their energy, sensing, or biomedical applications.

Method & evidence bar

• The review must be critical and synthetic, not a catalogue: it must organize the literature around a clear thesis, weigh competing interpretations, and assess what is established versus contested.
• Coverage must be comprehensive and current within the defined scope, fairly representing major groups and recent advances, with accurate attribution to primary sources.
• Structural and mechanistic claims drawn from the literature must be represented faithfully, with key crystallographic, spectroscopic, and computational evidence summarized accurately.
• Comparative tables and synthesized figures should organize structures, properties, performance metrics, or mechanisms, with sources and caveats stated.
• The scope must be well bounded — a coherent coordination-chemistry theme — rather than an unfocused survey spanning unrelated areas.
• The review should identify open questions, limitations of current approaches, and future directions, giving the field a forward-looking agenda.

Structure & house style

• CCR reviews are comprehensive and structured around the logic of the theme; re-check current length, figure, and reference expectations on the live Elsevier site.
• A clear narrative arc is expected: framing and scope, organized survey of the evidence, critical assessment, and outlook with open questions.
• Figures are often original syntheses — schemes, structures, and comparison plots — that organize the field; reproduced figures require permissions per Elsevier policy.
• Reference lists are extensive and current; the review is expected to be an authoritative entry point to the coordination-chemistry literature on its theme.
• Schemes and structures must be chemically precise, with correct coordination geometries, oxidation states, and stereochemistry.
• The abstract and introduction must define the scope and explain why the theme merits a critical review now.

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 journal-specific page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Coordination Chemistry Reviews guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Confirm the review-article expectations and whether a proposal or pre-submission inquiry to the editors is advised for the topic and scope.
• Re-check current length, figure, and reference expectations, and figure-permission/reproduction requirements (RightsLink).
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contributions (CRediT), data/declaration, and AI-use disclosure requirements per Elsevier policy.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence — the coordination-chemistry theme synthesized and why a critical review is needed now.
• The article is a critical synthesis, not primary research and not an unstructured literature list.
• Scope is well bounded and coverage is comprehensive, current, and fairly attributed.
• Comparison tables and synthesized figures organize the evidence and respect reproduction permissions.
• Structural and mechanistic claims are represented faithfully and chemically precisely.
• Open questions and future directions give the field a forward-looking agenda.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A submission presenting primary research rather than a critical review.
• An unfocused or overly broad survey lacking a coherent coordination-chemistry thesis, or a topic already covered by a recent CCR review.
• A literature catalogue that lists work without critical weighing, synthesis, or outlook.
• A review where coordination chemistry is peripheral rather than the organizing principle.
• Inaccurate attribution, faithfully mis-represented structures/mechanisms, or missing figure permissions.

Re-routing decision

• A broad, tutorial-style critical review of wide chemical interest beyond coordination chemistry: chemical-society-reviews.
• A comprehensive, definitive review of a major chemical topic: chemical-reviews.
• A high-profile, concise expert review for a broad chemistry audience: nature-reviews-chemistry.
• Primary research on a coordination-chemistry result rather than a review: a primary inorganic/coordination journal (e.g., Inorganic Chemistry, Dalton Transactions) or a broad venue such as JACS.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Coordination Chemistry Reviews
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is coordination chemistry the organizing theme, and is the article a well-bounded critical synthesis with accurate attribution and a forward-looking outlook — not primary research?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <review-type/proposal expectations / length-figure-reference expectations / figure permissions / CRediT & data / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>