Standards for the quality and originality of articles in PCCP—a notice to authors and referees

The Editorial Board aims to attract and publish the highest quality work in PCCP. Fig. 1 shows one indicator of success in this regard: submission rates for both full papers and communications increased significantly during 2003 and into 2004. In anticipation of this trend continuing, it is the policy of the Editorial Board to reinforce its encouragement to authors that they should submit, and to referees that they should recommend, only the best work for publication in PCCP.

Fig. 1 Rolling annual submissions for (a) papers and (b) communications.

Referees are crucial in helping us to maintain, and indeed enhance, the quality of work published in the journal. PCCP cannot function without an efficient and reliable refereeing process, and we appreciate that such activities can take good referees a significant amount of time—often requiring them to make and defend difficult decisions. The Editorial Board is acutely conscious of the referees’ efforts and is most grateful to them for the very significant contribution they make to the journal.

PCCP receives many more articles than it can publish, and currently publishes less than half of the material it receives. It is the Editorial Board’s aim that PCCP should move towards a position where it is publishing only the very best of the work submitted. Referees are encouraged to bear this in mind whilst reviewing articles. Of course an essential part of the referees’ task is the improvement of articles through constructive criticism. We would also ask referees to check that the papers are within the scope of the journal, scrutinise very carefully papers that are deemed to be borderline, and recommend rejection of those articles which do not meet our expectations with regard to novelty and impact. For a submission to be acceptable for publication in PCCP it must report high quality new work that makes a significant contribution within the scope. Routine work, however competently researched and reported, should not be recommended for publication; the Editorial Board encourages a high standard for acceptance.

We would also draw authors’ and referees’ attention to our electronic supplementary information (ESI) service. This is information that it is not possible to represent in printed form; ESI data can take advantage of the electronic medium allowing use of full colour diagrams, 3D molecular models and even movies. The information can also be data that is useful but not essential to the less specialised reader. Authors can improve the readability of their articles by placing appropriate material, such as repetitive experimental details, primary kinetic data, spectra, diagrams and bulky data, with the ESI service. All such deposited data is freely and easily accessible on the PCCP web pages.

Finally, we thank our authors and referees for their continued support of the journal. Such support is paramount to the continued success of PCCP and cannot be overstated. As always, we welcome feedback or suggestions for the improvement of the journal; please contact us at the PCCP email address below.

With best wishes,

Mike Ashfold, Chairman, Editorial Board

Susan Appleyard, Managing Editor

On behalf of the Editorial Board, PCCP.

Further information

Editorial office email address	pccp@rsc.org
Scope of journal	http://www.rsc.org/is/journals/current/pccp/pccpsubjects.htm
Guidelines for PCCP referees	http://www.rsc.org/pdf/pccp/pccpguide.pdf
RSC Refereeing Procedure and Policy	http://www.rsc.org/pdf/authrefs/ref.pdf
Instructions for PCCP authors	http://www.rsc.org/is/journals/current/pccp/cpifa.htm
Electronic supplementary information	http://www.rsc.org/esi

---