shield_lock
金大哥
← 返回 Skill 列表
extension
分类: 效率与办公无需 API Key

accounts-of-chemical-research

Use when targeting Accounts of Chemical Research (Acc Chem Res) or deciding whether a chemistry account manuscript fits this ACS venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. NOTE: Accounts of Chemical Research is a largely INVITED venue publishing concise author accounts of one group's own research program, not comprehensive reviews of a field or primary research papers.

person作者: TashanworldhubOpenAPI
open_in_new仓库download下载资源包

Accounts of Chemical Research (accounts-of-chemical-research)

Journal positioning

Accounts of Chemical Research, published by the American Chemical Society, occupies a distinct niche in the review literature: it publishes concise, personal accounts written by a researcher (or a small team) describing the development and implications of their own research program, rather than comprehensive reviews of an entire field. The tone is first-person and narrative, tracing how ideas evolved, what surprises arose, and where the program is heading. The journal is largely invited — most Accounts are solicited from chemists who have made a sustained, recognised contribution to a sub-field — but unsolicited submissions from authors with an equally compelling body of work are reviewed. Primary research data or field-wide literature surveys are categorically mismatched.

This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the ACS submission system.

When to trigger

  • The author has received an invitation from the Accounts of Chemical Research editorial board.
  • A researcher wants to evaluate whether their body of work merits an unsolicited Account submission.
  • An author is confused about the difference between Accounts, Chemical Reviews, and Chemical Society Reviews and needs the distinctions clarified.
  • The author needs to understand why a comprehensive literature review or a primary research paper should be redirected.

Scope & topic fit

  • A sustained, coherent personal research program in any area of chemistry: synthesis, catalysis, physical chemistry, chemical biology, materials, or computation.
  • Accounts that trace the intellectual evolution of a specific problem the author's group has worked on over multiple years.
  • Programs that have produced conceptual insights, new methodologies, or new understanding that are now influencing the broader sub-field.
  • An Account should have a clear thesis — the idea the group pursued, the obstacles encountered, and the implications — not merely a list of the group's publications.
  • Do NOT submit: field-wide comprehensive reviews (those belong in chemical-reviews or chemical-society-reviews), primary research reporting new unpublished results, or accounts of a single paper's findings.

Method & evidence bar

  • The Account summarises and contextualises published results from the author's group; it does not report new experimental data.
  • The author must demonstrate that their program has produced durable conceptual or methodological contributions that the chemistry community has recognised and built upon.
  • Self-citation is expected but must be balanced with fair acknowledgement of related work by others; an Account that ignores competing or complementary contributions is editorially problematic.
  • The narrative coherence of the Account — does it have a thesis? does it show intellectual development? — is assessed as rigorously as the science.

Structure & house style

  • Accounts are concise relative to comprehensive reviews; re-check the current length limit on the live ACS site, as the journal enforces a page cap.
  • The first paragraph (the "preamble") states what problem the group set out to solve, why it mattered, and where the Account is headed — in an engaging, first-person voice.
  • Body sections trace the progression of the research program thematically or chronologically; each section should advance the central narrative.
  • A Conclusions and Outlook section states the current state of the program and where the author believes the field is heading.
  • A graphical/TOC abstract is required; re-check current format specifications.
  • ACS citation style applies; re-check the current formatting requirements.

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 "Accounts of Chemical Research author guidelines" and follow the current ACS version.
  • For unsolicited submissions: contact the editorial office or submit a proposal before writing the full manuscript; confirm that unsolicited full manuscripts are currently accepted.
  • Re-check the current length limit (pages and/or words); Accounts enforces this strictly.
  • Confirm graphical abstract specifications, figure count limit, and SI policy.
  • Verify conflict-of-interest, funding, and AI-use disclosure requirements.
  • If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

  • [ ] This is an account of my own group's research program, not a comprehensive review of a field or a primary research article.
  • [ ] The Account has a clear thesis: the central chemical question, the group's approach, key surprises, and the implications.
  • [ ] Related and competing work by other groups is acknowledged fairly; the Account is not self-promotional to the exclusion of the field.
  • [ ] The manuscript fits within the current page/word limit; re-checked on the live ACS site.
  • [ ] Graphical abstract and author biography (if required) are prepared.

Common desk-reject triggers

  • Submission of a primary research paper containing new, unpublished experimental results.
  • A comprehensive review of a research field rather than an account of the author's own program — that belongs in chemical-reviews or chemical-society-reviews.
  • A body of work too recent or too narrow to constitute a sustained, recognised program with demonstrated community impact.
  • An Account without a coherent narrative arc: a list of the group's papers is not an Account.
  • Exceeding the strict length limit; Accounts is known for enforcing its page cap.

Re-routing decision

  • A comprehensive, field-wide literature review → chemical-reviews (ACS) or chemical-society-reviews (RSC).
  • A shorter critical or tutorial review of a sub-field → chemical-society-reviews or ACS Chemical Reviews adjacent journals.
  • Primary research with broad significance → journal-of-the-american-chemical-society, angewandte-chemie-international-edition, or nature-chemistry.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Accounts of Chemical Research
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does this represent a sustained, recognised personal research program with a coherent narrative thesis — or is it a review/primary paper?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <invitation/proposal status / length limit / graphical abstract / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>