Commendably, these four journals are clearly "on the case" in the interests of helping authors raise the quality of their submissions. However, even allowing for differences in journal scope, emphasis of affiliated organisations (e.g. ACS, ASPET, BPS, ASBMB) and the publishing house styles there are problematic aspects. The first of these is that coverage is patchy. For example, we might consider the following important enough to be adopted by all of them but they only appear explicitly in just one (e.g. a SMILES data sheet, structure sketcher recommendations, submission to protocols.io, use of RRIDs, potency limits, PAINs assessments and adding GtoPdb links). There is also a yawning gap in that not one of these five explicitly recommends the use of an open database identifier from PubChem or ChemSpider. Given that stable and unique compound URLs from these resources have been available since 2004 and 2008 respectively, both have been used in Wikipedia for some years and they have now reached 97 and 75 million entries respectively, this really does seems a major oversight (to be fair, BJP and BJCP do recommend GtoPdb ligand links that implicitly have stable unique database identifier URLs but the journals do not refer to explicitly to this attribute). There are also additional guidelines that would be valuable to add (e.g. 'FAIRsharing as a community approach to standards, repositories and policies' ,2019, PMID 30940948, 'STRENDA DB: enabling the validation and sharing of enzyme kinetics data', 2018, PMID 29498804 and 'Minimum information about a bioactive entity (MIABE)', 2011, PMID 21878981).