ACS Catalysis 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

ACS Catalysis editors are evaluating:

• does the paper report a catalysis advance with mechanism evidence, not just activity numbers?
• is the catalytic characterization complete (XPS, in-situ spectroscopy, isotope labeling, computational support)?
• does the work travel beyond one narrow substrate or reaction class?
• is the contribution at the impact bar that ACS Catalysis expects (vs. ACS Sustainable Chemistry, Catalysis Science & Technology)?

A desk rejection usually means scope fit, mechanism-evidence gaps, or impact-bar mismatch. The editor may suggest a sister ACS journal or RSC catalysis journal.

Editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript, figures, supplementary information with characterization, table of contents graphic, cover letter, COI, ethics where applicable.

The handling editor reads the paper, evaluates mechanism evidence and scope fit, and decides whether to invite reviewers.

The editor invites two to three reviewers with catalysis-mechanism, characterization, and reaction-class expertise.

Once reviewers accept, peer review typically takes 3 to 6 weeks. ACS Catalysis reviewers evaluate mechanism evidence, computational-experimental consistency, and competitive benchmarking.

After reports return, the editor synthesizes them. The 4-to-8-week median first-decision time captures the full pipeline.

If you have been Under Review for more than 10 weeks with no update, a polite email to eic@acscatal.acs.org is reasonable.

The most common outcome after peer review. ACS Catalysis rejections usually cite mechanism-evidence gaps, missing in-situ or operando characterization, weak computational-experimental integration, or scope mismatch.

ACS Catalysis revisions are usually substantial and require additional experiments (in-situ spectroscopy, computational validation, mechanistic studies). Major revisions are typically due within 60 days.

Possible on first round for mechanism-clean, fully-characterized work; more commonly follows one round of revision.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Desk rejection. Editor concluded the paper does not meet ACS Catalysis's mechanism bar or fits a sister journal better.
• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Good sign. Editor decided to proceed to peer review.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer delay. Polite inquiry is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Required Reviews Complete": Reports are in; expect decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

Through our ACS Catalysis submission readiness check, we have worked with researchers preparing ACS Catalysis submissions and waiting on decisions. The waiting is informative: if no decision in 3 weeks, you have likely cleared the desk screen. The most common anxiety is the 8-to-10-week window which is at or near the median.

Three failure patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

Activity numbers without mechanism evidence. ACS Catalysis reviewers distinguish between "we measured X turnover" and "we established why X turnover happens." The fix is to include at least one mechanism-establishing technique (in-situ spectroscopy, isotope labeling, computational mechanism).

Computational results without experimental integration. DFT-heavy papers without experimental confirmation get flagged. The fix is to pair computational with experimental wherever possible.

Narrow substrate scope. Single-substrate papers get redirected to specialty journals. The fix is to include multiple substrate examples or scope generalization.