Journal Guides8 min readUpdated Apr 20, 2026

Advanced Energy Materials Review Time

Advanced Energy Materials's review timeline, where delays usually happen, and what the timing means if you are preparing to submit.

Senior Scientist, Materials Science

Author context

Specializes in manuscript preparation for materials science and nanoscience journals, with experience targeting Advanced Materials, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, and Small.

What to do next

Already submitted to Advanced Energy Materials? Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next step.

The useful next step is understanding what the status usually means at Advanced Energy Materials, how long the wait normally runs, and when a follow-up is actually reasonable.

See The Next StepAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.Run Free Readiness Scan
Timeline context

Advanced Energy Materials review timeline: what the data shows

Time to first decision is the most actionable number. What happens after varies by manuscript and reviewer availability.

Full journal profile
Time to decision~100-140 days medianFirst decision
Acceptance rate~15-25%Overall selectivity
Impact factor26.0Clarivate JCR

What shapes the timeline

  • Desk decisions are fast. Scope problems surface within days.
  • Reviewer availability is the main variable after triage. Specialized topics take longer to assign.
  • Revision rounds reset the clock. Major revision typically adds 6-12 weeks per round.

What to do while waiting

  • Track status in the submission portal — status changes signal active review.
  • Wait at least the journal's stated median before sending a status inquiry.
  • Prepare revision materials in parallel if you expect a revise-and-resubmit decision.

Quick answer: Advanced Energy Materials review time is usually fast enough at the front end that authors learn quickly whether the journal sees a real fit. SciRev reports an 11-day immediate rejection time, a 0.5-month first review round, and 1.1 months total handling time for accepted manuscripts in its small public sample. But those numbers matter only if the manuscript already looks like a genuine energy-materials paper with field-level consequence.

Advanced Energy Materials metrics at a glance

Metric
Current value
What it means for authors
SciRev immediate rejection time
11 days
Editors move quickly on fit calls
SciRev first review round
0.5 months
Papers sent out can move fast in the public sample
SciRev total handling time, accepted papers
1.1 months
Successful cases can be efficient
Impact Factor (JCR 2024)
26.0
Flagship energy-materials positioning is still intact
5-Year JIF
26.8
Citation strength is durable
SJR (SCImago 2024)
8.378
Prestige-weighted influence remains extremely strong
H-index
355
The title has already built a large archive footprint
JCI
3.51
Strong field outperformance
Total cites
157,278
Large footprint for a relatively young journal
Category rank
5/182 in Energy & Fuels
Top-tier journal within its field

The review-time signal here is striking, but the sample is small. The safer conclusion is not that every paper moves in a month. It is that the journal screens hard and can move quickly when it knows what the manuscript is.

What the official sources do and do not tell you

Advanced Energy Materials positions itself as an interdisciplinary forum for materials used in energy harvesting, conversion, and storage. The official identity is clear even when the publisher is less generous than ACS about exposing public timing dashboards.

What the official materials do not give authors is a current public median for review speed. That is why SciRev becomes useful here. Its sample is limited, but it supports a pattern many authors already suspect: the journal often makes early fit decisions quickly, especially when the paper looks better suited to a more focused sister title.

That means the honest planning model is:

  • expect a quick first screen
  • expect fast rejection when the energy consequence is not strong enough
  • expect a longer and more demanding path once the manuscript survives

A practical timeline authors can actually plan around

Stage
Practical expectation
What is happening
Editorial intake
About 1 to 2 weeks
Editors test whether the paper belongs in the flagship title
Desk decision
Often around 10 to 13 days on public data
Sister-journal transfer or rejection is common for near-miss cases
Reviewer recruitment
1 to 2 weeks
Reviewers are matched across materials and the energy application lane
First review round
Often several weeks if sent out
Reviewers test benchmark quality, stability, and field consequence
Revision cycle
Several weeks to 2 months
Authors strengthen device logic, comparisons, or durability evidence
Final decision
Often after a second hard fit check
Editors decide whether the work really clears the flagship bar

The public data looks fast because a lot of the sorting happens early.

Why Advanced Energy Materials often feels fast at the desk

This journal has a strong identity. It is not just "high-impact materials with energy somewhere in the discussion." It is materials science where the energy consequence is central.

That lets editors move quickly when a paper is:

  • a good materials paper but not a top energy-materials paper
  • centered on one benchmark improvement without broader consequence
  • missing the stability or scalability logic needed for this audience
  • better suited to a narrower or more application-specific sister journal

The fast desk signal on SciRev lines up with this. Early decisions are often clarity decisions.

What usually slows the review path down

The slower papers tend to be the ones that are not obviously wrong for the journal, but not yet obviously right either.

Those cases usually involve:

  • reviewer disagreement about how broadly the result matters
  • performance gains that need stronger state-of-the-art benchmarking
  • device data that looks good but not yet durable enough
  • energy relevance that depends on a mechanism or deployment story still only partly proven
  • editorial discussion about whether the paper belongs in Advanced Functional Materials, Advanced Materials, or a narrower energy title instead

This is one reason review time at Advanced Energy Materials often tracks claim maturity, not only reviewer speed.

Advanced Energy Materials impact-factor trend and what it means for review time

Year
Impact Factor
2017
~21.9
2018
~24.9
2019
~25.2
2020
29.4
2021
33.3
2022
29.7
2023
27.8
2024
26.0

The journal is down from 27.8 in 2023 to 26.0 in 2024, and down from the 33.3 peak in 2021. But the 26.8 five-year JIF and 3.51 JCI show that the title remains one of the strongest homes in the energy-materials hierarchy. That usually supports faster editorial triage, because the journal does not need to become a volume venue to protect demand.

How Advanced Energy Materials compares with nearby journals on timing

Journal
Timing signal
Editorial posture
Advanced Energy Materials
Quick first filter, then selective review
Energy-materials flagship with broad consequence expectations
Joule
Often slower and harsher at the concept level
Bigger cross-energy story required
Advanced Materials
Similar flagship discipline, broader materials lens
Better home when the energy framing is secondary
ACS Energy Letters
Often cleaner for shorter, sharper energy stories
Strong energy chemistry and materials with a shorter format bias
Journal of Materials Chemistry A
Better for strong but less field-defining packages
Broad clean-energy and materials readership

This comparison is helpful because many authors do not actually have a review-time problem. They have a journal-positioning problem.

Readiness check

While you wait on Advanced Energy Materials, scan your next manuscript.

The scan takes 60 seconds. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.

Check my next manuscriptAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.

What review-time data hides

Timing data hides several things at this journal:

  • fast desk rejections and transfer suggestions compress the averages downward
  • reviewed papers can still move slowly if benchmark interpretation is contested
  • energy-device claims often look stronger before reviewers inspect durability and reproducibility
  • a quick answer can still be a sign that the paper belongs in a different Wiley family title

So the numbers are useful, but only when read with the journal's vertical identity.

In our pre-submission review work with Advanced Energy Materials manuscripts

In our pre-submission review work, the largest avoidable mistake is treating the journal as a place for any strong energy-adjacent materials paper. The manuscripts that lose time are usually the ones with technically good materials science but not enough proof that the result changes how energy researchers would think about performance, durability, or design.

The manuscripts that move better are the ones where the energy consequence is inseparable from the material itself.

Submit if / Think twice if

Submit if the manuscript has a real energy-materials advance, strong benchmark logic, and enough device or durability evidence that the consequence is obvious without pleading.

Think twice if the best case for the paper is still a materials story first, or if the energy framing depends on one favorable number rather than a convincing field-level package.

What should drive the submission decision instead

For Advanced Energy Materials, review speed should not be the leading variable. The leading variable is whether the manuscript truly belongs in the journal's flagship energy-materials lane.

That is why the better next reads are:

A Advanced Energy Materials fit and benchmarking check usually prevents more lost time than optimizing around a public timing anecdote.

Practical verdict

Advanced Energy Materials review time often feels fast because the journal is decisive about scope. That is good news if the manuscript clearly belongs. It is less useful if the paper still needs the editor or reviewer to figure out why it is a flagship energy-materials submission. When fit is obvious, the process can be efficient. When fit is fuzzy, timing stops being the real issue.

Frequently asked questions

Community timing data suggests Advanced Energy Materials is often quick at the first decision stage. SciRev reports around 11 days for immediate rejection and about 0.5 months for the first review round in the limited public dataset.

Usually yes. The public SciRev data shows immediate rejections around 10 to 13 days, which matches the practical pattern of a journal that screens hard for field-level energy consequence before sending papers to review.

Papers slow down when the energy claim is interesting but not yet convincing at the device or field level. Benchmarking, stability, scalability, and reviewer disagreement over whether the paper belongs in a sister journal are the main causes.

The key question is whether the manuscript is genuinely an energy-materials paper with broad consequence rather than a strong materials paper with an energy application attached.

References

Sources

  1. 1. Advanced Energy Materials on SciRev, SciRev.
  2. 2. Advanced Energy Materials author guidelines, Wiley.
  3. 3. Advanced Energy Materials journal homepage, Wiley.

Reference library

Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide

This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how journals compare, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.

Open the reference library

Best next step

Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.

For Advanced Energy Materials, the better next step is guidance on timing, follow-up, and what to do while the manuscript is still in the system. Save the Free Readiness Scan for the next paper you have not submitted yet.

Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.

Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.

Internal navigation

Where to go next

Open Status Guide