Angewandte Chemie Review Time

The official Angewandte Chemie pages explain the submission process and report some timing figures: Wiley's journal metrics give 2025 medians of 9 days from submission to first decision and 57 days from submission to acceptance, and the appeals policy says the journal aims to decide on peer review within 48 to 72 hours. None of these is a guarantee, and the community data adds detail by stage, imperfectly.

The honest way to read Angewandte Chemie timing:

• expect the editorial filter to act in days, not weeks

• expect concise presentation and breadth of chemical consequence to matter more than length of the Supporting Information

• expect the total timeline to stretch when the paper is promising but borderline on flagship significance

That matters because Angewandte Chemie is not screening only for technically correct chemistry. It is screening for results that should travel across chemistry subfields.

No. If you searched for ACIE Early View, you are usually looking at a publication-stage question, not a peer-review wait-time question. Wiley's Early View area is where accepted articles can appear online before they are assigned to a regular issue. That status is different from "with editor," "under review," "major revision," or "awaiting decision."

Use this page for the pre-acceptance path: desk screen, reviewer recruitment, first decision, and revision timing. Use Wiley's journal page or the article record when the question is whether an accepted paper is already online, citable, or waiting for issue assignment.

This table is a planning envelope for the slower path, wider than the SciRev averages and Wiley medians on purpose. If you have a hard deadline, plan against this one.

At Angewandte, the slow files are mostly papers whose case for readers outside the subfield is still half-made on submission day. Reviewer matching across organic, inorganic, physical, and biological chemistry adds time, and a revision that asks for more mechanism can add months.

The slower papers are usually the ones that:

• are solid chemistry but not yet broad enough for a flagship audience

• make an interesting result without enough mechanistic support

• sit between chemistry subfields and need harder reviewer matching

• return from revision with stronger data but unresolved scope questions

Fast rejection does not mean the chemistry is weak. At this journal it usually means the editors did not see a reader outside your subfield who needs the result now. A specialist journal will often take the same paper with little change.

A longer review path does not mean acceptance is likely either. It often means the paper had enough promise to justify a harder test.

So timing is best read here as a scope-fit signal, not just a speed signal.

Evidence basis: The stage timings on this page are SciRev author reports, except the Wiley figures marked as such, and the scope description follows Wiley's Angewandte Chemie author information, which we reloaded on October 8, 2026. Which manuscript signals speed or slow the process is Manusights judgment, and it is not a prediction of the editors' decision on your paper.

Four days is not enough time to send a paper to referees, so a decision that fast is made on the title, the abstract, the first figure and the cover letter. That is where to spend your effort.

Scope table as the first figure. An Angewandte paper whose first figure is a substrate scope table has told the editor it is a methods paper for methods people. Lead with the one transformation or property that is new, and move scope later.

Mechanism promised but not shown. A Communication that claims a new mechanism on the strength of one control experiment invites a revision round asking for kinetics or computation. If you have that work, put the key control in the main text, not only the Supporting Information.

Benchmarks against old results. Referees in a fast-moving area check the comparison set first. A yield or selectivity claim measured against a method two generations old is the failure mode that turns a one-month decision into a major revision.

Cover letter that restates the abstract. The letter is the one place you can say, plainly, which readers in other subfields need the result. Use two sentences for it.

If your status hasn't changed in several weeks, the most common explanations are:

• Still "under review" after 6+ weeks: Likely waiting on a slow reviewer. Editors typically send reminders at 3-4 weeks.

• "Decision pending" for 2+ weeks: The editor may be waiting for a third reviewer, or handling a split decision between reviewers.

• Back to "under review" after revision: Revised manuscripts usually go back to the original reviewers, who may take 2-4 weeks.

A polite status inquiry is appropriate after 8 weeks with no update.