Angewandte Chemie 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and How Fast to Expect a Decision

Angewandte Chemie uses professional in-house editors, not academic editors. This means the triage decision is made by someone who reads chemistry manuscripts full-time. The editor evaluates novelty, scope, and quality based on the abstract and cover letter.

Papers that do not pass triage are returned within 3 to 7 days. The editor may suggest transfer to a Wiley sister journal (Chemistry - A European Journal, ChemSusChem, etc.) at the same time.

If your paper has moved past triage to "Under Review," the editor believes the work has genuine novelty and merits expert evaluation. This is a meaningful signal at a journal of this selectivity.

Angewandte Chemie uses single-anonymous peer review. Papers typically go to 2 to 3 expert reviewers selected for their knowledge of the specific chemistry subfield.

Reviewers evaluate:

• novelty and originality of the chemistry
• experimental rigor and reproducibility
• quality of characterization data for new compounds
• clarity of presentation
• whether the conclusions are supported by the data

Communications receive faster review than Research Articles because reviewers expect to evaluate a shorter, more focused manuscript.

• Accept: rare without revision at any selective journal
• Minor revision: small changes needed. Respond promptly (typically 2 to 4 weeks)
• Major revision: substantive concerns. Address each point carefully. The revised paper usually returns to the same reviewers
• Reject: the novelty or rigor did not meet the journal's standard
• Transfer: the editor suggests a Wiley sister journal. The manuscript transfers with reviewer context, which often leads to faster publication than starting over

Angewandte Chemie's editorial office is responsive to author inquiries through the Editorial Manager system.

When an editor suggests transfer to a Wiley sister journal, the recommendation is worth taking seriously. The transfer preserves the manuscript context and sometimes reviewer reports. Common transfer destinations:

• Chemistry - A European Journal: broad chemistry, lower selectivity
• ChemSusChem: sustainability-focused chemistry
• Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis: synthetic and catalytic chemistry

Accepting a transfer is often faster than starting a new submission elsewhere because the work does not need to be re-evaluated from scratch.

• Angewandte Chemie Pre-Submission Checklist
• Angewandte Chemie Submission Process
• How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Angewandte Chemie

The practical shift at Angewandte Chemie is that speed starts to work against authors who are not organized. If the reviews come back fast, the teams that handle the decision best are the ones that already know which spectra, controls, and mechanism clarifications are likely to be challenged.

That keeps the journal-status page useful as a decision tool, not just a reassurance page.

The practical advantage is speed. Angewandte decisions often come back quickly enough that authors who have not already organized the likely rebuttal path waste the first few days just locating evidence they should have had ready the whole time.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Angewandte Chemie International Edition, three failure patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

A substrate scope that demonstrates the method under favorable conditions only. We observe this in roughly half of synthetic methodology submissions. Angewandte Chemie reviewers expect the scope table to include sterically demanding, electronically deactivated, or structurally challenging substrates alongside favorable cases, with yields reported honestly for both. A scope section limited to 8 to 12 substrates that all give high yields under the reported conditions signals to reviewers that the method has not been tested at its limits. In-house editors at this journal read chemistry manuscripts full-time and recognize a curated scope table before the paper leaves the desk.

A mechanistic proposal that lacks experimental evidence. We observe this when authors include a mechanistic section supported only by DFT calculations or analogy to known mechanisms, without isotope-labeling experiments, Hammett analysis, or direct spectroscopic observation of proposed intermediates. SciRev community data for Angewandte Chemie consistently identifies weak mechanistic support as one of the top revision requests for synthetic chemistry papers at this tier. Reviewers familiar with the subfield distinguish between a mechanism that is consistent with the data and one that is actually tested by it.

A Communication that exceeds the format's scope without becoming a Research Article. We observe this in papers where the data volume, number of reaction classes, or application scope is too broad for the Communications format but where the authors have not restructured the manuscript accordingly. Angewandte Chemie Communications are expected to present a single focused advance with supporting evidence. Papers that present multiple related advances, or that include extensive biological evaluation alongside the synthetic work, often generate reviewer feedback requesting structural revision regardless of the underlying scientific quality.