Angewandte Chemie vs Scientific Reports: Broad Chemistry vs Inclusive Multidisciplinary

Here's a practical test: Would a room full of synthetic chemists consider your finding a "breakthrough" or "interesting"?

If yes, Angewandte is worth trying. Expect a 75-85% desk rejection rate, but breakthroughs that make it to review usually get accepted.

If no, if it's solid chemistry but incremental, Scientific Reports is appropriate.

Examples:

Angewandte-appropriate:

• A new C-H functionalization that enables previously impossible transformations
• A catalytic asymmetric reaction opening new synthetic routes
• A mechanistic discovery explaining unexpected reactivity

Scientific Reports-appropriate:

• An established reaction optimized for green chemistry or sustainability
• Application of a known catalytic system to a new substrate class
• Comprehensive characterization of a reaction you've spent time optimizing
• A useful synthetic intermediate or route to a known target

Angewandte is fast (2-6 weeks first decision) but highly selective.

Scientific Reports is slow (120 days) but more accepting.

For a novel, well-executed paper, Angewandte's speed is genuine. For a paper lacking mechanistic novelty, Angewandte will desk reject in a week, then you're submitting to Scientific Reports anyway.

Don't choose based on speed if it compromises the journal fit.

Angewandte offers two formats:

Short Communication (4 pages): For a single elegant finding, breakthrough reaction, or mechanistic insight. Faster publication, broader impact, more prestigious. But requires that your contribution is sharply focused.

Full Article (20-30 pages): For comprehensive mechanistic studies, broad substrate scope studies, or complex investigations. Allows room for detail.

If you have one great result, Short Communication.

If you have a story with multiple facets and extensive mechanistic investigation, Full Article.

This choice matters for Angewandte more than other journals. A Short Communication gets wider attention and faster publication.

This is non-negotiable. Angewandte reviewers expect mechanistic understanding.

"We developed a new catalytic system" is insufficient.

"Here's the catalytic cycle, here's how we validated it, here's why the catalysis works" is expected.

This means:

• Identification of catalytic intermediates (NMR, ESI-MS, isolation if possible)
• Kinetic measurements confirming the proposed cycle
• Computational modeling of the transition state or key steps
• Experimental validation of mechanistic proposals (selective inhibition, isotope labeling, etc.)

Without this, Angewandte will desk reject. Scientific Reports won't.

Angewandte lets you publish at $0 behind the subscription paywall. Scientific Reports charges $2,850 for every paper. For budget-constrained labs, Angewandte is actually the cheaper option, if your chemistry is novel enough to get in. If you choose OA at Angewandte ($5,250), it's more expensive than Scientific Reports ($2,850), so the cost calculation depends on whether you need or want open access.

Angewandte publishes approximately 4,564 articles per year through professional (not academic) editors who make fast, decisive desk decisions. Scientific Reports publishes 25,000+ papers per year across all sciences. The volume difference reflects the different editorial models: selective curation vs inclusive rigor-checking.

Submit to Angewandte if:

• Your chemistry is mechanistically novel (new reaction type, new mechanism, new catalytic mode)
• You have deep mechanistic understanding (intermediates, kinetics, computation)
• The substrate scope demonstrates understanding of limitations
• You have time to wait out the peer review if it gets sent for review

Go to Scientific Reports if:

• Your chemistry is solid but incremental
• Novelty is marginal or narrow in scope
• Your strength is methodological execution rather than mechanistic insight
• You want a faster, more predictable path to publication

High likelihood (40-50% desk rejection rate). Common reasons:

• Insufficient novelty
• Mechanism not deeply investigated
• Narrow substrate scope without mechanistic explanation
• Applying a known method without clear advantage

Before submitting to Scientific Reports, honestly assess: Is the limitation real science limitation, or editorial perception?

If Angewandte said "this is incremental," and you agree, Scientific Reports is appropriate. If you disagree and believe there's genuine novelty, consider redesigning the story or additional experiments.

For context on where Angewandte and Scientific Reports sit relative to other chemistry options:

Angewandte and JACS are considered peer journals in chemistry. If your paper does not fit Angewandte's scope (too applied, too narrow), JACS may be worth trying, or vice versa. If neither selective journal works, the step down is Chemical Science (IF 8.4) or ChemComm (IF 4.0), not directly to Scientific Reports. Going from Angewandte (IF 16.9) straight to Scientific Reports (IF 3.9) skips several viable intermediate options.