Applied Catalysis B Environmental Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: ApCatB author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the catalysis advance is significant for ApCatB

• whether environmental relevance is direct, not peripheral

• whether stability data supports practical claims

• a clear catalysis advance (new catalyst, mechanism, or process)

• direct environmental application (water/air pollution, CO2 reduction, etc.)

• stability/durability data

• benchmarking against state-of-the-art

• mechanism with spectroscopic or computational support

• Incremental performance advance.

• Missing stability data.

• Weak environmental relevance.

• Pure synthetic chemistry without environmental framing.

ApCatB operates at the catalysis-environment intersection.

Dual contribution: the journal differentiates from Journal of Catalysis (broader catalysis) and Environmental Science & Technology (broader environmental science) by demanding both contributions.

The 30-50 day decision window: moves quickly.

Stability-data expectation: editors increasingly look for cycling/durability data.

Strongest ApCatB cover letters establish:

• the catalysis advance

• the environmental application

• the stability or durability evidence

• benchmarking against state-of-the-art

Before submitting to Applied Catalysis B Environmental, an Applied Catalysis B Environmental submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Applied Catalysis B: Environment and Energy requires these at first submission:

• editable manuscript source file (.docx or .tex, not PDF)

• cover letter establishing the catalysis-environment-energy linkage in the first paragraph

• highlights file (3-5 bullet points, 85 characters each)

• graphical abstract showing the mechanism or process

• CRediT author contribution statement

• data availability statement covering XRD, BET, XPS, electrochemical, and photocatalytic raw data

• declaration of competing interests

• ethics statement (where applicable)

• suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations and email addresses

• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process

• for resubmissions of previously rejected manuscripts, the cover letter must cite the previous manuscript ID, include evidence of approval from the prior handling editor, and provide a detailed outline of changes addressing previous concerns

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

For Applied Catalysis B submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is weak environmental-application linkage in the highlights. Editors use highlights during the desk-screen specifically to triage scope fit; submissions where 4 of 5 highlights describe synthesis or characterization without naming an environmental or energy application face immediate desk-rejection.

Applied Catalysis B manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The journal's strict scope policing at the desk-screen stage compresses the front end of the window.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and technical check

The platform performs automated checks (source-file format, highlights, graphical abstract, ethics declarations). PDF submissions are returned. The cover letter is read at this stage to triage scope fit and resubmission status.

Day 5 to 21: Associate Editor desk-screen and Article Transfer Service routing

An Associate Editor (matched to thermo-, electro-, or photocatalysis) reviews scope fit, novelty above the state of the art, and presence of an environmental or energy application. Manuscripts where catalysis is solid but environmental relevance is weak (or vice versa) are routinely transferred via the Article Transfer Service to Applied Catalysis A: General or to Applied Surface Science.

Week 4 to 10: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers. Reviewer turnaround on photocatalysis and electrocatalysis is faster than on thermocatalysis where the reviewer pool is narrower. The Associate Editor synthesizes reports into a first-round decision.

Week 10 to 18: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 6-10 week median, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 6-12 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal per Elsevier's Appeal Policy (one appeal per submission, decision final).

• Is Applied Catalysis B Environmental a good journal?

• ACS Catalysis submission guide

Before upload, run your manuscript through an Applied Catalysis B environmental-relevance and stability readiness check.

Read the public instructions for mechanics, then pressure-test the package the way an editor will see it. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Applied Catalysis B Environmental fit check before upload, especially around stability data missing on catalysts with practical claims, incremental advances on established catalyst systems, and weak environmental relevance. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Across catalysis-environment manuscripts targeting ApCatB, three patterns appear most often in desk-rejected submissions.

Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis shows many ApCatB desk rejections trace to missing stability/durability data. The same pattern analysis often finds these cases involve incremental performance advances. A related pattern is that these cases often arise from weak environmental relevance.

Stability data missing on catalysts with practical claims

ApCatB editors expect cycling/durability data on catalysts framed for practical application. We observe papers reporting only initial activity routinely returned with stability requests. SciRev community data on ApCatB consistently shows stability-related revision requests as a top first-round feedback class.

Check stability data missing on catalysts with practical claims before submitting to Applied Catalysis B Environmental →

Incremental advances on established catalyst systems

Editors look for catalysis + mechanism + stability trio. We see manuscripts reporting modest performance improvements on established systems routinely declined.

Check incremental advances on established catalyst systems before submitting to Applied Catalysis B Environmental →

Weak environmental relevance

ApCatB specifically expects direct environmental application. We find papers framed as catalysis advances with environmental relevance as a peripheral mention routinely redirected to Journal of Catalysis or ACS Catalysis. A ApCatB environmental-relevance and stability-readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places ApCatB among top catalysis-environment journals. SciRev author-reported data confirms 30-50 day first-decision windows.

Check weak environmental relevance before submitting to Applied Catalysis B Environmental →

Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Applied Catalysis B Environmental package against the same risks this guide flags in the Manusights section. The practical question is whether the abstract, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, reporting statements, supplementary files, and references all make the journal choice obvious.

• If the abstract still points toward stability data missing on catalysts with practical claims, revise the central claim before upload.

• If the evidence package leaves incremental advances on established catalyst systems, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.

• If the cover letter cannot resolve weak environmental relevance, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.