Catalysts Submission Guide: MDPI Process (2026)

Catalysts is not a weaker version of ACS Catalysis, and it is not a materials journal with a catalysis section. It is a different model. MDPI built it around speed and soundness-based review: the editorial question is whether the catalytic work is methodologically sound, properly controlled, and within scope, not whether it ranks among the most mechanistically novel findings of the year. That model shapes everything about how you should prepare the package.

Two consequences matter most. First, the journal asks authors to publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available, so a missing recyclability test or an absent blank control reads as incompleteness, not as a minor omission. Second, the pre-check is fast, so completeness and a clear catalysis frame are rewarded and a thin catalytic angle is punished early. A high-activity catalyst with no mechanism and no controls can stall at the first reviewer read, while a competent, well-controlled, catalysis-first study moves quickly.

The unusual upside: Catalysts places no fixed cap on the length of the main article, and it explicitly encourages full experimental detail. If your contribution is a careful, completely reported catalytic study that a length-limited flagship would force you to thin out, this is a venue where reporting everything is a feature rather than a liability.

The core fit for most submissions is the regular research article. It works best when the catalytic question is central, the mechanism or kinetics are supported, the controls are complete, and the declarations and data deposit are ready on first upload.

Ask these questions before you submit:

• is the catalysis the actual subject of the paper, or is the catalytic test a downstream demonstration of a materials or synthesis result?
• does at least one thread of evidence explain why the catalyst works, beyond reporting that it works?
• are the blank, recyclability, and stability controls present, or are some of them missing?
• can a reader reproduce the catalytic results from the manuscript and supplementary files alone?

If the answers are uncertain, the controls-and-mechanism problem is usually more important than the activity-number problem.

The pre-check editor is answering a short list of questions fast.

On scope, the editor asks whether the manuscript belongs in a catalysis journal at all, and whether the catalytic question is central rather than a label on a materials or synthesis paper. If the catalysis relevance is thin or bolted on, the paper is returned or redirected. On soundness, the question is whether the methods are reproducible, the controls are present, and the analysis is appropriate.

Catalysts does not require the finding to be field-defining, but it does require the catalytic work to be done correctly and reported in full, with the controls that let a reader trust the activity claim.

On integrity, the editor checks ethics where relevant, image-integrity expectations, and the data availability statement against MDPI's request that full datasets be made available. Gaps here trigger fast returns. On completeness, the editor looks for the declarations block. A manuscript missing Author Contributions, Funding, or Conflicts of Interest reads as not ready, even when the chemistry is fine.

Manuscript structure: Catalysts expects a defined section set: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Results and Discussion (or separate Results and Discussion), Materials and Methods, Conclusions, plus the declarations block. The abstract is the first thing the pre-check editor reads, so the catalytic system, the reaction, and the main result all need to be visible there, alongside the evidence that makes the activity claim credible. There is no fixed maximum length on the main article, so the constraint is focus, not a word cap.

Reporting and methods readiness: Provide full experimental detail so the catalytic results can be reproduced: catalyst synthesis and characterization, reaction conditions, conversion and selectivity definitions, and the analytical methods behind the numbers. Where the chemistry calls for it, report turnover number and turnover frequency rather than raw yield alone, and state the controls explicitly. A catalytic claim that cannot be reproduced from the Methods is the most common reviewer-stage friction point.

Controls and data: Treat the blank or no-catalyst control, the recyclability or reusability test, and the stability or leaching check as part of the core dataset, not as optional extras. MDPI asks authors to publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available, so draft a Data Availability Statement that names a repository, accession, or a concrete access route before you upload.

Declarations and figures: Draft the Author Contributions (by initials), Funding, Data Availability, and Conflicts of Interest sections before you upload; these are pre-check gates at MDPI, not post-acceptance paperwork. A graphical abstract is optional but commonly used; if supplied, it should be a high-resolution PNG, JPEG, or TIFF. ORCID is expected for the submitting author, and the system will ask for suggested reviewers in the relevant catalysis subfield.

In our pre-submission review work with Catalysts manuscripts, four failure patterns generate the most consistent pre-check returns and reviewer friction, and they are testable against your own manuscript before you upload.

Across our catalysis pre-submission reviews, the pattern that surprises authors most is that the Catalysts pre-check is not a novelty filter in the ACS Catalysis sense; it is a controls-and-fit filter. The manuscripts that get returned or stalled fastest are rarely bad chemistry. They are competent catalytic studies whose mechanism, controls set, or scope framing is not ready for a fast, soundness-based screen. Manuscripts coming through pre-submission review for Catalysts split cleanly along these four lines.

Characterization with no mechanism or kinetics

The most common pattern we see is a manuscript that characterizes a catalyst thoroughly (XRD, XPS, TEM, BET) and reports an activity number, but never explains why the catalyst works. There is no kinetic study, no isotope-labeling or KIE thread, no operando or in-situ evidence, and no structure-activity logic connecting the characterization to the catalysis.

The testable version of this failure: read your own Results section and ask whether a reviewer could state the mechanism, or at least a defensible mechanistic hypothesis tied to your data, after reading it.

If every figure characterizes the material and only the final table reports activity, the manuscript is a materials-characterization paper with a catalytic test attached, and the fix is to add at least one mechanistic or kinetic thread that explains the activity rather than just measuring it.

Check whether your Catalysts mechanism evidence supports the activity claim →

The "yet another catalyst" with better numbers but no insight

The second pattern is an incremental catalyst that reports a higher conversion or a better turnover frequency than a prior system, but adds no insight beyond the number. The introduction does not state what question the work answers; the discussion compares activity figures with prior catalysts in a table and stops there. Catalysts runs a soundness-based model, but soundness still requires that the work say something, not just that it report a marginally better value.

The testable version: write one sentence that states what a reader learns from your paper that they could not learn from the catalyst it improves on. If that sentence is only "this catalyst is faster," the contribution is thin, and the fix is to frame the result around the design principle, the mechanistic difference, or the stability advantage that produced the better number.

Check whether your Catalysts contribution reads as insight, not just a higher number →

Missing controls: no blank, no recyclability, no stability

The third pattern is an activity claim that is not protected by its controls. We repeatedly see catalytic studies with no blank or no-catalyst control to rule out background reaction, no recyclability or reusability test to show the catalyst survives more than one run, and no stability or leaching check for supposedly heterogeneous catalysts that may actually be operating homogeneously after leaching.

Because MDPI asks authors to publish all experimental controls, a missing control is not a minor omission at Catalysts; it is the gap a reviewer flags first.

The testable version: for every activity number in your paper, confirm there is a control that rules out the obvious alternative explanation, and for any catalyst you call heterogeneous and reusable, confirm there is a recyclability run and a leaching or hot-filtration test in the manuscript or supplementary files.

Check whether your Catalysts controls set rules out the obvious alternatives →

Scope drift into pure materials or pure chemistry

The fourth pattern is scope drift, and it shows up at pre-check. The study is really a materials-synthesis paper (a new MOF, a new nanostructure) or a pure organic-methodology paper, and a catalytic test has been added so the work can target a catalysis journal. Because the pre-check editor has to decide whether the manuscript belongs in catalysis, a thin catalytic angle gets the paper returned or redirected to a materials or chemistry title.

The testable version: read your own abstract and introduction, and ask whether the catalytic reaction is the subject of the paper or merely an application of the material.

If the catalysis only appears in the last results figure or as a future direction, the framing is too thin for a catalysis venue, and the fix is to rebuild the introduction and abstract around the catalytic question, or to send the work to a materials or synthetic-chemistry journal where it fits better.

Check whether your Catalysts scope reads as catalysis-first →

Each of these is something you can check against your own draft before you commit the submission. This guide tells you what Catalysts editors and reviewers look for; the review tells you whether YOUR paper passes the controls-and-mechanism screen before you upload. We have reviewed 80+ manuscripts targeting catalysis and chemistry journals, including Catalysts and its open-access peers. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Run a Catalysts submission package check to see whether your mechanism evidence, controls set, and scope framing will clear the MDPI pre-check.

Catalysts reports a median first decision near 16 days and median acceptance-to-publication near 3.5 days for recent papers. Treat these as planning ranges, not promises: specialized electrocatalysis, photocatalysis, and biocatalysis manuscripts often run longer because reviewer search takes time in narrow subfields.

• Day 0: Submission via SuSy. The portal accepts the package and routes it to a section or guest editor for pre-check.

• Days 1 to 3: Editorial pre-check. The editor screens scope fit, controls completeness, data availability, integrity and plagiarism checks, and basic soundness.

The fastest returns happen here, before any reviewer is invited.

• Days 3 to 7: Reviewer invitation. Manuscripts that pass pre-check enter single-blind reviewer search, typically targeting two or more reviewers in the relevant catalysis subfield.

• Days 7 to 16: Peer review and first decision. Reviewer reports return and the editor issues the first decision, with a median near 16 days from submission.

Major or minor revision is the most common outcome for papers that clear pre-check.

• Days 16 to 35: Revision and acceptance. Revisions are usually requested on a short clock; resubmission and a second review cycle commonly land acceptance inside a few weeks for in-scope, well-controlled packages.

• **Days 35 to 40:

Production and publication.** Acceptance to publication runs near 3.5 days at median, so the slow part of the calendar is reviewer search and revision, not production.

This guide was researched and built from primary sources: the sources we checked include the Catalysts Instructions for Authors, the journal's aims-and-scope and journal-statistics pages, MDPI's research and publication ethics policy and APC pages, and Manusights pre-submission review patterns from catalysis manuscripts deciding between Catalysts and peer catalysis journals. We reviewed and compared current MDPI author guidance with recent Manusights work reviews from authors weighing Catalysts, ACS Catalysis, Journal of Catalysis, ChemCatChem, and Catalysis Science & Technology. Last reviewed by the Manusights chemistry editorial team on 2026-06-07.

Source limitations: MDPI can update the APC, article-format details, abstract guidance, and editorial-process numbers after this review date, and it has adjusted this charge before, so verify final administrative details against the official Catalysts author and fee pages before upload. Median timelines are reported by the journal and vary by subfield. Use this guide for the decision the official instructions cannot answer: whether your mechanism evidence, controls set, and scope framing are ready for the MDPI pre-check.

• ACS Catalysis submission guide
• Is ACS Catalysis a good journal?
• Rejected from ACS Catalysis, where next?
• Is Applied Catalysis B a good journal?
• ChemSusChem submission guide
• Chemistry: A European Journal submission guide

Before you upload, run your manuscript through a Catalysts submission readiness check to catch the mechanism, controls, and scope gaps the MDPI pre-check filters for. The check is free to run (/ai-review) and takes a single upload.