Chemical Engineering Journal Submission Process

This page uses Elsevier's Chemical Engineering Journal guide for authors, the CEJ Editorial Manager workflow, Elsevier author-support materials, Clarivate JCR metrics, SciRev timing benchmarks, and our internal analysis of chemical engineering pre-submission reviews.

The page owns the CEJ submission process intent: what happens after upload, what the editor checks before reviewer invitation, and what authors should prepare before opening Editorial Manager. It should not compete with the CEJ cover-letter page, review-time page, impact-factor page, or journal profile.

The specific failure pattern we see is a paper that looks strong as chemistry but thin as engineering. Editors consistently screen for novelty plus interpretation, application, and benchmarking. A catalyst, adsorbent, membrane, reactor, or process paper that reports clean data without operating context or comparison to the state of the art can be returned as routine even when the experiments are technically competent.

The submission portal is at editorialmanager.com/cej. Register if you don't have an Elsevier account.

Confirm these are ready:

• manuscript with structured sections (Introduction, Experimental, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)
• abstract of 250 words maximum
• 3 to 5 highlights, each under 85 characters
• all figures as high-resolution separate files
• supporting information as a separate document
• graphical abstract (recommended but not always required)
• data availability statement
• author contributions using CRediT taxonomy
• declaration of competing interests

CEJ requires 3 to 5 highlights: short bullet points summarizing the key findings. Each highlight must be under 85 characters. These appear in the online table of contents and search results. Make them specific and results-oriented, not generic descriptions of what the paper does.

Go to Editorial Manager, log in, and start a new submission for Chemical Engineering Journal. Select the article type (Research Article, Short Communication, or Review).

Provide the title, abstract (250 words maximum), and keywords. Select the subject classification that best matches your work. CEJ covers chemical engineering broadly: catalysis, separation, reaction engineering, materials for energy, environmental applications, and process intensification.

Enter 3 to 5 highlights in the designated field. Each must be a single sentence under 85 characters. Focus on the result, not the method. "Achieved 95% removal of [pollutant] using [approach]" is stronger than "We studied the removal of [pollutant]."

Upload the manuscript file and all figures as separate high-resolution files. Tables should be embedded in the manuscript. Supplementary material goes as a separate upload.

A graphical abstract is strongly encouraged. It should visually communicate the main finding in one image. Keep it clean and avoid excessive text within the graphic.

Author contributions (CRediT), competing interests, data availability, and funding declarations are all required during submission. Complete them carefully. Missing declarations delay the process.

After submission, track progress through Editorial Manager. Your manuscript will appear in "Submissions Being Processed" and move through stages visible in the dashboard.

CEJ desk rejects 30 to 40% of submissions. An associate editor or guest editor for special issues evaluates the manuscript.

Editors are checking:

• does the work fit CEJ's scope (chemical engineering, not pure chemistry)?
• is there genuine engineering relevance (application, scalability, performance comparison)?
• is the methodology sound and described in enough detail?
• is the contribution incremental or meaningful?
• does the paper compare results to the current state of the art?

The most common triage failures: papers that report chemical synthesis without engineering context, studies that characterize materials without demonstrating application, and papers that show activity data without benchmarking against existing solutions.

In our pre-submission review work on Chemical Engineering Journal submissions, three patterns repeatedly separate papers that look like CEJ papers from papers that look more comfortable in chemistry or materials venues.

The chemistry is clean, but the engineering case is thin. CEJ's current author guidance requires article highlights at submission and frames the journal around applied chemical engineering rather than chemistry alone. We repeatedly see papers with strong synthesis or catalyst preparation work that still fail the first editorial read because the manuscript does not show enough process, application, or scale-relevant consequence.

Benchmarking is weaker than the claim language. One of the fastest ways to lose trust here is to call a membrane, adsorbent, catalyst, or reactor configuration "high performance" without a disciplined comparison to the current state of the art. Editors and reviewers at CEJ tend to notice very quickly when the manuscript sounds engineering-forward but the proof package is still literature-light.

The performance story ignores operating reality. Another common failure pattern is excellent batch or lab-scale data that never really meets engineering conditions: realistic feed composition, regeneration, stability, pressure drop, energy demand, or cost-relevant tradeoffs. The submission can be technically respectable and still feel underdeveloped for CEJ if those realities never appear.

Papers that pass triage go to 2 to 3 reviewers. CEJ reviewers evaluate:

• experimental rigor and reproducibility
• engineering relevance and practical applicability
• comparison to state of the art (existing materials, processes, or technologies)
• whether the conclusions are proportional to the evidence
• quality of data presentation (figures, tables, statistical analysis)

• Accept: rare on first round. Usually after a minor revision.

• Minor revision: small changes needed. Typically 2 to 4 weeks to respond.

• Major revision: substantive concerns. Usually 30 to 60 days to revise. Returns to the same reviewers.

• Reject: the paper does not meet CEJ standards. The decision letter may suggest a sister journal.

• Transfer: Elsevier offers transfer to related journals (Chemical Engineering Science, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, etc.) with reviewer context.

• Submitted to Journal: your manuscript is in the system
• With Editor: an editor is reviewing or assigning reviewers
• Under Review: sent to external reviewers
• Required Reviews Complete: reviewers returned reports, editor is deciding
• Decision in Process: editor preparing decision letter
• Revise: you have been asked to revise

If "With Editor" persists beyond 3 weeks without moving to "Under Review," a polite inquiry through the system is appropriate.

CEJ reviewers consistently ask how results compare to existing approaches. If the paper presents a new catalyst, adsorbent, membrane, or process without benchmarking it against published alternatives, reviewers will flag this as a gap. Include a comparison table with specific performance metrics from recent literature.

"We investigated the photocatalytic degradation of dyes" is a description. "BiVO4/g-C3N4 achieved 98% methylene blue degradation in 30 min under visible light" is a result. Use the second form.

CEJ is an engineering journal. A paper that characterizes a material's properties without connecting them to an engineering application (water treatment, energy storage, catalytic process, etc.) may be returned for scope mismatch.

CEJ runs special issues with specific themes. Make sure your paper fits the special issue topic, not just the journal's general scope. Guest editors can be more restrictive than regular editors about thematic fit.