Chemical Engineering Journal Submission Process

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

Highlights are mandatory

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.

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.

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)

Understanding the decision

• 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.

No comparison to state of the art

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.

Highlights that describe rather than report

"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.

Missing engineering context

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.

Submitting to a special issue without checking the scope

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.