Is RSC Advances Predatory? A Practical Journal Verdict

The Royal Society of Chemistry is not a commercial publisher. It is a learned society and professional body operating under a Royal Charter, with roots in the Chemical Society of London (1841). RSC publishes approximately 40 journals, including Chemical Society Reviews (IF ~40) and Chemical Science (IF ~7.6).

RSC Advances uses single-blind peer review with 2-3 reviewers per submission and an average 27-day turnaround to first decision. Its APC is 2,100 GBP with full waivers for Research4Life Group A and B countries. The journal converted from subscription to gold open access in January 2017.

This is a society journal with genuine editorial infrastructure. That is a fundamentally different proposition from a journal with no institutional backing.

The concern with RSC Advances is not about fake publishing. It is about positioning and signal.

The specific considerations are:

• The 2021 paper mill incident exposed that the journal's scale made it a target for organized fraud, though RSC's transparent response, publicly acknowledging screening failures and enhancing detection, is the opposite of how a predatory journal would respond
• RSC also retracted 5 additional papers for compromised peer review involving fabricated referee reports
• The journal's volume has dropped substantially from its 2016 peak of 13,300 articles to roughly 3,800 in 2025, partly reflecting the shift to APCs and partly the reputational impact of the paper mill scandal
• Its SJR dropped from 1.113 in 2014 to 0.667 in 2021 before recovering to 0.777, reflecting the reputation trajectory through growth, crisis, and recovery

The risk is not that your paper will appear in a fake journal. The risk is that RSC Advances may send a weaker signal than a more selective RSC specialty journal or a focused society journal in your subfield.

Whether RSC Advances is the right venue depends entirely on what you are trying to accomplish.

For technically sound chemistry research that needs fast open-access publication through a society publisher, RSC Advances delivers real value: genuine peer review, strong indexing, PubMed Central visibility, and the RSC brand. Its IF of 4.6 actually exceeds some established RSC specialty titles like Dalton Transactions (IF ~3.5).

For work that could compete at more selective venues, targeting Chemical Science, Chemical Communications, or a specialty society journal will typically provide a stronger career signal.

For most authors, the useful question is:

Is RSC Advances the strongest venue I can realistically place this paper in, or would a more selective alternative serve my goals better?

That means checking:

• whether your paper fits a focused RSC journal (Chemical Communications, Organic Chemistry Frontiers, Dalton Transactions) rather than the broad-scope option
• whether the IF of 4.6 and PubMed Central indexing meet your institutional evaluation requirements
• whether fast turnaround (27 days to first decision) is a meaningful advantage for your timeline
• whether a non-OA RSC journal without APCs would be a better fit financially

RSC Advances is not predatory by any reasonable definition. It is a society journal published by a Royal Charter organization with genuine peer review, strong indexing, and transparent editorial practices. The 2021 paper mill incident was a real failure, but RSC's public acknowledgment and corrective action demonstrated institutional integrity.

The decision is about strategic fit, not legitimacy. RSC Advances is a solid broad-scope option for technically sound chemistry. Whether it is the best option depends on your paper's competitiveness and your career goals.

If you are deciding where your chemistry paper fits, the best next reads are:

• Is MDPI predatory?
• Is Frontiers predatory?

If you want a direct assessment of whether RSC Advances or a more selective journal is the right match, manuscript readiness check can help.