JACS 'With Editor': What the Associate-Editor Screen Means

JACS operates the hybrid Editor-in-Chief + Associate Editor + international editorial advisory board model, and the "With Editor" stage is where that model does its heaviest work. A JACS Associate Editor is a working researcher in chemistry, not a professional editor; the subject-expert Associate Editor reads the entire paper and evaluates chemistry significance, methodological rigor, characterization-data adequacy, and JACS subspecialty routing across organic, inorganic, physical, materials, and biological chemistry. An Associate Editor at JACS typically handles 100 to 200 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 90 minutes on the initial read, fitting JACS editorial work around their own laboratory. The distinctive feature is two-editor scrutiny: the current process requires initial scrutiny by at least two JACS editors before any manuscript is declined, with a subject-expert Associate Editor providing a second opinion.

JACS editorial culture is decisive at the screen: roughly 40 to 50 percent of submissions are desk-rejected here within an 8-day median, and no paper is declined without review by at least two editors. Papers that clear the JACS two-editor scrutiny have passed the steepest filter in ACS chemistry publishing, and the decision then shifts from "is the chemistry priority high enough" to "is the chemistry correct."

"With Editor" is the stage where the 40-to-50-percent desk-reject decision is made, before any referee is involved. The subject-expert Associate Editor evaluates whether the chemistry priority warrants one of JACS's selective editorial slots, and at least one second editor scrutinizes the case before any decline. A desk rejection at this screen most often means the editors concluded the work would fit better at a sister ACS chemistry journal (JACS Au for open access, ACS Catalysis for catalysis priority, Organic Letters or Inorganic Chemistry for subspecialty cascade) or that the chemistry-priority bar is not met. None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editor reading the abstract, introduction, and first figure and asking what chemistry principle changed because of this work.

Before the paper reaches the Associate Editor, the JACS editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with characterization data (NMR, mass spec, IR, crystallographic data with CIF files where applicable), reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, MIQE for quantitative PCR), cover letter directed to the Associate Editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics documentation, and a data-availability statement. Missing characterization data or required items is a common reason a submission never reaches "With Editor."

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The subject-expert Associate Editor reads the paper and evaluates chemistry significance, methodological rigor, characterization-data adequacy, and JACS subspecialty routing. Clear cases resolve fast given the 8-day median: an obvious scope or priority mismatch is returned within days, and an obvious high-priority chemistry advance moves toward reviewer recruitment. Ambiguous cases trigger the second-editor scrutiny that is JACS's signature feature.

In parallel with the primary Associate Editor's read, ambiguous-fit papers receive scrutiny from at least one second JACS editor before any decline decision. This two-editor scrutiny runs alongside the primary read and adds 2 to 5 days that are invisible in the portal. No paper is desk-rejected at JACS without review by at least two editors. If your status sits at "With Editor" near the two-week mark, second-editor scrutiny or reviewer recruitment is the most likely reason, not neglect.

Once the screen passes, the Associate Editor moves to recruit 2 to 3 referees, and that recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days because referees with topic-matched chemistry subspecialty expertise across organic, inorganic, physical, and materials boundaries are scarce. ACS Paragon Plus can keep reading "With Editor" during this window, or briefly show "Reviewer(s) Invited" and revert if invited reviewers decline, so a status that lingers at "With Editor" past two weeks most often reflects this recruitment step rather than an unfinished screen.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the Associate Editor either declines the paper (after two-editor scrutiny), recommends an ACS-family transfer, or moves it to reviewer recruitment. Because ACS Paragon Plus can revert "Reviewer(s) Invited" back to "With Editor" when invited reviewers decline, the cleanest signal that the screen is truly over is a status that settles into active review rather than briefly flickering to "Reviewer(s) Invited" and back.

• Return within 1 to 3 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope/priority mismatch caught before full screening.
• Return within 3 to 10 days: Standard Associate-Editor desk rejection per the 40-to-50-percent figure and 8-day median, after two-editor scrutiny.
• Still With Editor at 2 to 3 weeks: Normal; usually reviewer recruitment, or a "Reviewer(s) Invited" status that reverted on declines. Not a reject signal.
• Still With Editor past 6 weeks: A polite inquiry via the ACS Paragon Plus portal is appropriate; reviewer recruitment may have stalled.
• Status moves to active Under Review: Screen passed. Your paper cleared the JACS two-editor scrutiny.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from JACS authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 2 weeks is past the 8-day median immediate-rejection window, which usually means your paper cleared the fast desk-reject filter. The most likely explanation is that the Associate Editor is completing two-editor scrutiny or recruiting reviewers, a step ACS Paragon Plus does not always break out, so the status can stay "With Editor" even as reviewer invitations go out. If you briefly saw "Reviewer(s) Invited" and the status reverted to "With Editor," that usually means invited reviewers declined and the editor is finding replacements with topic-matched chemistry subspecialty expertise. That is routine, not a reject signal.

What you should NOT do during the first 6 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office. JACS Associate Editors are working researchers managing 100+ papers per year around their own laboratories; an inquiry mid-screen adds friction without accelerating the decision. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 6 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript ID is reasonable.

If your JACS paper is returned at the "With Editor" screen rather than sent to referees, the cascade depends on what the editors cited:

JACS Au is the natural ACS open-access cascade for chemistry papers where the JACS priority bar is not met but the rigor is high. ACS supports manuscript transfer with reviewer reports preserved.

ACS Catalysis is the natural ACS cascade for catalysis-focused chemistry papers. ACS Catalysis uses ACS Paragon Plus at acsparagonplus.acs.org; editorial contact catal@acs.org.

Organic Letters / Journal of Organic Chemistry is the ACS cascade for organic chemistry papers, and Inorganic Chemistry is the ACS cascade for inorganic chemistry papers.

Angewandte Chemie is the external Wiley cascade for top-tier chemistry communications. Angewandte Chemie uses ScholarOne at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/angewandte; editorial contact angewandte@wiley.com.

Nature Chemistry / Nature Chemical Biology are external Springer Nature cascades for top-tier chemistry mechanism work. These journals operate independently from ACS; assessments do not transfer.

The "With Editor" decision is not a referee evaluation; it is a desk screen against four criteria, with at least two editors involved before any decline. The table maps each to what you can confirm while you wait.

In our pre-submission review work with JACS manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is declined at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The practical question during the screen is whether the abstract, introduction, main figures, Supporting Information, characterization data, and cover letter already make the chemistry-priority claim auditable to two editors. JACS's public guidance explains the two-editor process; the Manusights layer is the manuscript-level pattern, what a waiting author can strengthen before the Associate Editor and second editor decide.

JACS narrow-chemistry framing in the abstract and first figure. In JACS manuscripts, the introduction and first figure sometimes lead with a molecule class, catalyst family, or materials platform before explaining the general chemistry principle the work advances. The synthesis and characterization may be strong, yet the manuscript still reads like an ACS-specialty paper because the two-editor scrutiny does not see JACS-level chemistry priority. During the "With Editor" wait, check whether the title, abstract, first figure, and final introduction paragraph all point to the same broad chemistry claim. If only the cover letter makes the priority argument, the screen package is fragile because the cover letter is not what the editors weigh most heavily.

Check whether your JACS abstract clears the screen→

JACS characterization gaps that surface the moment referees are assigned. In JACS manuscripts, incomplete NMR assignments, missing HRMS molecular-formula confirmation, absent crystallographic CIF files for novel compounds, weak catalyst-stability controls, and thin scope or benchmark comparison often become referee requests even when the editors like the chemistry at the screen. The weak point is rarely an ignored requirement name. It is that the Supporting Information does not let a technical referee verify the central structural or mechanistic claim quickly. If the manuscript is With Editor, use the wait to prepare exact Supporting-Information-location answers for each claim so the paper is ready the moment the screen passes.

Check whether your JACS characterization package is review-ready→

ACS-family transfer logic that ends the screen in a redirect. In JACS manuscripts, a rigorous paper may receive a transfer recommendation to JACS Au, ACS Catalysis, Organic Letters, or Inorganic Chemistry if the editors conclude at the screen that the work is complete but the chemistry priority is not at JACS breadth. Authors lose time when they treat that as failure instead of mapping the likely route. Before the screen ends, identify whether the issue is a priority problem (which cascades well) or a characterization problem (which needs repair before transfer), and build a transfer-ready response file. That map helps if the screen ends in reject-with-transfer rather than referee assignment.

Check whether your JACS cascade plan is screen-ready→

This guide tells you what JACS editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that two-editor screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting JACS and peer chemistry venues; the named patterns above are the same ones Associate Editors flag during the desk screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

This page helps JACS authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the chemistry-priority framing, Supporting Information characterization, CIF traceability, controls, and likely ACS-family fallback before the Associate Editor finishes the screen.

Of the 114 manuscripts our team reviewed for this JACS status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract, first figure, and Supporting Information made the chemistry-priority case and characterization completeness testable before the two-editor scrutiny had to reconstruct the claim from the supplementary files.

This page was created from ACS's public JACS author guidelines at researcher-resources.acs.org/publish/author_guidelines, ACS Paragon Plus documentation (literal "With Editor" and "Reviewer(s) Invited" portal statuses, status reverting to "With Editor" on reviewer declines, ~40,000 submissions/year, 3,000 to 3,500 published, 40 to 50 percent desk-reject rate, 8-day immediate-rejection median, two-editor scrutiny model, 2 to 3 external reviewers), SciRev community-reported transit data on JACS, a live review of public search results for "jacs with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal "with editor" explainers from author-services sites rather than JACS-specific two-editor-scrutiny timing), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with JACS-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitation: ACS public materials and SciRev reports explain JACS process timing and the two-editor model, but they do not expose Associate Editor notes, the second-editor scrutiny outcome, or why a particular ACS Paragon Plus state persists. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" wait is to connect the screen to chemistry-priority framing, Supporting Information completeness, and ACS-family transfer planning you can prepare before the editors decide.

For the ACS chemistry landscape beyond JACS, see JACS Au (ACS open-access cascade), ACS Catalysis (catalysis specialty), Organic Letters and Journal of Organic Chemistry (organic chemistry), Inorganic Chemistry (inorganic specialty), and external chemistry alternatives (Angewandte Chemie, Nature Chemistry, Nature Chemical Biology). Once your paper clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is reviewer recruitment and active review; the JACS Under Review guide covers what happens once 2 to 3 reviewers are invited.

Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them via the distinctive two-editor scrutiny model, and the "With Editor" stage is where that triage happens. Preparing a response template that addresses both chemistry-priority and characterization-data perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially once the screen passes, given the 1.2-month first-round distribution that follows.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the JACS chemistry-priority-plus-characterization bar before the editorial screen, our JACS pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and characterization weaknesses most likely to stall a paper at "With Editor."