J. Agricultural and Food Chemistry 'Under Review': Status Meanings

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a JAFC EIC, Executive Editor, or Associate Editor evaluates whether the agricultural and food chemistry significance warrants JAFC's editorial slots. About 40 to 50 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage within 7 to 14 days. A desk rejection most often means the editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister ACS journal (ACS Food Science & Technology for food technology specifically, ACS Agricultural Science & Technology for agricultural science specifically) or that the JAFC agricultural-or-food-chemistry priority bar is not met.

The JAFC editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with agricultural or food chemistry characterization data (chromatographic/spectroscopic methods, sample preparation, validation parameters), ACS template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming the agricultural or food chemistry contribution, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement. JAFC does not typically require CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA reporting checklists since most submissions are agricultural or food chemistry method development and applications.

The handling editor (EIC, Executive Editor, or Associate Editor) reads the paper and evaluates agricultural or food chemistry significance, methodological rigor, and JAFC subspecialty routing across food chemistry, nutrition chemistry, agrochemistry, biotechnology, and analytical chemistry of foods and agricultural products.

In parallel with the primary editor's read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the ACS JAFC editorial team where peer Associate Editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at JAFC or at sister ACS journals. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

JAFC Associate Editors typically invite 2 to 3 reviewers with agricultural or food chemistry expertise. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical JAFC peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 8 weeks per reviewer. SciRev case data for JAFC shows first review rounds that often fall in the 3 to 10 week range. Reviewers are asked to evaluate agricultural or food chemistry significance, methodological rigor, analytical method validation, and reproducibility.

After reports return, the Associate Editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 4 to 7 months for successful papers.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: EIC + Executive Editor + Associate Editor desk rejection per the 40 to 50 percent figure.
• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the JAFC editor desk screen.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the ACS Paragon Plus portal is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 week.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from JAFC authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 6 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of JAFC's 6 to 10 week peer-review distribution. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the Associate Editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for agricultural or food chemistry subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 9-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the Associate Editor granted it. This is normal practice at JAFC.

What you should NOT do during the 6-to-9-week window is email the editorial office. JAFC Associate Editors are working academic agricultural and food chemists managing 60+ active papers per year around their own laboratories; an inquiry at 6 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your JAFC paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and Associate Editor cited:

ACS Food Science & Technology is the natural ACS cascade for food technology specifically.

ACS Agricultural Science & Technology is the ACS cascade for agricultural science specifically.

Food Chemistry (Elsevier) is the external Elsevier food chemistry cascade. Food Chemistry uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/foodchem; editorial contact foodchem@elsevier.com.

Journal of Food Science (Wiley) is the external Wiley food science cascade.

JACS is the broader ACS chemistry flagship. JACS uses ACS Paragon Plus at acsparagonplus.acs.org; editorial contact jacs@acs.org.

Trends in Food Science & Technology (Elsevier) is the external Elsevier food science review cascade.

ACS asks reviewers at JAFC to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with JAFC-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen.

Pure-food-application framing without chemistry insight flagged at editor desk screen. When the work presents food applications without agricultural or food chemistry insight, JAFC desk rejection within 7 to 14 days is common. The strongest manuscripts frame the agricultural or food chemistry principle the findings illuminate.

Analytical method validation gaps surface as reviewer concerns. When analytical method validation is thin (especially missing LOD/LOQ, calibration linearity, recovery, or precision data), reviewers consistently request additional validation. The strongest revisions include full method validation in Supporting Information.

ACS ag/food family cascade offers from Associate Editor. When the Associate Editor concludes the work is rigorous but the JAFC ag/food chemistry priority bar is not met, transfer offers to ACS Food Science & Technology (food technology), ACS Agricultural Science & Technology (agricultural science), or JACS (broader chemistry) are common. ACS editors take these transfers seriously.

This page was created from ACS's public JAFC author guidelines at researcher-resources.acs.org/publish/author_guidelines, ACS Paragon Plus documentation (EIC + Executive Editor + Associate Editor model, fast desk decisions with scope problems surfacing within days, 2 to 3 reviewers, SciRev 3 to 10 week first review round range), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with JAFC-targeted manuscripts.

For the ACS agricultural and food chemistry landscape beyond JAFC, see ACS Food Science & Technology (food technology specialty), ACS Agricultural Science & Technology (agricultural science specialty), JACS (broader chemistry), and external agricultural and food chemistry alternatives (Food Chemistry from Elsevier, Journal of Food Science from Wiley, Trends in Food Science & Technology from Elsevier). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top ACS agricultural and food chemistry (JAFC), ACS food technology (ACS Food Science & Technology), ACS agricultural science (ACS Agricultural Science & Technology), broader chemistry (JACS), Elsevier food chemistry (Food Chemistry), Wiley food science (Journal of Food Science), or Elsevier food science review (Trends in Food Science & Technology).

Reviewers at JAFC typically draw from 2 to 3 agricultural or food chemistry subspecialty experts. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both ag/food chemistry significance and analytical method validation accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the JAFC agricultural-and-food-chemistry bar before submission, our Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry pre-submission diagnostic flags the chemistry-insight framing and validation weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.