Journal of CO2 Utilization Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: Journal of CO2 Utilization author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the CO2 utilization advance is substantive

• whether mechanism is articulated

• whether benchmarking is comprehensive

• a clear CO2 utilization advance

• comprehensive performance metrics

• mechanism analysis

• benchmarking against state-of-the-art

• a cover letter establishing the contribution

• Incremental performance reports without novel principle.

• Missing benchmarking against state-of-the-art.

• Weak mechanism analysis.

• General chemistry without CO2 focus.

Journal of CO2 Utilization is a flagship CO2 conversion journal.

CO2-focus standard: the journal differentiates from broader catalysis venues by demanding CO2 utilization as the primary contribution.

Process-data expectation: editors expect quantitative performance metrics.

The 30-40% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest Journal of CO2 Utilization cover letters establish:

• the CO2 conversion advance

• the performance metrics

• the mechanism analysis

• the benchmarking approach

Journal of CO2 Utilization submissions go through Elsevier Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal. Initial setup requires an Elsevier account; ORCID is recommended for the corresponding author. The platform offers the same two-stage formatting workflow as Journal of Controlled Release: submit a single Word or PDF file for the refereeing process, and reformat to the strict journal style only at the revision stage.

Editable source files (Word (.docx) or LaTeX (.tex)) are required at revision; PDFs alone are not acceptable. Full guide at the Journal of CO2 Utilization author page.

Journal of CO2 Utilization requires these at first submission:

• Cover letter explicitly establishing the CO2 conversion or utilization advance with quantified performance metrics (selectivity, faradaic efficiency, conversion rate, or product yield)

• Declaration of competing interests for all authors

• Generative AI usage declaration covering manuscript preparation and figure generation

• CRediT author contributions statement covering the 14 standard contribution roles

• Data availability statement with repository links for catalyst characterization, performance measurements, or process modeling code

• Four or more suggested reviewers with no recent collaboration history

• APC acknowledgment if choosing open-access route at acceptance

For Journal of CO2 Utilization submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is missing quantified performance metrics in the cover letter. CO2 utilization editors expect at least one of faradaic efficiency, selectivity, conversion rate, or product yield stated explicitly; cover letters that frame the contribution qualitatively are commonly returned for revision before scope screen.

For Journal of CO2 Utilization submissions, the editorial timeline runs through four phases. Published Elsevier data indicates roughly 15 weeks average submission-to-publication; this is comparable to peer Elsevier energy journals.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and editor assignment

Elsevier intake handles format compliance plus the AI-declaration and CRediT-statement checks. The handling Editor assignment lands within 5 days; CO2 utilization papers route to subject editors matching the conversion subfield (electrochemical CO2 reduction, thermochemical conversion, photocatalysis, mineral carbonation, biological fixation). The most common Day 0-5 hold-up: missing quantified performance framing in the cover letter.

Day 5 to 21: Editor scope and performance screen

Journal of CO2 Utilization's editor filter prioritizes CO2 conversion advances with quantified performance under realistic conditions, plus mechanism or process scale-up relevance. The most common Day 5-21 desk reject in our review work: incremental catalyst variations without selectivity or faradaic-efficiency improvements over the prior state-of-the-art, or papers framed as CO2 utilization where the actual contribution is general catalysis with CO2 as the test substrate.

Week 3 to 8: Peer review

Standard 2-3 reviewers, 4-6 week first decision target. Reviewer mix typically includes one electrochemistry or catalysis expert plus one process-engineering or techno-economic specialist. Submissions missing comparator-catalyst benchmarks or long-duration stability data extend reviewer dialogue by 3-5 weeks.

Week 8 to 15: Decision, revision, and formatting

Major or minor revision is standard at first decision. At the revision stage, authors must reformat to the strict journal style (this is when the structured submission requirements kick in). Revision rounds typically settle at 2. Total submission-to-publication: approximately 15 weeks for accepted papers. APC of $3,960 collected at acceptance for the open-access option.

• Is Journal of CO2 Utilization a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through a Journal of CO2 Utilization mechanism check.

Read the public instructions for mechanics, then pressure-test the package the way an editor will see it. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Journal of CO2 Utilization fit check before upload, especially around performance improvement without a new CO2-use principle, benchmarking and durability evidence that do not match the claim level, and mechanism evidence too thin for the utilization story. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Across CO2 conversion and reuse manuscripts targeting Journal of CO2 Utilization, the strongest submissions make CO2 use central in the abstract, figures, methods, benchmarks, and cover letter. Official Elsevier instructions describe the Editorial Manager route, research-paper, review, and short-communication article types, single-anonymized peer review, open-access status, competing-interest declarations, funding disclosures, generative-AI declarations, data statements, and submission checklist.

The manuscript-specific question is whether the paper contributes to CO2 re-use as a feedstock, process, material, chemical, fuel, or utilization technology rather than using CO2 as a convenient test molecule in a general catalysis or materials story.

Performance improvement without a new CO2-use principle

In our review work with Journal of CO2 Utilization-targeted manuscripts, we often see abstracts built around an improved selectivity, faradaic efficiency, conversion rate, product yield, stability window, adsorption capacity, or energy-efficiency number while the contribution remains incremental.

The figure package may be quantitatively complete, but if the mechanism, process logic, catalyst design, reactor condition, integrated capture-and-conversion step, mineralization route, or product-distribution control is not new enough, editors can read the manuscript as a performance report.

A stronger submission states the CO2-use principle in the abstract, shows why CO2 activation, adsorption, reduction, conversion, mineralization, or biological fixation is different from the nearest prior work, and ties each main figure to that principle. Redirect targets include Applied Catalysis B, ACS Catalysis, ChemSusChem, Green Chemistry, Energy & Environmental Science, Carbon Capture Science & Technology, and specialty electrochemistry or catalysis venues.

Journal of CO2 Utilization should be the target when CO2 utilization is the intellectual center, not just the substrate.

Check whether your Journal of CO2 Utilization contribution is more than a performance increment →

Benchmarking and durability evidence that do not match the claim level

For Journal of CO2 Utilization submissions, a second recurring pattern is weak benchmarking. The manuscript may report promising CO2-to-fuels, CO2-to-chemicals, carbonate, polymer, mineralization, electrochemical, photochemical, thermal, or biological conversion data, but the comparison set is selective or outdated.

Reviewers look for state-of-the-art baselines that match the same product class, reactor setup, electrolyte, pressure, temperature, illumination, catalyst loading, feed purity, conversion metric, selectivity metric, and stability window. A cover letter that states only "high performance" without quantified faradaic efficiency, selectivity, conversion, product yield, turnover frequency, energy efficiency, carbon balance, or long-duration stability creates friction.

The methods and supplementary material should support reproducibility through catalyst characterization, reactor geometry, gas-flow conditions, isotope or carbon-balance controls, product quantification, statistical replicates, and data availability. If the claim is process-facing, techno-economic or scale-up context should appear at least as a bounded discussion. Without that benchmarking discipline, the paper can look better suited to a narrower chemistry or materials venue.

Check whether your Journal of CO2 Utilization benchmarking package is strong enough →

Mechanism evidence too thin for the utilization story

Across Journal of CO2 Utilization-targeted manuscripts, the third common issue is mechanism weakness. Authors often report a material, catalyst, solvent, electrolyte, microorganism, sorbent, or reactor condition that improves a metric, but the manuscript does not explain why CO2 activation or product formation changes.

Stronger manuscripts use isotope labeling, operando or in-situ spectroscopy, kinetic isotope effects, adsorption isotherms, electrochemical impedance, Tafel analysis, DFT, microkinetic modeling, product-pathway controls, recycle experiments, carbon balance, or process simulation to connect mechanism to the main claim. The abstract, methods, figures, supplementary data, and references should make that mechanism legible.

If the manuscript mostly shows characterization plus endpoint performance, redirect targets such as Applied Surface Science, Journal of Catalysis, Chemical Engineering Journal, Fuel, or Green Chemistry may be better. Journal of CO2 Utilization is strongest when mechanism and utilization outcome are linked rather than stacked as separate sections.

Check whether your Journal of CO2 Utilization mechanism evidence supports the utilization claim →

A Manusights review checks whether your paper clears the Journal of CO2 Utilization-specific readiness checks that official Elsevier instructions cannot evaluate from a generic Editorial Manager checklist. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee; submitted manuscripts are not used for model training.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Journal of CO2 Utilization among top CO2 conversion journals.