Journal of Hazardous Materials 'Under Review': What Each Status Means
If your Journal of Hazardous Materials submission shows Under Review, here is what the Elsevier handling editor is doing during each stage and when to follow up.
What to do next
Already submitted to Journal of Hazardous Materials? Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next step.
The useful next step is understanding what the status usually means at Journal of Hazardous Materials, how long the wait normally runs, and when a follow-up is actually reasonable.
Journal of Hazardous Materials review timeline: what the data shows
Time to first decision is the most actionable number. What happens after varies by manuscript and reviewer availability.
What shapes the timeline
- Desk decisions are fast. Scope problems surface within days.
- Reviewer availability is the main variable after triage. Specialized topics take longer to assign.
- Revision rounds reset the clock. Major revision typically adds 6-12 weeks per round.
What to do while waiting
- Track status in the submission portal — status changes signal active review.
- Wait at least the journal's stated median before sending a status inquiry.
- Prepare revision materials in parallel if you expect a revise-and-resubmit decision.
Last reviewed: 2026-05-17.
Quick answer: If your Journal of Hazardous Materials submission shows "Under Review," elapsed time is the most reliable signal. Journal of Hazardous Materials has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 13.6, accepts roughly 18 to 22 percent of submissions, and Elsevier reports a first decision typically 90 to 120 days from submission for papers that pass desk review (per Journal of Hazardous Materials guide for authors). Timelines can extend beyond the stated range; one community report describes a 4-month gap between submission and editorial decision. All contributions will be initially assessed by the handling editor for suitability for the journal, and papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of 2 independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper.
For a second opinion before reviewers see your manuscript, run a Journal of Hazardous Materials submission readiness check.
Submission portal and editorial contact: Journal of Hazardous Materials uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/hazmat. Editorial questions should reference the manuscript ID; hazmat@elsevier.com handles editorial-office inquiries. The Journal of Hazardous Materials guide for authors at sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-hazardous-materials/for-authors covers the editorial workflow and the Elsevier Editorial Manager status guidance describes status-check meaning across Elsevier journals. For broader status-tracking guidance across environmental publishers, the Cell Press author status portal at cell.com/information-for-authors/after-you-submit gives useful baseline patterns for reading status fields across editorial portals.
How Elsevier handles a Journal of Hazardous Materials submission
Journal of Hazardous Materials operates the Elsevier handling editor + associate editor model. The senior handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates hazardous-materials significance, toxicity-or-hazard quantification rigor, risk-assessment context, and Journal of Hazardous Materials subspecialty routing across environmental hazards (water, soil, air pollution), toxic substances (heavy metals, organic pollutants, emerging contaminants), and risk assessment (exposure, fate, transport). A handling editor at Journal of Hazardous Materials typically handles 40 to 80 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editors are working academic environmental researchers fitting hazardous-materials editorial work around their own laboratories.
Journal of Hazardous Materials editorial culture is decisive: 35 to 45 percent of submissions are desk-rejected within 1 to 3 weeks. Papers that pass the Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in Elsevier hazardous-materials publishing.
Journal of Hazardous Materials's review pipeline
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Submitted | Administrative processing at Journal of Hazardous Materials editorial office | Day 0 to 3 |
Technical Check | Language, scope, originality (plagiarism check) screen | Days 1 to 7 |
With Editor | Handling editor evaluating hazardous-materials significance + scope fit | Days 3 to 21 |
Editorial Team Discussion | Internal Journal of Hazardous Materials editor consultation for ambiguous fit | Days 5 to 14 (parallel; invisible to author) |
Under Review | Minimum 2 reviewers invited or actively reviewing (single-anonymized) | Days 21 to 120 |
Required Reviews Complete | Handling editor synthesizing reports | 7 to 21 days |
Decision Pending | Editor finalizing recommendation | 7 to 14 days |
Decision Sent | Reject, R&R, or accept | Check email |
The handling editor desk screen (about 35 to 45 percent rejected)
Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editor evaluates whether the hazardous-materials significance, toxicity-or-hazard quantification rigor, and risk-assessment context warrant editorial slots. About 35 to 45 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage. A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister Elsevier environmental journal (Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters for short-format, Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances for broader applications, Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics for plastic-pollution specialty, Environmental Pollution for general environmental pollution) or that the hazardous-materials priority bar is not met.
Day 0 to 3: Administrative processing
The Journal of Hazardous Materials editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with hazardous-materials characterization data and analytical method validation (especially for trace-level pollutants), Elsevier template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming hazardous-materials significance, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.
Days 1 to 7: Technical check (language, scope, originality)
Elsevier's technical check screens the submission for language quality, scope fit, and originality via plagiarism check. Submissions that need English language improvements, are out of scope, or present excessive duplication with published sources can be desk rejected before editor review.
Days 3 to 21: Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editor desk screen
The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates hazardous-materials significance, toxicity-or-hazard quantification rigor, risk-assessment context, and Journal of Hazardous Materials subspecialty routing.
Days 5 to 14: Editorial team discussion (parallel for ambiguous cases)
In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Elsevier Journal of Hazardous Materials editorial team where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Journal of Hazardous Materials flagship or at sister Elsevier hazardous-materials journals. This editorial-team discussion runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.
Days 21 to 35: External reviewer recruitment
Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editors typically invite a minimum of 2 reviewers, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The recruitment window can take longer because reviewers with topic-matched hazardous-materials subspecialty expertise (especially across environmental hazards, toxic substances, and risk-assessment boundaries) are scarce.
Days 21 to 120: Active peer review (single-anonymized)
Once reviewers agree to review, the typical Journal of Hazardous Materials peer-review cycle lasts 6 to 14 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 90 to 120 day first-decision window. Reviewers are asked to evaluate hazardous-materials significance, toxicity-or-hazard quantification rigor, risk-assessment context, and reproducibility. Reviewer reports for Journal of Hazardous Materials tend to be thorough; 2000 to 4000 word reports are typical given the trace-level analytical complexity.
Day 120 onward: Editorial synthesis and decision
After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 5 to 10 months for successful papers, including revision rounds.
When to worry
- Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Technical check rejection (language, scope, originality) per Elsevier policy.
- Rejection within 7 to 21 days: Handling editor desk rejection per the 35 to 45 percent figure.
- Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editor filter.
- Still Under Review after 16 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Editorial Manager portal is appropriate.
- Status changes to "Decision in Process": Reports are in; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks.
"My paper has been Under Review for 10 weeks. Is that bad?"
This is the most common anxiety we hear from Journal of Hazardous Materials authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 10 weeks (~70 days) puts you in the early-to-middle portion of Journal of Hazardous Materials's 90 to 120 day first-decision window. Reports may still be arriving with the handling editor preparing for editorial synthesis. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for hazardous-materials subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 16-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. Timelines can extend beyond the stated range. This is normal practice at Journal of Hazardous Materials.
What you should NOT do during the 10-to-16-week window is email the editorial office. Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editors are working academic environmental researchers managing 40+ active papers; an inquiry at 10 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.
Readiness check
While you wait on Journal of Hazardous Materials, scan your next manuscript.
The scan takes about 1-2 minutes. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.
What to do while waiting
- Do not email the editorial office during the first 8 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.
- Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at Journal of Hazardous Materials. Elsevier has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.
- Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: hazardous-materials significance, toxicity-or-hazard quantification rigor, risk-assessment context (anticipating requests for exposure or fate-transport data), analytical method validation (especially for trace-level pollutants), reproducibility.
- If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.
- Read recent Journal of Hazardous Materials papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.
If Journal of Hazardous Materials rejects: sister-journal cascade with reasoning
If your Journal of Hazardous Materials paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:
Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters is the natural Elsevier short-format cascade. Elsevier supports manuscript-transfer with reviewer reports preserved.
Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances is the Elsevier broader-applications cascade.
Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics is the Elsevier plastic-pollution specialty cascade.
Environmental Pollution is the Elsevier general environmental pollution cascade.
Chemosphere is the Elsevier broader-environmental cascade.
Environmental Science & Technology is the external ACS environmental flagship. ES&T uses ACS Paragon Plus at acsparagonplus.acs.org; editorial contact esthag@acs.org.
How Journal of Hazardous Materials compares to nearby alternatives
Feature | Journal of Hazardous Materials | Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk-rejection rate | 35 to 45 percent | 30 to 40 percent | 20 to 30 percent | 30 to 40 percent |
Desk-decision speed | 1 to 3 weeks | 7 to 14 days | 1 to 3 weeks | 1 to 3 weeks |
Total review time (post-screen) | 90 to 120 days first decision | 4 to 8 weeks | 100 to 120 days | 6 to 10 weeks |
Reviewer count | Minimum 2 (single-anonymized) | 2 to 3 (2 to 3 week target) | 2 to 3 water treatment experts | 2 to 3 |
Peer-review model | Single-anonymized | Single-blind + minimum-2-prescreen-review safeguard | Single-anonymized | Elsevier single-anonymized |
Editorial bar | Top-tier hazardous-materials + toxicity + risk-assessment | Top-tier ACS environmental | Top-tier water-treatment + practical significance | Broader hazardous-materials applications |
Submit if your paper passed the desk
If your Journal of Hazardous Materials paper is Under Review past 3 weeks, you have cleared the technical check and handling editor desk screen. Use the waiting window to prepare a thorough revision response template anticipating risk-assessment and analytical method validation reviewer feedback.
Journal of Hazardous Materials submission readiness check takes about 5 minutes.
Think twice before assuming "Under Review" means certain acceptance
Journal of Hazardous Materials handling editors retain discretion to reject after partial review if reviewer reports surface methodological or hazardous-materials-significance concerns the desk screen did not catch. The 18 to 22 percent overall acceptance rate means many post-desk-screen papers still receive a substantial-revision decision.
For a pre-upload diagnostic of hazardous-materials-significance framing and risk-assessment adequacy, run a Journal of Hazardous Materials pre-submission diagnostic before reviewer reports surface those concerns.
Last verified: Journal of Hazardous Materials guide for authors at sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-hazardous-materials and Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation.
The Journal of Hazardous Materials reviewer experience
Elsevier asks reviewers at Journal of Hazardous Materials to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.
Reviewer focus area | What Journal of Hazardous Materials asks reviewers to evaluate | How to prepare for it |
|---|---|---|
Hazardous-materials significance | Does the work address a hazardous-materials problem with environmental or human-health significance? | Frame the introduction around the broader hazardous-materials principle the findings illuminate. The 35 to 45 percent desk rejection rate selects for papers with clear hazard significance. |
Toxicity-or-hazard quantification rigor | Are the toxicity, fate, exposure, or transport data rigorously quantified? | Include detailed quantification data. Reviewers consistently flag thin or qualitative hazard data. |
Risk-assessment context | Does the work connect to risk-assessment context (exposure, fate-transport, human-health implications)? | Include risk-assessment framing. Pure characterization without risk context faces lower priority. |
Analytical method validation | Are the analytical methods (e.g., LC-MS for trace pollutants, ICP-MS for trace metals) validated with quality-control data? | Include analytical method validation data (recovery, precision, detection limits) in Supporting Information. |
Common patterns we see that miss the Journal of Hazardous Materials bar
In our pre-submission work with Journal of Hazardous Materials-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-characterization framing without risk context flagged at handling editor screen. When the work presents hazardous-materials characterization without risk-assessment context (exposure, fate-transport, human-health implications), Journal of Hazardous Materials desk rejection within 1 to 3 weeks is common. The strongest manuscripts frame the risk-assessment context explicitly.
Analytical method validation gaps surface as reviewer concerns. When analytical method validation is thin (especially missing recovery data, absent quality-control measures, or thin detection-limit documentation for trace-level pollutants), reviewers consistently request expanded validation sections. The strongest revisions add complete analytical method validation.
Elsevier hazardous-materials cascade offers from handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the work is rigorous but the hazardous-materials priority bar of Journal of Hazardous Materials flagship is not met, transfer offers to Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters (short-format), Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances (broader applications), or Environmental Pollution (general pollution) are common. Elsevier editors take these transfers seriously.
Methodology note
This page was created from Elsevier's public Journal of Hazardous Materials guide for authors at sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-hazardous-materials/publish/guide-for-authors, Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation (90 to 120 day first-decision window, ~35 to 45 percent desk rejection rate, minimum 2 reviewers, single-anonymized peer review, hazardous-materials significance + toxicity quantification + risk-assessment context as core editorial criteria), SciRev community-reported transit data on Journal of Hazardous Materials, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Journal of Hazardous Materials-targeted manuscripts.
What to read next
For the hazardous-materials landscape beyond Journal of Hazardous Materials, see Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters (short-format cascade), Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances (broader applications), Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics (plastic-pollution specialty), Environmental Pollution (general environmental pollution), Chemosphere (broader environmental), and external hazardous-materials alternatives (Environmental Science & Technology, Water Research). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top-tier hazardous-materials with risk-assessment (Journal of Hazardous Materials), short-format hazardous-materials (J Hazard Mater Letters), broader hazardous-materials applications (J Hazard Mater Advances), plastic-pollution specialty (J Hazard Mater Plastics), general environmental pollution (Environmental Pollution), broader environmental (Chemosphere), top-tier ACS environmental (ES&T), or top-tier water-treatment (Water Research).
Reviewers at Journal of Hazardous Materials typically draw from 2 to 3 hazardous-materials subspecialty experts under a single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both risk-assessment and analytical method validation perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.
For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Journal of Hazardous Materials hazardous-significance-plus-risk-assessment bar before submission, our Journal of Hazardous Materials pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and validation weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.
Frequently asked questions
Your manuscript has cleared Journal of Hazardous Materials Editorial Manager admin checks and is being evaluated. All contributions will be initially assessed by the handling editor for suitability for the journal, and papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of 2 independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper.
Journal of Hazardous Materials operates two tracks: rapid scope-based desk rejection within 1 to 3 weeks, and first decision typically 90 to 120 days from submission for papers that pass desk review. Timelines can extend beyond the stated range; one community report describes a 4-month gap between submission and editorial decision.
Wait at least 8 weeks before inquiring. Contact via the Journal of Hazardous Materials Editorial Manager portal at editorialmanager.com/hazmat referencing your manuscript ID; hazmat@elsevier.com handles editorial-office inquiries.
No. Journal of Hazardous Materials's 90 to 120 day first-decision window means 10 weeks (~70 days) puts you in the early-to-middle portion of the active review distribution. Reports may still be arriving.
Your paper passed the handling editor desk screen and a minimum of 2 reviewers have been invited under the single-anonymized peer-review process. The handling editor selects reviewers with topic-matched hazardous-materials expertise across environmental hazards, toxic substances, and risk assessment.
Yes. The 90 to 120 day first-decision window means about half of papers take more than 90 days. Multiple revision rounds are common; total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 5 to 10 months for successful papers.
Past 16 weeks is the right moment for a polite inquiry. Past 20 weeks suggests a reviewer dropped out and the handling editor needs a replacement. Silence in the first 10 weeks is normal at Journal of Hazardous Materials given the multi-stage Elsevier editorial workflow.
Sources
Best next step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
For Journal of Hazardous Materials, the better next step is guidance on timing, follow-up, and what to do while the manuscript is still in the system. Save the Free Readiness Scan for the next paper you have not submitted yet.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
- Journal of Hazardous Materials Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- Journal of Hazardous Materials Submission Process: What Happens From Upload to First Decision
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Journal of Hazardous Materials
- Is Journal of Hazardous Materials a Good Journal? Impact Factor, Scope, and Fit Guide
- Journal of Hazardous Materials Submission Guide: What to Prepare Before You Submit
- Journal Of Hazardous Materials AI Policy: ChatGPT and Generative AI Disclosure Rules for JHazMat Authors
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.