Journal of Materials Chemistry A Under Review: What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a JMC A RSC associate editor evaluates whether the materials chemistry significance and energy-or-sustainability relevance warrant JMC A's editorial slots. About 30 to 40 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage.

A desk rejection most often means the associate editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister RSC journal (JMC B for biological materials, JMC C for optical/magnetic/electronic materials, Materials Chemistry Frontiers for broader materials, Sustainable Energy & Fuels for sustainable energy) or that the materials-for-energy bar is not met.

New composition variants of established materials without distinct property improvement are routinely desk-rejected. RSC editors check title fit at the desk screen; papers having biomedical applications submitted to JMC A or photovoltaic materials submitted to JMC B being routinely returned with a transfer recommendation.

The JMC A editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with materials characterization data (XRD, TEM, XPS, electrochemistry/photophysics depending on subspecialty), RSC template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming the materials-for-energy contribution, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

When a submission has been checked for completeness and is waiting for assignment to an editor, it is marked as WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE. The RSC editorial office checks the submission for completeness and prepares it for associate editor assignment.

If the manuscript is assigned to an associate editor, it moves to WITH EDITOR. The associate editor reads the paper and evaluates materials chemistry significance, energy-or-sustainability relevance, materials novelty, and JMC A subspecialty routing.

In parallel with the associate editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the RSC editorial team where peer associate editors and the Editor-in-Chief weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at JMC A or at sister RSC journals (JMC B, JMC C, Materials Chemistry Frontiers, Sustainable Energy & Fuels). This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 7 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

JMC A associate editors typically invite 2 to 3 reviewers under the RSC single-anonymized review model. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 5 to 10 days.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical JMC A peer-review cycle lasts 2 to 4 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 31-day median first decision. Reviewers are asked to evaluate materials chemistry significance, energy-or-sustainability relevance, materials novelty, performance benchmark adequacy, and reproducibility.

After reports return, the associate editor synthesizes them. If the manuscript is rejected without further review, or the authors are offered a transfer to an alternative RSC journal, the submitting author will receive an email with further details.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or completeness check failure.

• Rejection within 5 to 14 days: Associate editor desk rejection per the 30 to 40 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the JMC A associate editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 8 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the RSC submission 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 JMC A authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 5 weeks at Under Review puts you right at JMC A's 31-day median first-decision time. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the associate editor preparing the recommendation.

Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for materials chemistry subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews. If the portal still says Under Review at the 7-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 JMC A.

During the 5-to-7-week window, the useful distinction is whether the editorial office needs new information. A short portal note is reasonable for a corrected data-availability statement, authorship correction, ethics update, related-paper disclosure, or a file error that affects reviewer interpretation.

A general timeline request is better held until week 7 or 8 because the 31-day peer-reviewed first-decision metric still leaves room for reviewer extensions and associate-editor synthesis.

If your JMC A paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and associate editor cited:

Journal of Materials Chemistry B is the natural RSC cascade for biological materials.

Journal of Materials Chemistry C is the RSC cascade for optical, magnetic, and electronic materials.

Materials Chemistry Frontiers is the RSC cascade for broader materials chemistry.

Sustainable Energy & Fuels is the RSC cascade for sustainable energy applications.

Energy & Environmental Science is the RSC cascade for top-tier energy and environmental papers.

Chemical Science is the RSC top-tier broad chemistry cascade.

Journal of Power Sources (Elsevier) is the external Elsevier cascade for battery/fuel cell papers.

Nature Materials is the external Springer Nature top-tier materials cascade. The Nature Materials Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nmat.nature.com handles submission; nmat@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

RSC asks reviewers at JMC A to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with JMC A-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.

Incremental composition variant flagged at associate editor desk screen. When the work presents new composition variants of established materials without distinct property improvement, JMC A desk rejection within 5 to 14 days is common (this is an explicit desk-rejection criterion). The strongest manuscripts demonstrate distinct property improvement over existing materials.

Check your materials-for-energy novelty →

Wrong-subspecialty submission flagged at title check. When papers with biomedical applications are submitted to JMC A (which is materials-for-energy) or photovoltaic materials are submitted to JMC B (which is biological materials), RSC editors return them with a transfer recommendation at the desk screen. The strongest submissions select the correct JMC subspecialty (A for energy, B for biological, C for optical/magnetic/electronic).

Check your JMC A subspecialty route →

RSC family cascade offers from associate editor. When the associate editor concludes the work is rigorous but the materials-for-energy bar of JMC A is not met, transfer offers to Sustainable Energy & Fuels (sustainable energy), Materials Chemistry Frontiers (broader materials), JMC B (biological), JMC C (optical/magnetic/electronic) are common. RSC editors take these transfers seriously (authors are offered the option to transfer).

Check your RSC family transfer strategy →

We have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Energy & Environmental Science, Sustainable Energy & Fuels, Nature Energy, and Journal of Power Sources. The most common JMC A miss is a paper that has a real materials result but frames it as "new composition plus performance" instead of explaining the materials-chemistry reason the energy or sustainability performance changed. In our review of these materials-for-energy manuscripts, we see associate editors ask first whether the materials principle is visible before reviewers are asked to evaluate the benchmark.

In the 100-manuscript Manusights sample across materials-for-energy, catalysis, battery, photovoltaic, and sustainable-materials targets, Manusights internal analysis identifies five recurring preventable risks: composition novelty without property consequence, benchmark tables at unmatched loading or operating conditions, incomplete XRD/XPS/microscopy support for the claimed phase or surface state, durability claims without stress-test context, and RSC family routing mistakes between JMC A, JMC B, JMC C, Sustainable Energy & Fuels, and Energy & Environmental Science.

This is an internal Manusights review sample, not RSC outcome data, so we use it to flag preventable author-side weaknesses.

Source limitation: official guidance explains RSC author rules, JMC A scope, and peer-review process, but it does not show private associate-editor notes, reviewer-invitation history, or the reason a specific manuscript is still in the RSC portal. That is why this page separates public status interpretation from manuscript-specific readiness signals.

Unlike clinical journals, JMC A readiness is not driven by CONSORT or STROBE checklists. The practical equivalent is a complete materials-evidence package: synthesis reproducibility, structural assignment, surface or interface evidence, fair state-of-the-art comparison, operating-condition transparency, and a data-availability statement that matches the figures. Manusights does not train AI models on customer manuscripts; we do not train on private author files. Eligible paid manuscript reviews include the 60-day money-back guarantee.

That matters for JMC A authors because unpublished materials recipes, spectra, and benchmark tables often need private review before upload.

This page was created from RSC's public JMC A journal page at RSC journal page, RSC publishing process documentation (31-day time to first decision peer reviewed only, RSC Editor-in-Chief + associate editor model, scope of materials for energy and sustainability, RSC single-anonymized review, WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE → WITH EDITOR status flow, inter-RSC transfer option for rejected papers, new composition variants without distinct property improvement routinely desk-rejected), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with JMC A-targeted manuscripts.

For the RSC materials chemistry landscape beyond JMC A, see Journal of Materials Chemistry B (biological materials), Journal of Materials Chemistry C (optical/magnetic/electronic materials), Materials Chemistry Frontiers (broader materials), Sustainable Energy & Fuels (sustainable energy), Energy & Environmental Science (top RSC energy and environment), Chemical Science (broad chemistry), and external materials-for-energy alternatives (Journal of Power Sources from Elsevier, Nature Materials, Nature Energy).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top materials for energy and sustainability (JMC A), biological materials (JMC B), optical/magnetic/electronic materials (JMC C), broader materials chemistry (Materials Chemistry Frontiers), sustainable energy (Sustainable Energy & Fuels), top energy and environment (Energy & Environmental Science), broad chemistry (Chemical Science), Elsevier battery/fuel cell (Journal of Power Sources), top Nature Portfolio materials (Nature Materials), or top Nature Portfolio energy (Nature Energy).

Reviewers at JMC A typically draw from 2 to 3 materials-for-energy subspecialty experts under the RSC single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both materials novelty and performance benchmark adequacy accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the JMC A materials-for-energy-plus-novelty bar before submission, our Journal of Materials Chemistry A pre-submission diagnostic flags the materials-novelty and benchmark weaknesses most likely to surface in the associate editor desk screen.