Journal of Physical Chemistry C 'Under Review': Status Meanings

JPC C operates the ACS Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor, and Senior Editor model. Assigned editors evaluate the paper, select reviewers, monitor the review process, and synthesize reviewer comments into a decision.

The practical implication for authors is that the first read is a physical-chemistry fit screen, not only an administrative routing step. The editor is asking whether the paper teaches readers something about surfaces, interfaces, nanomaterials, or condensed-phase physical chemistry that belongs in JPC C rather than a broader applied-materials journal.

JPC C editorial culture is decisive: desk rejection is common for papers that fall outside the C scope or lack physical chemistry insight beyond incremental characterization. Papers that pass the JPC C Senior Editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in ACS physical chemistry (interfaces, nanomaterials, hard materials) publishing.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a JPC C Senior Editor evaluates whether the physical chemistry insight warrants JPC C's editorial slots. About 30 to 40 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage. A desk rejection most often means the Senior Editor concluded that the paper is outside the scope of the Journal, poorly written or formatted, fragmentary and marginally incremental, lacking in significance, or containing no obvious new physical insight.

Common cascades: JPC A (atoms/molecules/clusters), JPC B (soft matter/biophysics), JPC Letters (rapid communications), ACS Nano (nanomaterials), JACS (broader chemistry).

The JPC C editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with physical chemistry characterization data (XRD, TEM, XPS, spectroscopy), ACS template formatting, cover letter directed to the Senior Editor naming the physical chemistry insight, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement. JPC C does not typically require CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA checklists since most submissions are physical chemistry of interfaces, nanomaterials, and hard materials.

The Senior Editor reads the paper and evaluates physical chemistry insight, scope fit, methodological rigor, and JPC C subspecialty routing across nanomaterials, surfaces and interfaces, electrocatalysis, photocatalysis, and energy materials.

• Days 5 to 14, internal ACS JPC editor consultation (parallel for ambiguous cases): In parallel with the Senior Editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the ACS JPC editorial team (JPC A, JPC B, JPC C, JPC Letters share an editor team), where peer Senior Editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at JPC C or at a sister JPC title. This consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days that are invisible to the author in the portal.
• Days 14 to 28, external reviewer recruitment: JPC C Senior Editors typically invite 2 to 3 reviewers with physical chemistry expertise. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.
• Days 14 to 35, active peer review (34.9-day median first peer review decision): Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical JPC C peer-review cycle lasts 3 to 5 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 34.9-day median first peer review decision. Reviewers evaluate physical chemistry insight, methodological rigor, characterization adequacy, and reproducibility.
• Day 35 onward, editorial synthesis and decision: After reports return, the Senior Editor synthesizes them. It takes authors 48.4 days to get the first revision report, and it takes the editor 54.5 days to accept manuscripts. Total submission-to-acceptance median is 71.3 days; publication is fast (8.7 days from acceptance to ASAP).

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Administrative issue or scope mismatch (outside JPC C scope, poorly written/formatted).

• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Senior Editor desk rejection for fragmentary/marginally incremental/lacking significance/no new physical insight.

• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the JPC C Senior Editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 8 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 JPC C authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 5 weeks at Under Review puts you right at JPC C's 34.9-day median first peer review decision. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the Senior Editor preparing the recommendation.

Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for physical 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 Senior Editor granted it. This is normal practice at JPC C.

What you should NOT do during the 5-to-7-week window is email the editorial office. JPC C Senior Editors are working academic physical chemists managing 80+ active papers per year around their own laboratories; an inquiry at 5 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

• Do not email the editorial office during the first 5 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.

• Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at JPC C. ACS has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.

• Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: physical chemistry insight, methodological rigor, characterization adequacy (XRD, TEM, XPS, spectroscopy), reproducibility.

• If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.

• Read recent JPC C papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.

If your JPC C paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and Senior Editor cited:

JPC A is the natural ACS cascade for atoms/molecules/clusters physical chemistry.

JPC B is the ACS cascade for soft matter/biophysics physical chemistry.

JPC Letters is the ACS cascade for rapid physical chemistry communications.

ACS Nano is the ACS nanoscience cascade. ACS Nano uses ACS Paragon Plus at ACS journal page; editorial contact nano@acs.org.

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

Nano Letters is the ACS short-format nanoscience cascade.

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (PCCP, RSC) is the external RSC physical chemistry cascade.

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

In our pre-submission review work across this journal family, we see a specific risk pattern: Journal of Physical Chemistry C editors and reviewers look for whether the manuscript turns characterization into physical chemistry explanation. The public ACS guidance names new physical insight as an essential criterion for the JPC family, but the status window is where authors often realize the issue is not word count or formatting. It is whether the paper gives the Senior Editor a clean reason to defend JPC C routing.

This guide tells you what Journal of Physical Chemistry C editors look for during the status window. Manusights has reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Journal of Physical Chemistry C or adjacent ACS physical chemistry and materials journals; full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI on customer manuscripts.

Physical-insight claim is still too buried

The most common failure mode is a Results section that shows strong XRD, TEM, XPS, spectroscopy, electrochemistry, or computation but leaves the physical chemistry principle implicit. Reviewers may respect the experiment and still ask why the result changes understanding of interfaces, nanomaterials, hard materials, adsorption, charge transfer, phase behavior, or catalysis. During Under Review, prepare a response map that links each major figure to one physical mechanism and one alternative explanation the data rules out.

If that map is hard to write, run a Check whether your JPC C physical-insight claim is reviewer-ready -> review before drafting a revision.

Characterization package does not match the claim strength

JPC C reviewers are comfortable reading dense Supporting Information, so thin characterization reads as a claim-risk problem rather than a space problem. We frequently see requests for indexed XRD patterns, chemical-state assignments in XPS, particle-size distributions from microscopy, spectroscopic controls, control catalysts, repeat syntheses, or computational settings that let another lab reproduce the result. The strongest revision package does not simply add data. It explains which uncertainty each added measurement removes.

If your likely reviewer concern is whether the evidence package is complete, use a Check if your JPC C characterization package supports the main claim ->.

ACS family routing is not yet defensible

A paper can be strong and still be routed away from JPC C if the contribution reads as broad chemistry, short-format nanoscience, soft matter, molecular physical chemistry, or applied materials. We look for a one-sentence routing defense that separates JPC C from JPC A, JPC B, JPC Letters, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, and JACS.

If that sentence depends on journal prestige rather than the physical system and insight, the status window should be used to build a cascade plan. For that pass, run a Check whether your JPC family routing plan is defensible ->.

This page was created from ACS's public JPC C author guidelines at ACS author guidance, ACS Paragon Plus documentation (34.9 median days to first peer review decision, 71.3 median days to acceptance, 8.7 days from acceptance to ASAP, 48.4-day first revision report, 54.5-day editor accept time, Editor-in-Chief + Deputy Editors + Senior Editors model), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with JPC C-targeted manuscripts.

For the ACS JPC landscape beyond JPC C, see JPC A (atoms/molecules/clusters), JPC B (soft matter/biophysics), JPC Letters (rapid communications), ACS Nano (nanomaterials), JACS (broader chemistry), Nano Letters (short-format nanoscience), and external physical chemistry alternatives (PCCP from RSC).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is interfaces/nanomaterials/hard materials physical chemistry (JPC C), atoms/molecules/clusters (JPC A), soft matter/biophysics (JPC B), rapid communications (JPC Letters), top nanoscience (ACS Nano), broader chemistry (JACS), short-format nanoscience (Nano Letters), or RSC physical chemistry (PCCP).

Reviewers at JPC C typically draw from 2 to 3 physical chemistry subspecialty experts. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both physical chemistry insight and characterization adequacy accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the JPC C physical-insight-plus-characterization bar before submission, our Journal of Physical Chemistry C pre-submission diagnostic flags the physical-insight framing and characterization weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.