Journal of Power Sources Acceptance Rate
Journal of Power Sources's acceptance rate in context, including how selective the journal really is and what the number leaves out.
Journal evaluation
Want the full picture on Journal of Power Sources?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether Journal of Power Sources is realistic.
What Journal of Power Sources's acceptance rate means for your manuscript
Acceptance rate is one signal. Desk rejection rate, scope fit, and editorial speed shape the realistic path more than the headline number.
What the number tells you
- Journal of Power Sources accepts roughly ~30-40% of submissions, but desk rejection accounts for a disproportionate share of early returns.
- Scope misfit drives most desk rejections, not weak methodology.
- Papers that reach peer review face a higher bar: novelty and fit with editorial identity.
What the number does not tell you
- Whether your specific paper type (review, letter, brief communication) faces the same rate as full articles.
- How fast you will hear back — check time to first decision separately.
- What open access publishing will cost if you choose that route.
Quick answer: Journal of Power Sources does not publish a live public acceptance rate on its main journal pages. The useful submission signal is the journal's current metrics and its editorial pattern: fast initial triage, strong device-level expectations, and a clear preference for papers that look like complete electrochemical power-source stories rather than promising materials papers.
The Journal of Power Sources journal page is the best cluster reference if you want to compare this acceptance-rate question against impact factor, APC, and review-time context.
Journal of Power Sources acceptance-rate context at a glance
Metric | Current figure | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
Official live acceptance rate on public journal pages | Not published | No clean current official rate |
Impact factor (2024) | 7.9 | Strong Q1 electrochemistry position |
CiteScore | 14.9 | Strong Scopus-side signal |
Submission to first decision | 10 days | Fast triage |
Submission to decision after review | 37 days | Efficient full-review cycle |
Submission to acceptance | 94 days | Useful planning benchmark |
APC (optional OA) | USD 4,150 | Cost decision is separate from fit |
That table is more useful than a rumored percentage. Journal of Power Sources is one of the journals where the editorial signal is not "rare and mysterious." It is quite visible in the current metrics and scope language.
Longer-term metrics context
Year | Impact factor |
|---|---|
2017 | 7.5 |
2018 | 7.5 |
2019 | 8.2 |
2020 | 8.2 |
2021 | 9.8 |
2022 | 9.0 |
2023 | 8.1 |
2024 | 7.9 |
The 2024 impact factor is down from 8.1 in 2023 to 7.9 in 2024. That is not a collapse. It is the continuation of post-surge normalization after the 2021 peak, and the journal remains in a strong dedicated electrochemical-device tier.
How Journal of Power Sources compares with nearby journals
Journal | Acceptance signal | IF (2024) | Secondary metrics signal | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal of Power Sources | Not publicly disclosed | 7.9 | CiteScore 14.9, 10-day triage | Device-focused electrochemical power papers |
Advanced Energy Materials | More selective | 26.0 | Higher prestige, stronger novelty filter | Flagship energy materials stories |
ACS Energy Letters | More selective | 17.8 | Strong short-format visibility | High-consequence energy stories |
Journal of Materials Chemistry A | More selective | 10.3 | Stronger chemistry-led energy positioning | Materials-first energy papers |
Electrochimica Acta | Broader soundness lane | 5.5 | Lower tier, broad electrochemistry | More fundamental electrochemical studies |
This is the main fit call: Journal of Power Sources is often the right home when the paper is device-centered and electrochemically serious, but not necessarily the broad-significance story demanded by higher-prestige energy titles.
What the acceptance-rate question really means here
For Journal of Power Sources, the acceptance-rate query is usually a proxy for a better question:
Does this manuscript already look like a complete power-source paper, or is it still mainly a materials paper with electrochemistry attached?
That is why the percentage itself is not the core issue.
What the query does tell you:
- the journal is selective enough to enforce a serious device screen
- papers that clear triage usually already look complete
- electrochemical benchmarking and durability matter more than hype language
What it does not tell you:
- whether the paper is really full-cell or device-ready
- whether the best audience is here or at a materials journal
- whether the performance package is mature enough for the claims
Readiness check
See how your manuscript scores against Journal of Power Sources before you submit.
Run the scan with Journal of Power Sources as your target journal. Get a fit signal alongside the IF context.
What Journal of Power Sources editors are actually screening for
The current aims-and-scope and insights pages make the editorial logic fairly legible:
- Is the work genuinely about electrochemical power technologies?
- Is the device case complete enough to justify serious review?
- Are performance, durability, and comparison data strong enough for the claim?
- Is the paper better framed as a power-source paper than as a materials paper?
That is why the journal often rejects papers that are scientifically interesting but not yet complete at the device level.
What we see in pre-submission review work
In our pre-submission review work, Journal of Power Sources failures are usually straightforward.
Half-cell evidence is being asked to do full-cell work. This remains one of the most common issues. Strong materials data, attractive early electrochemistry, and thin device evidence still read as incomplete here.
Cycling or durability is too thin for the size of the claim. Papers often want to make commercial or practical language-level claims without the endurance or benchmarking package to support them.
Benchmarking is selective rather than honest. Reviewers in this area know the field well. If the paper compares only to weaker baselines or avoids the strongest recent device papers, that is visible immediately.
That is why the missing public acceptance rate is less useful than a real manuscript-level device check.
The better submission question
For Journal of Power Sources, the better decision question is:
Would a device-focused electrochemical reviewer believe this manuscript is complete enough, durable enough, and benchmarked well enough to belong in a serious power-sources journal?
If yes, the journal is plausible. If no, the acceptance-rate discussion is mostly noise.
Submit if / Think twice if
Submit if:
- the paper already looks like a real device or full-system electrochemical study
- durability and benchmarking are strong enough for the headline claim
- the audience is the battery, fuel-cell, or supercapacitor community specifically
- the work is stronger as a power-source paper than as a broader materials paper
Think twice if:
- the manuscript is still mainly a half-cell or materials story
- the device claim outruns the cycling or degradation evidence
- Advanced Energy Materials, JMCA, or another energy-materials journal is the truer fit
- the data package is good, but not yet complete enough for a power-source readership
Practical verdict
The honest answer is that Journal of Power Sources does not publish a clean live public acceptance rate.
The useful answer is:
- the journal is clearly selective
- the current timing data shows fast editorial triage
- the real filter is device completeness, benchmarking, and durability
If you want a reviewer-style read on whether the manuscript behaves like a real Journal of Power Sources paper before upload, a Journal of Power Sources submission readiness check is the best next step.
Frequently asked questions
No. Elsevier publishes current timing, impact, APC, and scope information for Journal of Power Sources, but it does not publish one clean live public acceptance-rate figure on the main journal pages.
Whether the manuscript is a real electrochemical device paper. Reviewers and editors care far more about durability, benchmarking, and device completeness than about a guessed percentage.
Journal of Power Sources currently reports a 2024 impact factor of 7.9, a CiteScore of 14.9, 10 days to first decision, 37 days to decision after review, and 94 days from submission to acceptance.
Journal of Power Sources is a stronger fit for device-focused electrochemical papers with complete performance packages. Advanced Energy Materials asks for a stronger broad-materials significance signal on top of strong results.
A paper that is still mainly a materials or half-cell story, with device claims that outrun the durability, benchmarking, or full-cell evidence.
Sources
Before you upload
Want the full picture on Journal of Power Sources?
Scope, selectivity, what editors want, common rejection reasons, and submission context, all in one place.
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Journal of Power Sources Submission Guide: What Editors Screen Before Review
- Journal of Power Sources Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Journal of Power Sources
- Is Your Paper Ready for Journal of Power Sources? An Energy Researcher's Honest Checklist
- Journal of Power Sources APC and Open Access: Current Elsevier Pricing and Whether OA Is Worth It
- Journal of Power Sources Formatting Requirements: The Submission Package Guide
Compare alternatives
Supporting reads
Want the full picture on Journal of Power Sources?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.