Rejected from ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

ACS AMI's editorial identity centers on the word "applied." The journal wants materials research that demonstrates real-world utility, not just synthesis and characterization.

The editorial bar

Application demonstration. ACS AMI expects your paper to show that your material does something useful. Synthesizing a new nanocomposite and characterizing its structure isn't enough. You need to demonstrate performance in a device, a biological system, a sensor, or another application context.

Novelty in materials or interfaces. The journal's scope explicitly covers interfaces between materials and applications. Papers that present incremental compositional variations of known materials without new interface science or new functionality tend to get rejected.

Adequate characterization. Despite the applied focus, ACS AMI requires thorough materials characterization. XRD, SEM/TEM, XPS, and other standard techniques need to be present and properly analyzed. Missing basic characterization is a common reason for technical rejections.

Comparison to existing materials. ACS AMI reviewers consistently ask: "How does this compare to what already exists?" If your paper doesn't benchmark against the current state of the art, reviewers will flag it. Performance claims without context aren't convincing.

Common rejection scenarios

"Incremental advance over existing work." You modified a known material slightly and showed marginally better performance. ACS AMI sees thousands of these submissions. Without a clear mechanism explaining why your modification works or a substantial performance improvement, the paper won't stand out.

"The application isn't sufficiently demonstrated." You synthesized an interesting material and suggested it could be used for catalysis, sensing, or drug delivery, but you didn't actually test it in that application. ACS AMI wants demonstration, not speculation.

"Characterization is insufficient." Missing spectroscopic data, lack of reproducibility evidence, or characterization that doesn't support the claims. ACS AMI's reviewer pool is large and technically thorough, so gaps get caught.

"The comparison to existing literature is inadequate." Your paper reports good performance numbers, but reviewers found that other materials achieve the same or better performance. Without an honest comparison table, your paper looks like it's ignoring the competition.

1. Journal of Materials Chemistry A

JMCA is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry and focuses on materials for energy and sustainability applications. If your ACS AMI rejection involved energy materials (solar cells, batteries, supercapacitors, catalysts, or fuel cells), JMCA is the most direct alternative. The IF (~11) is actually higher than ACS AMI's, and the journal is well-respected in the energy materials community.

JMCA's editorial bar is similar to ACS AMI's in expecting application demonstrations, but the journal is more focused on energy-related performance metrics. If your paper includes device data (solar cell efficiency, battery cycling, catalytic turnover), JMCA values that heavily.

Best for: Solar cells, batteries, supercapacitors, electrocatalysis, photocatalysis, fuel cells, hydrogen production.

2. Chemistry of Materials

Chemistry of Materials (ACS) is the best alternative for papers where the materials chemistry is more interesting than the application. If ACS AMI rejected your paper because the application was weak but the synthesis and characterization were strong, Chemistry of Materials values exactly that balance.

The journal emphasizes understanding structure-property relationships, developing new synthesis methods, and revealing mechanisms that explain materials behavior. You'll still need some functional characterization, but the bar for application demonstration is lower than at ACS AMI.

Best for: New materials synthesis, structure-property relationships, mechanistic studies, materials with unusual properties.

3. ACS Applied Nano Materials

ACS Applied Nano Materials (AANM) is ACS AMI's sister journal specifically for nanomaterials. It launched in 2018 and has grown rapidly. The IF (~5) is lower than ACS AMI's, but the journal provides a direct path within the ACS family for papers that ACS AMI considered too incremental.

If your nanomaterials paper was rejected from ACS AMI for being "not sufficiently novel," AANM's lower selectivity makes it a practical option. The scope and formatting requirements are almost identical, which minimizes reformatting effort.

Best for: Applied nanomaterials research, nanoparticles for sensing/catalysis/biomedicine, nanostructured surfaces and devices.

4. Applied Surface Science

Applied Surface Science (Elsevier) covers surface science, thin films, coatings, and interface phenomena. If your ACS AMI paper focused on surface modification, surface characterization, or thin film applications, Applied Surface Science has excellent scope overlap.

The journal's IF (~6) is slightly lower than ACS AMI's, and the acceptance rate is moderate. Applied Surface Science publishes a large volume of articles per year, so it's relatively accessible while maintaining decent reputation.

Best for: Surface modification, thin films, coatings, surface characterization, plasma treatment, surface functionalization.

5. ACS Applied Energy Materials

ACS Applied Energy Materials (AAEM) is another ACS family journal, focused specifically on energy applications. If your ACS AMI paper was about energy materials but was too specialized for ACS AMI's broad scope, AAEM is a well-matched alternative.

The journal is newer than ACS AMI but growing quickly. It's a good option for energy materials papers that are solid but incremental, which describes many papers that ACS AMI declines.

Best for: Battery materials, solar cell components, thermoelectric materials, fuel cell catalysts, energy storage systems.

6. Journal of Materials Chemistry B

JMCB (RSC) focuses on materials for biological and biomedical applications. If your ACS AMI paper involved biomaterials, drug delivery systems, tissue engineering scaffolds, or biosensors, JMCB's specialized audience is a better match than ACS AMI's broad materials readership.

JMCB values both materials innovation and biological validation. Papers that include cell studies, biocompatibility testing, or in vivo data are particularly competitive here.

Best for: Biomaterials, drug delivery, tissue engineering, biosensors, biocompatible materials, theranostics.

7. Nanoscale

Nanoscale (RSC) is a broad-scope journal covering all aspects of nanoscale science and technology. If your ACS AMI paper had a strong nanoscience component but the application was underdeveloped, Nanoscale is more tolerant of fundamental studies at the nanoscale.

The journal publishes both experimental and theoretical work, and it's receptive to interdisciplinary research that bridges chemistry, physics, biology, and engineering at the nanoscale.

Best for: Nanoscale phenomena, nanoscale characterization, interdisciplinary nanoscience, fundamental nanomaterials studies.

Energy materials paper rejected? JMCA is first choice (higher IF than ACS AMI). ACS Applied Energy Materials is a solid backup within the ACS family.

Biomaterials paper rejected? JMCB is the most focused alternative. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering is another ACS-family option.

Nanomaterials paper rejected? ACS Applied Nano Materials stays within ACS. Nanoscale (RSC) offers a cross-publisher alternative with similar scope.

Fundamental materials chemistry rejected? Chemistry of Materials values mechanism and synthesis over application demonstration. Move here if your science is strong but your device data is weak.

Surface science paper rejected? Applied Surface Science has the most directly overlapping scope for surface-focused work.

Add a comparison table. If ACS AMI reviewers said you didn't compare to existing materials, create a thorough table benchmarking your material against the top 5-10 competitors. Include performance metrics, synthesis conditions, and cost considerations.

Strengthen your application data. If the rejection mentioned "insufficient application demonstration," you need device data. A solar cell efficiency curve, battery cycling data, a sensor calibration plot, or cell viability results can make the difference.

Deepen your characterization. Missing XPS, incomplete TEM analysis, or absent BET measurements are common gaps. Check what the target journal's recent papers include and match that level of characterization.

Be honest about limitations. ACS AMI reviewers appreciate papers that acknowledge what doesn't work. If your material has poor stability, low scalability, or high cost, address these limitations directly rather than hoping reviewers won't notice.

Run your manuscript through a free Manusights scan to check formatting, figure quality, and reference completeness before your next submission. Materials science papers with extensive figures and tables are especially prone to formatting issues during journal transfers.