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

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.

• "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.

Before choosing your next journal, a ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces manuscript fit check can tell you whether the issue was scope or something more fundamental to address first.

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 manuscript scope and readiness check 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.

Resubmit to the same tier if:

• Reviewers praised the science but identified fixable issues
• The rejection letter mentioned "consider resubmission after revision"
• You can address every concern within 2-3 months
• No competing paper has appeared since your submission

Move to a different journal if:

• The rejection cited scope mismatch, not quality
• Multiple reviewers questioned novelty or significance
• Your timeline needs a decision within 2-3 months
• A specialist journal's readership would value the work more

Reframe before resubmitting anywhere if:

• Reviewers found fundamental methodology concerns
• The narrative needs restructuring, not just polishing
• New experiments or analyses are needed
• The rejection exposed a gap between claims and evidence

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Fundamental materials science without application context or device demonstration. ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces specifically publishes work connecting materials properties to applications. We see this failure as the most common pattern in ACS AMI desk rejections we review: papers characterizing fundamental structure-property relationships in a material system without demonstrating performance in any application-relevant context or device structure. In our review of ACS AMI submissions, we find that editors consistently require that the applied dimension be demonstrated experimentally, not just proposed as a future direction.

Application demonstrations without mechanistic explanation of why the material performs as it does. ACS AMI publishes at the materials-applications interface, meaning it expects both the applied demonstration and an understanding of the underlying materials science. Papers demonstrating good device performance without explaining the structure-property relationships responsible for that performance face consistent editorial concerns. We see this pattern in ACS AMI submissions we review showing performance metrics without the characterization that would reveal why those metrics are achieved.

Performance benchmarking against outdated state-of-the-art. ACS AMI reviewers consistently check whether the reported performance is competitive with the current best-performing materials in the relevant application space. We see this failure regularly in manuscripts we review: papers claiming superior or competitive performance when compared to materials that were leading the field 3-5 years ago, without awareness of more recent high-performing materials that represent the actual benchmark.

Characterization data insufficient to support the proposed application mechanism. ACS AMI expects comprehensive characterization that connects material structure to the observed application performance. Papers reporting application results supported only by XRD, SEM, and UV-vis without the electrochemical, spectroscopic, or surface analysis data needed to understand the structure-property-performance relationship face consistent desk returns for incomplete characterization.

SciRev community data for ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces confirms desk rejections typically arrive within days, with post-review first decisions within 4-8 weeks, consistent with the ACS Publications editorial cadence.