Rejected from JACS? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

JACS desk-rejects a substantial fraction of submissions, often within 10-14 days. The associate editors make these calls based on a quick assessment of novelty and breadth. A desk rejection doesn't mean the work is flawed. It means the editor didn't see enough general interest to justify sending it out for review. This is the most common outcome for solid but incremental work.

This is the most frequent reviewer criticism at JACS. Your paper demonstrates good chemistry, but it extends known methods or principles without a sufficiently surprising result. JACS wants the unexpected. If your paper confirms what chemists would predict, it's incremental by JACS standards, even if the execution is excellent.

JACS expects thorough characterization of new compounds, materials, and catalytic systems. If reviewers found missing control experiments, incomplete spectroscopic data, or inadequate mechanistic studies, those gaps will sink a paper regardless of how interesting the chemistry is.

JACS publishes across all of chemistry, but certain subfields are overrepresented. Organic synthesis, catalysis, and chemical biology receive the most submissions and face the steepest competition. Materials chemistry and polymer science papers sometimes receive less enthusiastic reviews from JACS editors who may see them as better suited to specialty journals.

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

1. Angewandte Chemie

Angewandte is the most direct competitor to JACS and the usual first alternative for rejected manuscripts. The two journals overlap heavily in scope and prestige, with Angewandte's impact factor (~16) slightly higher than JACS. The key difference is format: Angewandte publishes more communications (short papers), while JACS publishes more full articles. If your JACS paper can be condensed into a tighter story, Angewandte may prefer the communication format. Many research groups routinely submit to one and then the other.

Best for: Papers with a strong, concise story that can work as a communication. Broad-interest chemistry across all subdisciplines.

2. Chemical Science

Chemical Science is the Royal Society of Chemistry's flagship journal and one of the best open-access options in chemistry. The journal publishes across all chemical sciences with an impact factor around 8. It's free to publish (funded by RSC), which makes it particularly attractive. If JACS rejected your paper for being too specialized, Chemical Science's editors may see enough value in the work for their audience. The review process is typically fast and constructive.

Best for: All chemistry subdisciplines. Papers that are strong but didn't clear JACS's novelty bar. Researchers who want open access without an APC.

3. ACS Central Science

ACS Central Science is ACS's open-access flagship, positioned between JACS and specialty ACS journals. The impact factor (~13) is competitive, and the journal specifically seeks interdisciplinary chemistry that bridges traditional subdisciplines. If your JACS paper connects chemistry to biology, energy, or materials in a way that didn't excite JACS's more traditional editors, ACS Central Science's interdisciplinary mandate may be a better fit.

Best for: Interdisciplinary research connecting chemistry to biology, energy, health, or the environment.

4. ACS Catalysis

For catalysis papers rejected from JACS, ACS Catalysis (IF ~12) is often a better home. The journal's reviewers are catalysis specialists who can appreciate the subtlety of your mechanistic work, which JACS's broader reviewer pool might undervalue. ACS Catalysis publishes homogeneous catalysis, heterogeneous catalysis, biocatalysis, and electrocatalysis, covering the full spectrum. Papers that JACS called "too specialized" are often exactly what ACS Catalysis wants.

Best for: Homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis, reaction mechanism studies, catalyst design.

5. Organic Letters

If your JACS paper was an organic synthesis or methodology study, Organic Letters is the natural specialty alternative. Organic Letters publishes short communications on new reactions, total syntheses, and synthetic methods with a fast turnaround (often 2-4 weeks to first decision). The impact factor (~5) is lower than JACS, but Organic Letters carries strong prestige within the organic chemistry community. Many organic chemists consider an OL paper a solid result.

Best for: New synthetic methods, total synthesis, reaction development, and natural product chemistry.

6. Chemistry of Materials

For materials chemistry papers, Chemistry of Materials (IF ~7) is the top ACS specialty journal. If JACS rejected your materials paper because the chemical innovation was overshadowed by materials properties, Chemistry of Materials values the full synthesis-structure-property relationship. The journal covers inorganic materials, nanomaterials, polymers, and energy materials with a focus on the chemistry behind the material.

Best for: Materials synthesis, nanomaterials, energy materials, electronic materials, and polymer chemistry.

7. Chemical Communications (ChemComm)

ChemComm is RSC's short communication journal, covering all areas of chemistry with a quick turnaround. The acceptance rate (~30%) is the highest on this list, and the review process is typically 4-6 weeks. ChemComm is ideal for papers that tell a clear, concise story but didn't have enough depth for JACS. It's also a good option when you need to establish priority quickly before publishing a full paper elsewhere.

Best for: Preliminary results needing fast publication, concise studies across all chemistry subdisciplines.

Desk rejected from JACS? Try Angewandte Chemie immediately. Many papers that JACS desk-rejects are accepted at Angewandte, and vice versa. The editorial judgments at these two journals don't always align.

Rejected for "incremental" chemistry? Go to your subdiscipline's top journal. ACS Catalysis for catalysis, Organic Letters for synthesis, Chemistry of Materials for materials. These journals value incremental-but-well-executed work within their specialty more than JACS values it in a general context.

Rejected for insufficient breadth? Chemical Science and ChemComm both serve the general chemistry audience but with lower novelty bars than JACS. ACS Central Science works if the interdisciplinary angle is strong.

Rejected after review with specific criticisms? Address every comment before resubmitting. If the reviewers were right about missing experiments, no other journal will overlook those same gaps.

Strengthen your characterization. JACS reviewers expect thorough data, and so do reviewers at Angewandte and Chemical Science. If JACS flagged missing NMR data, X-ray structures, or kinetic measurements, add them before going anywhere.

Rewrite your introduction for the new audience. A JACS introduction emphasizes broad chemical significance. An ACS Catalysis introduction can be more technical. An Organic Letters introduction should be concise. Match the framing to the journal.

Consider the format. JACS publishes full articles and communications. If your paper was a full article at JACS, consider whether a communication format (shorter, more focused) might work better at Angewandte or ChemComm. Cutting the paper to its essential story can sometimes make it stronger.

Add the missing control experiments. If reviewers asked for controls you didn't include, do them. This investment of time will pay off at the next journal and improve the science regardless.

Chemistry publishing moves fast, and your competitors may be working on similar results. Before sending your revised manuscript to the next journal, run it through a manuscript scope and readiness check to check for formatting issues, missing characterization data flags, and scope alignment. Getting the next submission right the first time is worth more than saving a day on the revision.

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 editing
• New experiments or analyses are needed
• The rejection exposed a gap between claims and evidence

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting the Journal of the American Chemical Society, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Incremental advance within a well-characterized reaction class or material system. JACS publishes work that changes how chemists think about reactivity, structure, or function, not work that extends an established method to new substrates or conditions. We see this failure as the dominant pattern in JACS desk rejections we review: well-executed studies in catalysis, synthesis, or materials chemistry where the central advance is optimizing known chemistry rather than establishing a new principle. In our review of JACS submissions, we find that editors consistently require that the finding either opens a new reaction space, establishes a new design principle, or reveals unexpected chemistry that the field did not anticipate.

Mechanistic claims unsupported by direct experimental evidence. JACS expects that proposed mechanisms be supported by kinetic studies, isotope labeling experiments, intermediate characterization, or computational validation. Papers proposing mechanisms based on product distributions alone, or borrowing mechanistic analogies from different reaction classes without direct evidence, consistently face reviewer concerns. We see this pattern in JACS submissions we review make mechanistic claims that are not directly tested by the experimental design.

Significance confined to a single subdiscipline of chemistry. JACS serves all of chemistry, from organic synthesis to biochemistry to materials. Papers whose significance is clearly visible to synthetic chemists but does not interest physical chemists, chemical biologists, or materials scientists face desk scope concerns. We see this pattern in JACS submissions we review present methodology or mechanistic insight relevant only to one narrow subdiscipline without framing how the finding connects to broader chemical principles.

Characterization data insufficient to support the structural claims made. JACS requires complete characterization of new compounds and materials. We see this failure regularly in manuscripts we review: papers reporting new compounds without full characterization packages, new crystal structures without complete crystallographic data, or new materials with incomplete spectroscopic and analytical data. Editors return these for characterization completeness before the science can be evaluated.

SciRev community data for JACS confirms desk decisions typically within 1-2 weeks and post-review first decisions within 4-6 weeks, consistent with the fast editorial process the ACS maintains for this flagship journal.