RSC Advances 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

RSC Advances operates the Royal Society of Chemistry EIC + associate editor model. Verify the current Editors-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a cover letter. The handling associate editor reads the entire paper and evaluates chemistry significance, methodological rigor, and RSC Advances subspecialty routing across organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, materials chemistry, analytical chemistry, and chemical biology (RSC Advances covers all chemistry).

An associate editor at RSC Advances typically handles 80 to 150 manuscripts per year and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; RSC Advances associate editors are working academic chemists fitting RSC Advances editorial work around their own laboratories.

RSC Advances editorial culture is decisive: the 27-day time to first decision for peer-reviewed manuscripts reflects RSC's commitment to rapid editorial response. Papers that pass the RSC Advances associate editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in Royal Society of Chemistry open-access publishing.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an RSC Advances associate editor evaluates whether the chemistry significance warrants RSC Advances's editorial slots. About 30 to 40 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage.

A desk rejection most often means the associate editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister RSC journal (Chemical Science for top-tier broad chemistry, Materials Chemistry Frontiers for materials, Organic Chemistry Frontiers for organic, Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers for inorganic) or that the chemistry significance bar is not met.

When a paper is to be rejected from one Royal Society of Chemistry journal, authors are offered the option to transfer the paper to one of the other journals for consideration.

When a submission has been checked for completeness and is waiting for assignment to an editor, it is marked as WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE. The RSC Editorial Office checks the submission for completeness and prepares it for associate editor assignment.

If the manuscript is assigned to an associate editor, it moves to WITH EDITOR. The associate editor reads the paper and evaluates chemistry significance, methodological rigor, and RSC Advances subspecialty routing.

In parallel with the associate editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the RSC editorial team where peer associate editors and the Editors-in-Chief weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at RSC Advances or at sister RSC journals. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 7 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

RSC Advances associate editors typically invite 2 to 3 reviewers under the RSC single-anonymized review model. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 5 to 10 days. RSC uses a single-anonymized review model where the author's name and institution will be known by the peer reviewer, but the author will not know the identity of the peer reviewer, which is the standard for most chemistry journals.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical RSC Advances peer-review cycle lasts 2 to 4 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 27-day median first decision. Reviewers are asked to evaluate chemistry significance, methodological rigor, characterization adequacy, and reproducibility.

After reports return, the associate editor synthesizes them. If the manuscript is rejected without further review, or the authors are offered a transfer to an alternative Royal Society of Chemistry journal, the submitting author will receive an email with further details. Authors have the right to appeal to the editor against any decision taken on their manuscript at any stage.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or completeness check failure.

• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Associate editor desk rejection per the 30 to 40 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the RSC Advances associate editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 8 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the RSC submission 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 RSC Advances authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 4 weeks at Under Review puts you right at RSC Advances's 27-day median first-decision time. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the associate editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for chemistry subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 6-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the associate editor granted it. This is normal practice at RSC Advances.

What you should NOT do during the 4-to-6-week window is email the editorial office. RSC Advances associate editors are working academic chemists managing 80+ active papers per year around their own laboratories; an inquiry at 4 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your RSC Advances paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and associate editor cited:

Chemical Science is the natural RSC top-tier broad chemistry cascade. RSC supports manuscript-transfer between RSC journals; authors are offered the option to transfer the paper to one of the other RSC journals for consideration.

Materials Chemistry Frontiers is the RSC materials chemistry cascade.

Organic Chemistry Frontiers is the RSC organic chemistry cascade.

Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers is the RSC inorganic chemistry cascade.

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

ChemistrySelect (Wiley) is the external Wiley open-access chemistry cascade.

JACS is the broader ACS chemistry flagship when the RSC Advances reviews say the chemistry is important but should be framed for a more selective ACS audience. If you pivot there, rewrite the abstract around the most general chemistry claim, trim any routine scope examples, and check that the strongest characterization table can survive a JACS-style significance read.

RSC asks reviewers at RSC Advances to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Across RSC Advances manuscripts, the papers that create the most post-submission anxiety are usually not missing a single obvious file. They have a chemistry story, but the manuscript package does not make the breadth, characterization, and routing logic easy for an associate editor and 2 to 3 reviewers to validate quickly.

Of the 50+ manuscripts our team reviewed for RSC Advances, Chemical Science, PCCP, Materials Chemistry Frontiers, JACS, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, and adjacent chemistry journals, this is the failure pattern we see most often: the chemistry is plausible, but the package makes reviewers hunt for the evidence.

Use this page when you need to decide what to improve during the waiting window rather than just watching the RSC status field. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI on customer manuscripts.

Broad-chemistry story is weaker than the data

RSC Advances covers all chemistry, but that breadth does not mean a narrow result can coast through review. We often see manuscripts with a strong synthesis, catalyst, material, sensor, or analytical workflow where the abstract still reads like a local optimization report. The stronger RSC Advances submissions name the transferable chemistry principle: mechanism, selectivity, structure-property relationship, robustness, scalability, or analytical utility. The title, graphical abstract, first figure, and conclusion should all point to the same chemistry advance.

If the paper only says "we made X and it works better" without explaining the broader chemistry lesson, run a Check whether your RSC Advances chemistry story is broad enough ->.

Characterization is complete for the authors but not for reviewers

The most repeated RSC Advances reviewer risk is incomplete or hard-to-audit characterization. This can mean missing NMR or mass spec for a novel compound, thin X-ray evidence for a structure claim, no raw spectra in Supporting Information, unclear purity, weak control reactions, or a table that reports only the best condition. The issue is often presentation rather than absence: data may exist, but the reviewer has to hunt across captions, supplement pages, and repository files.

Before submission, map each central claim to the exact spectrum, table, control, or calibration that supports it. If that audit trail is not obvious, use a Check if your RSC Advances characterization package is complete ->.

RSC transfer logic is not planned before the first decision

RSC can offer transfers when a manuscript is rigorous but not quite right for the submitted title. Authors who have not planned routing often lose time after rejection because they still need to decide whether the paper is Chemical Science, Materials Chemistry Frontiers, Organic Chemistry Frontiers, Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers, PCCP, or an ACS/Wiley alternative.

We see better outcomes when the cover letter already clarifies why RSC Advances is the right level of breadth and why a narrower title would undersell the contribution. If the manuscript could be moved to another chemistry journal with almost no edits, run a Check whether your RSC routing plan is defensible ->.

This page was created from RSC's public RSC Advances journal page at RSC journal page, RSC publishing process documentation (27-day time to first decision for peer-reviewed manuscripts, WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE → WITH EDITOR status flow, RSC single-anonymized peer review, inter-RSC transfer option for rejected papers), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with RSC Advances-targeted manuscripts.

For the RSC chemistry landscape beyond RSC Advances, see Chemical Science (top-tier broad chemistry), Materials Chemistry Frontiers (materials), Organic Chemistry Frontiers (organic), Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers (inorganic), Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (physical chemistry), Chemical Society Reviews (chemistry reviews), and external open-access chemistry alternatives (ChemistrySelect from Wiley, JACS Au from ACS).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is RSC open-access broad chemistry (RSC Advances), top RSC broad chemistry (Chemical Science), materials chemistry (Materials Chemistry Frontiers), organic chemistry (Organic Chemistry Frontiers), inorganic chemistry (Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers), physical chemistry (PCCP), chemistry reviews (Chem Soc Rev), or Wiley/ACS open-access chemistry (ChemistrySelect, JACS Au).

Reviewers at RSC Advances typically draw from 2 to 3 chemistry subspecialty experts under the RSC single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both chemistry significance and characterization adequacy accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the RSC Advances chemistry-significance bar before submission, our RSC Advances pre-submission diagnostic flags the chemistry-significance framing and characterization weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.