Science of The Total Environment Acceptance Rate: How Hard Is It to Get Published?

Science of The Total Environment doesn't publish an official acceptance rate. What it does publish — over 10,000 articles per year — tells you something about its model: high volume, broad scope, rigorous desk-screening for relevance. Understanding where papers fail here changes how you frame and target your submission.

The Numbers

Impact factor: Clarivate JCR 2024. Acceptance rate: community estimate; STOTEN does not report this figure officially.

How Selective Is STOTEN?

STOTEN ranks 39th out of 374 environmental science journals — top 11% of the field. For a journal that publishes at this volume, that rank is maintained through a combination of desk rejection and peer review selectivity.

The desk rejection rate is meaningful. Editors screen for:

Scope fit. STOTEN's name is intentional — the journal is designed for work on the environment as a whole, including pollution, contamination, ecosystem-level effects, and environmental health. Work that's narrowly ecological (better suited to Ecological Indicators or Journal of Ecology) or narrowly chemical without environmental framing often gets redirected.

Geographic and practical breadth. A study documenting pollution levels at a single site in a single region, without contextualizing what that means for environmental science more broadly, is unlikely to clear the desk. STOTEN expects the work to add to understanding beyond the specific location.

Novelty in the environmental context. Characterization studies that confirm what's already known about a pollutant class in a new location face the same challenge. The work needs to extend environmental understanding, not just confirm it.

What Actually Gets Through

Papers that clear both desk and peer review at STOTEN tend to share a few characteristics:

Pollutant fate and transport with mechanistic depth. Studies that explain where contaminants go and why — across environmental compartments, through food chains, or across spatial scales — fit STOTEN's scope precisely.

Environmental health linkages. Research connecting environmental contamination to human or ecosystem health outcomes, particularly with epidemiological or toxicological data, is core STOTEN territory.

Large-scale or multi-site studies. Work spanning multiple regions, seasons, or environmental media has an easier time making the breadth argument. Single-site studies can succeed, but they need to show why the findings generalize.

Emerging contaminants and new exposure pathways. STOTEN has a strong track record with microplastics, PFAS, pharmaceuticals in the environment, and other emerging concern chemicals. Novel contaminant categories with clear environmental relevance are well-received.

Climate-environment interactions. Research on how climate change affects contaminant behavior, ecosystem function, or environmental health is increasingly central to STOTEN's content.

Common Rejection Patterns

Too narrow geographically. "Heavy metals in river sediments in [region]" without a broader framing about what drives that pattern, what it means for ecosystem function, or how it compares to global baselines.

Missing the total environment angle. Studies that measure contamination but don't trace it across environmental compartments or connect it to biological or health outcomes.

Incremental methodology. Studies using established methods to confirm expected results in a new location, without a compelling reason why the location or the finding changes what we know.

Scope mismatch. Purely ecological papers (community ecology, biodiversity assessment without pollution framing), purely atmospheric science without surface-level linkages, or work on individual organisms without ecosystem-level context.

How to Improve Your Odds

Frame for scope from the abstract. The first two sentences of your abstract should make clear that this work contributes to understanding the total environment — not just a local problem. Editors make desk decisions fast; the abstract has to do the work.

Connect across compartments. If your study focuses on water contamination, show linkages to sediment, biota, or downstream human exposure. Cross-compartment framing is inherently more STOTEN-appropriate.

Quantify the broader significance. How does your site or scenario compare to regional or global baselines? Is the contamination level above regulatory thresholds? What does the pattern imply for management? Answers to these questions are the difference between a site study and a STOTEN paper.

Pre-submission inquiry is available. Elsevier's manuscript tracking system allows pre-submission scope questions. For borderline papers, use it.

Alternatives If STOTEN Rejects

For papers that are solid but too narrow for STOTEN, Environmental Pollution or Chemosphere are the most direct alternatives. For stronger work that might clear a higher bar, Environmental Science & Technology is the right next attempt.

Sources

• Clarivate Analytics, Journal Citation Reports 2024 (JIF 8.0, 5-Year IF 8.7)
• Elsevier, Science of The Total Environment author guidelines
• Science of The Total Environment journal overview
• Science of The Total Environment impact factor 2026