What is the Molecules JIF?

The JIF is 4.6 (2024 JCR). See the full year-by-year trend and category ranking in our Molecules JIF analysis.

What is the acceptance rate of Molecules?

Manusights currently treats ~50-60% as an estimate for Molecules, not an official journal-published rate. One common reason papers fail is reporting compound synthesis without sufficient characterization data.

How long does Molecules take to review?

Molecules typically takes ~60-90 days median, but timing varies by editor, field, and reviewer availability. Expect an editorial screen first, then manuscript preparation, then peer review.

How much does it cost to publish in Molecules?

Molecules applies a publication fee, and the current page-level figure we track is ~$2,100 CHF. Reconfirm the official pricing page before budgeting because publisher fees can change.

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Publishing in Molecules: Fit, Timeline & Submission Guide

Q: Is Molecules a good journal?

Molecules is a strong target if present novel compounds, synthesis routes, or interesting molecular modifications. It is a weaker fit if nMR, mass spectrometry, melting point, and purity data are minimum expectations.

Q: Is Molecules peer reviewed?

Yes, Molecules is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by 2 reviewers assess novelty, characterization rigor, and significance. Reviewers scrutinize spectroscopic data carefully. First decision 60-90 days..

Molecular structure, synthesis, and discovery across chemistry and biology

Should you submit here?

Submit if present novel compounds, synthesis routes, or interesting molecular modifications. Be careful if nMR, mass spectrometry, melting point, and purity data are minimum expectations.

IF 4.6 · ~50-60% accepted · ~60-90 days median

Best fit if

Present novel compounds, synthesis routes, or interesting molecular modifications

Not ideal if

NMR, mass spectrometry, melting point, and purity data are minimum expectations

Also compare

RNA

4.6

Impact Factor (2024)

~50-60%

Acceptance Rate

~60-90 days median

Time to First Decision

Submission guide

Molecules Submission Guide

A practical Molecules submission guide for authors deciding whether the paper is complete, credible, and positioned well enough for editorial screening.

Journal assessment

Is Molecules a Good Journal? Impact Factor, Scope, and Fit Guide

Molecules (IF 4.2, MDPI) is a high-volume OA chemistry journal. Honest comparison with RSC Advances, ACS Omega, and ChemistrySelect, plus the MDPI reputation question.

Desk rejection

How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Molecules

Avoid desk rejection at Molecules by proving structural novelty, complete characterization, and biological claims backed by real controls.

What Molecules Publishes

Molecules published by MDPI is an open-access journal covering chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular science. With JIF 4.6 and broad Q2-Q3 coverage across chemistry and life sciences, Molecules publishes research on molecular structures, synthesis, characterization, and biological activity. The journal values diverse chemistry research from synthesis to structure-activity relationships. Critically: Molecules has lower desk rejection than premium journals but still expects rigorous science. Research must show clear novelty and sufficient characterization. Pure incremental variations on existing work without meaningful advance are less competitive.

Organic synthesis: novel synthetic methods, catalysis, green chemistry
Natural products: isolation, structure elucidation, bioactivity assessment
Medicinal chemistry: lead optimization, SAR analysis, activity prediction
Structural characterization: NMR, mass spectrometry, crystallography analysis
Computational chemistry: molecular modeling, docking, property prediction
Biochemistry: enzyme function, protein interactions, metabolic pathways
Polymer chemistry: synthesis, characterization, functional polymers
Materials chemistry: novel materials, characterization, applications

Editor Insight

“Molecules publishes rigorous chemistry research from synthesis through structure-activity relationships. We seek novel molecular discoveries with complete characterization and clear significance. Quality characterization data and demonstrated novelty relative to prior art are key to publication.”

What Molecules Editors Look For

Novel molecular structure or synthesis with demonstrated characterization

Present novel compounds, synthesis routes, or interesting molecular modifications. Provide rigorous characterization: NMR, mass spectrometry, melting points, purity. For natural products or bioactive compounds, include structure elucidation and spectroscopic data.

Biological activity assessment when applicable

For medicinal or natural product chemistry, assess bioactivity. Test compounds in cellular or biochemical assays. Provide structure-activity relationship (SAR) analysis showing how molecular structure affects biological function.

Synthetic methodology advantages clearly demonstrated

If proposing synthesis method, show advantages: improved yield, shorter steps, greener conditions, lower cost, broader substrate scope. Compare with existing methods. Incremental improvements need clear justification.

Proper experimental detail and reproducibility

Provide sufficient experimental detail for others to reproduce work. Include full characterization data, reaction conditions, yields. Poor experimental documentation is a quick rejection.

Novelty clearly established relative to prior art

Distinguish your work from prior literature. Is the compound structure novel? Is synthesis method different? Is SAR insight new? Be explicit about contribution relative to existing knowledge.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past Molecules's editorial review:

Reporting compound synthesis without sufficient characterization data

NMR, mass spectrometry, melting point, and purity data are minimum expectations. Incomplete characterization suggests careless work and raises reproducibility concerns.

Proposing compound without clear structural novelty or purpose

Incremental structural variation (adding methyl group, changing substituent position) without clear motivation or demonstrated novelty is weak. Show why this structure matters.

Bioactivity testing without positive controls or dose-response curves

Proper bioactivity assessment requires dose-response curves, positive controls, appropriate statistical analysis. Single-concentration activity screening is insufficient.

Overclaiming synthetic improvements without rigorous comparison

Claiming a method is 'greener' or 'more efficient' without comparing yield, selectivity, cost, and environmental metrics against established methods is overreaching.

Lack of mechanistic understanding or structure-activity insight

Papers just reporting compounds without SAR analysis or mechanistic explanation feel incomplete. Explain why structural modifications affect biological or chemical properties.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The Free Readiness Scan reads your full manuscript against Molecules's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from Molecules Authors

Natural product discovery or bioactive compound isolation is always competitive

Research on traditional plant medicines, marine organisms, or fungi revealing bioactive compounds often receives strong reception. Natural product chemistry remains scientifically prominent.

Green chemistry and sustainable synthesis methods are increasingly valued

Synthesis using non-toxic solvents, renewable feedstocks, or catalytic approaches is increasingly competitive. Demonstrate environmental advantages alongside chemical performance.

Structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies with multiple congeners are valued

Testing multiple related compounds to understand how structure affects bioactivity or chemical properties is more impactful than single-compound reports.

Computational validation of experimental findings strengthens papers

Combining experimental synthesis/characterization with molecular docking or computational prediction of properties demonstrates sophisticated approach.

Biological target validation strengthens medicinal chemistry papers

For bioactive compounds, identifying specific cellular/molecular target and validating mechanism significantly increases impact over generic bioactivity screening.

The Molecules Submission Process

Manuscript preparation

Prep

4,000-7,000 words with 4-6 figures. Include synthesis details or natural product isolation procedure, complete spectroscopic characterization (NMR, MS, IR), structural elucidation, bioactivity testing if applicable, and SAR discussion. Supporting info: full spectroscopic data, NMR spectra, experimental procedures.

Submission via MDPI system

Day 0

Submit at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/submit. Required: manuscript, figures with structures clearly highlighted, cover letter emphasizing novelty and significance of findings.

Editorial assessment

1-2 weeks

Editor assesses novelty, characterization completeness, and scientific quality. Papers with incomplete characterization or lacking clear novelty may be desk-rejected. Moderate desk rejection ~20-30%.

Peer review

60-90 days

2 reviewers assess novelty, characterization rigor, and significance. Reviewers scrutinize spectroscopic data carefully. First decision 60-90 days.

Revision and publication

Revision: 2-4 weeks

Revisions may request additional spectroscopic data, bioactivity detail, or SAR explanation. Publication 1-2 weeks after acceptance (fast open-access publication).

Molecules by the Numbers

2024 Impact Factor	4.6
5-Year Impact Factor	4.9
Acceptance rate	~50-60%
Desk rejection rate	~20-30%
Median first decision	~75 days
Open access APC	~$2,100 CHF
Publisher	MDPI
Founded	1996

Before you submit

Molecules accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review. The full report is calibrated to Molecules.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Research Article

4,000-7,000 words

Novel synthesis, characterization, or bioactivity findings

Short Note

2,000-3,000 words

Brief synthesis or discovery report

Review

7,000-12,000 words

Comprehensive molecular chemistry topic review

Landmark Molecules Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

Natural product antibiotics (penicillin, tetracycline discovery) - revolutionized medicine
Medicinal chemistry SAR paradigm (1960s-1980s) - enabled rational drug design
Asymmetric synthesis methods (Sharpless, 2000s) - won multiple Nobel prizes
Natural product total synthesis (Woodward, Corey) - demonstrated synthetic mastery
Green chemistry principles (1990s-present) - transformed organic synthesis approaches

Preparing a Molecules Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in Molecules and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? See Expert Review Options

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Organic SynthesisNatural ProductsMedicinal ChemistryStructural CharacterizationBioactivity AssessmentGreen Chemistry

More Guides for This Journal

Ready to submit to Molecules?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what Molecules editors look for.

Avoid Desk Rejection

Get expert pre-submission review before you submit to Molecules. 3-7 day turnaround.

Manuscript Rejected?

Expert revision help to strengthen your manuscript and resubmit with confidence.

Reviewer Response Help

Get expert guidance crafting your response to Molecules reviewers.

Reference library

Compare Molecules with the broader publishing context

This journal guide is the best starting point for Molecules. The reference library covers the surrounding questions authors usually ask next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how neighboring journals compare, and what the submission constraints look like across the field.

Open the reference library →

Checklist system / operational asset

Elite Submission Checklist

A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.

Flagship report / decision support

Desk Rejection Report

A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.

Dataset / reference hub

Journal Intelligence Dataset

A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.

Dataset / reference guide

Peer Review Timelines by Journal

Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.