Journal of the American Chemical Society

2022.03.05 submitted
2022.03.09 under review
2022.04.05 received minor revisions
2022.04.12 received feedback after one week, accepted on April 13th.
I worked on material-related research. Previously, I had submitted to Nature Chemistry but was rejected by the editor. Later, my advisor suggested submitting to Angew, but it was also rejected after review. Afterwards, based on the review comments from Angew and in collaboration with a research group in the United States (since I couldn't address some of the suggestions myself), I completed the work. Feeling unsatisfied, I submitted to JACS and it was accepted in just over a month. It's a great pleasure to have my work recognized by JACS as a unique 27th birthday gift~~~ Let me share my thoughts and experiences. I feel that the editors at JACS have a better eye for quality compared to Angew, possibly because JACS editors are frontline scientists, while Angew has professional editors who may overlook certain aspects. Hmph! However, it is true that having authors affiliated with American institutions in JACS articles can indeed increase acceptance rates! This is a bit different from Angew, as professional editors don't need to cultivate their own network. Wishing everyone success in getting their articles accepted, hahaha.

August 27, 21 - Paper submission
August 30, 21 - Assigned to JACS Executive Editor Prof. Karen Wooley
September 12, 21 - Paper under review, In Peer Review
October 7, 21 - Received feedback from three reviewers, 2 accepted directly, 1 minor revision required. Editor gave the revision instructions and requested to return the feedback within 14 days. All three reviewers gave a TOP 5% evaluation.
October 20, 21 - Paper revisions submitted
October 24, 21 - Second round of revisions, preliminary acceptance pending modifications to formatting and other issues
October 26, 21 - Second round of revisions
October 30, 21 - Paper accepted. Email begins with "Thank you for publishing this innovative work in JACS!"
The lesson learned is that the novelty of the work must be high, which is very important. If JACS receives a rejection or generally negative evaluations from any reviewer, they will directly reject the paper. Recently, I visited Prof. Karen Wooley's paper on peptide batteries published in Nature. I truly believe that to publish in a journal like JACS, one must have innovative and meaningful work. Let's all work hard and hope to publish in this journal again in the future, as it is the most authoritative and influential journal in the field of chemistry.