Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 6 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 1.2 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 1.3 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.5 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.8 compare →
Quality of review reports 4.5 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.8 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.7 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 4.1 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

This work was initially submitted to JACS and then to Chem Sci. In both cases, it was subjected to desk rejection. In the former, with a poor assessment by the Associate Editor and in the latter, the academic Editor did not bother to respond to a rebuttal. By contrast, Advanced Synthesis and Catalysis gave the work a fair assessment. The review process was robust, it was initially assessed by 4 reviewers (3 recommended minor revision and 1 recommended major revision). Due to the time needed for the revisions, the manuscript was withdrawn, revised, and resubmitted. A single review of the revised version was received and the work was published smoothly. As we suspected this work seems to have garnered quite a bit of attention, landing it in the top 10% of most downloaded articles in the Jan 2018-Dec 2019 time range. Overall, a reasonably satisfying experience. The one matter the Editors may wish to consider is the onerous job of formatting the manuscript in a template. I think they should request this once the manuscript is accepted (this becomes a major time consumption if the manuscript faces rejection from another venue as was the case here).