Acs Omega Time To First Decision

You hit submit. The confirmation email arrives. And then — nothing.

Days turn into weeks. " "Under Review.Practically speaking, you check the manuscript tracker more often than you'd like to admit. That's why "Under Review. " "Under Review.On the flip side, " If you've submitted to ACS Omega in the last year or two, you know this rhythm. And that "time to first decision" metric everyone watches? Even so, the journal's grown fast. Think about it: submissions are up. It's been doing something interesting.

Let's talk about what's actually happening.

What Is ACS Omega

ACS Omega launched in 2016 as the American Chemical Society's fully open-access, broad-scope chemistry journal. In real terms, think of it as the society's answer to Scientific Reports or PLOS ONE — but for chemistry. No perceived impact factor gatekeeping. No "not enough advance for our specialist journals" rejections. If the science is sound, it belongs here.

The scope is deliberately wide. In 2023, the journal handled over 15,000 manuscripts. On top of that, organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, materials, chemical biology, energy, environmental — if a chemist does it, ACS Omega considers it. That breadth is exactly why submission volumes have climbed steadily since launch. That's a lot of peer review to manage.

And because it's fully open access, authors pay an article processing charge (APC) — currently $2,200 for ACS members, $2,500 for non-members. Which means authors have a legitimate expectation: if I'm paying this much, the process should be efficient.

Why Time to First Decision Matters

First decision isn't just a vanity metric. It shapes everything downstream.

A fast rejection lets you move on — submit elsewhere, rewrite, pivot. A fast acceptance means your data hits the literature while it's still fresh. But a slow anything*? That's where careers get stuck. Grant deadlines loom. Thesis committees ask questions. Postdoc applications need publications now.

ACS Omega publishes its median time to first decision in the journal's "About" page and annual reports. In real terms, the number has hovered in the 30–40 day range for a while. But medians hide the spread. Some papers get decisions in two weeks. Others sit for three months. The difference usually comes down to reviewer availability — and whether the editor can find two people willing to say yes.

Here's what most authors don't realize: the clock doesn't start at submission. It starts when the editor assigns reviewers. Even so, if a manuscript sits on an editor's desk for ten days before invitations go out, those ten days don't count in the official metric. But they count for you.

How the Review Process Works at ACS Omega

Initial Editorial Assessment

Every manuscript gets read by a handling editor — usually a member of the editorial advisory board or a staff editor. They're checking: scope fit, basic technical soundness, ethical compliance (plagiarism checks, image integrity), and whether the work meets the "scientifically valid" threshold.

This step can take anywhere from 24 hours to two weeks. Staff editors move faster. Board members have day jobs running labs. If your paper lands with a busy board member during conference season, you wait.

Desk rejections happen here. Practically speaking, roughly 25–30% of submissions never reach reviewers. Consider this: common reasons: out of scope, insufficient advance, major methodological flaws, or incomplete characterization. If you get a desk rejection, it usually comes fast — under a week.

Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

Once the editor sends invitations, the real variability begins. Now, aCS Omega uses a reviewer suggestion system (authors can propose names, though editors aren't obligated to use them) and an internal database. Reviewers get two weeks to accept or decline.

Many decline. If the first choices decline, the editor goes deeper into the pool. In practice, a single round of invitations can take 7–14 days just to get two "yes" responses. Here's the thing — everyone's busy. This is where the invisible delay lives.

Review Period

Reviewers typically get 14–21 days to return reports. Extensions are common. Most reviewers do this unpaid, on evenings and weekends. Even so, a thorough review takes 3–6 hours. Life intervenes.

The editor waits for both* reports. One fast reviewer + one slow reviewer = the slow reviewer's timeline. Some editors will make a decision with one report if it's decisive, but that's not standard practice.

Editorial Decision

Once reports arrive, the editor reads them, weighs them, and writes a decision letter. Options: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject. For revisions, the editor usually summarizes key points and adds their own assessment.

This step is usually fast — a few days. But if reports conflict sharply, the editor might seek a third opinion. That adds another 2–3 weeks.

What the Data Actually Shows

ACS Omega publishes aggregate statistics annually. Here's the thing — the 2023 report showed a median time to first decision of around 34 days. On the flip side, the 2022 report: 38 days. But 2021: 42 days. The trend has been gradually improving.

But — and this matters — those are medians across all outcomes. So accepted papers tend to have longer review cycles than rejected ones. Revisions add time. A paper that goes "Major Revision → Resubmit → Accept" might accumulate 120+ days before final acceptance, even if the first* decision came at day 35.

The journal also reports "time to first decision for rejected manuscripts" separately in some years. That number is typically lower — often 20–25 days median. Desk rejections pull it down.

What you won't find in public reports: breakdowns by subfield, by editor, by season, or by geographic region. Day to day, anecdotally, materials and energy papers sometimes move faster (larger reviewer pool). Highly specialized physical chemistry or theoretical work can stall waiting for the right* expert.

If you found this helpful, you might also enjoy applied materials and interface impact factor or acs award for team innovation 2017 recipients affiliated institutions.

And the APC factor? Consider this: there's no evidence that paying the fee speeds up review. That said, the editorial process is firewalled from the business side. But the expectation* of speed is real — and the journal knows it.

Common Mistakes Authors Make

Submitting Incomplete Characterization

This is the single biggest cause of avoidable delays. If you claim a new compound, you need clean NMR, HRMS, elemental analysis (or a very good reason why not). ACS Omega's scope is broad, but its standards aren't low. If you report a catalyst, you need turnover numbers, stability data, comparison to benchmarks.

Reviewers will* ask for missing data. That triggers a Major Revision. Which means another full review cycle. Which adds 6–10 weeks.

Do the work before you submit. Run the extra experiment. Get the clean spectrum. It's faster than the revision loop.

Ignoring the "Broad Scope" Reality

Some authors write introductions and discussions as if they're submitting to JACS or Angewandte — hyping novelty, claiming paradigm shifts. ACS Omega reviewers evaluate soundness*, not perceived impact. Overstated claims irritate reviewers. They'll call it out. Plus, the editor sees it. The decision letter reflects it.

Frame your work honestly: "We report X. It advances Y by doing Z.

…It advances Y by doing Z.” Keeping the narrative grounded helps reviewers focus on the science rather than on inflated rhetoric.

Overlooking Journal‑Specific Formatting

ACS Omega has a detailed author guide that covers everything from figure resolution to reference style. Submitting manuscripts with low‑resolution graphics, missing graphical abstracts, or incorrect citation formats often triggers a desk‑reject or a request for minor revisions that could have been avoided. Spending an extra hour to run the manuscript through the journal’s template checker saves days later in the process.

Neglecting the Supplementary Information Policy

While ACS Omega allows extensive supporting information, reviewers expect the main text to be self‑contained for the core claims. Dumping essential data — such as kinetic plots, control experiments, or safety notes — into the SI without clear cross‑references forces reviewers to hunt for evidence, slowing their assessment. Clearly label SI sections and refer to them explicitly in the main manuscript (“see Supporting Information Section S3 for the full HPLC trace”).

Inadequate Response to Reviewer Comments

When a revision is requested, authors sometimes address only part of the reviewer’s points or provide vague replies (“we agree”). This can lead to a second round of major revisions. A point‑by‑point response, with direct quotations of the reviewer’s comment and a concise description of how each issue was resolved (including new data, revised text, or justification for why no change was needed), demonstrates responsiveness and often convinces the editor to move toward acceptance after a single revision cycle.

Ignoring Ethical Disclosures

ACS Omega requires explicit statements on conflicts of interest, funding sources, and, where applicable, animal or human ethics approvals. Omitting or burying these disclosures can trigger compliance checks that add weeks to the timeline, especially if the editorial office needs to request clarification from the authors’ institutions.

Strategies to Shorten the Review Timeline

Pre‑submission checklist – Run through the journal’s author guide, verify figure quality, confirm all required data (NMR, HRMS, elemental analysis, catalytic metrics) are present, and ensure the manuscript’s tone matches ACS Omega’s emphasis on soundness over hype.
Target the right editor – If your work lies at the interface of two subfields, note in the cover letter which editor’s expertise aligns best; this can reduce the time spent searching for suitable reviewers.
take advantage of suggested reviewers – Provide a short list of experts who have recently published on closely related topics, along with a brief justification. Editors often use these suggestions to accelerate the invitation process.
Prepare a solid SI – Include all supporting spectra, raw data, and detailed protocols, but keep the main text focused. Clear cross‑referencing prevents reviewers from feeling they need to chase missing information.
Draft a thorough response letter – For revisions, adopt a structured format: reviewer comment → author response → location of changes (page/line). Attach revised manuscripts with changes highlighted (track changes or colored text).

Implementing these practices can shave several weeks off the typical 34‑day median first‑decision time, especially for manuscripts that would otherwise linger in the revision loop.

Conclusion

ACS Omega’s review process is relatively swift compared with many specialty journals, with a median first‑decision time of about one month and a gradual improvement over recent years. On the flip side, the overall timeline from submission to final acceptance can extend well beyond this figure when manuscripts undergo major revisions, require additional data, or encounter reviewer availability issues. The biggest delays stem from avoidable shortcomings — incomplete characterization, mismatched scope, formatting lapses, insufficient supplementary detail, and inadequate revision responses. By aligning submissions with the journal’s emphasis on methodological rigor, attending to formatting and ethical requirements, and communicating clearly with editors and reviewers, authors can significantly reduce unnecessary back‑and‑forth and move their work toward publication more efficiently. The bottom line: understanding both the published metrics and the hidden variables that influence review speed empowers researchers to plan their submission strategy realistically and to present their science in the way ACS Omega values most: solid, reproducible, and transparently reported.