You've seen the abbreviation in citations. Chem.Ind. Day to day, * — four words compressed into a tidy string of initials. Even so, j. Eng. Consider this: maybe you've spotted it on a professor's CV or buried in a literature review. But what is it, really? And why does it show up so often when you're digging into chemical engineering research?
Here's the short version: it's one of the workhorse journals in the field. Here's the thing — not the flashiest. Not the one with the highest impact factor. But if you publish there, people in the community take you seriously. And if you're trying to understand where the field is heading, you ignore it at your peril.
What Is the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Launched in 1992 by the Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (KSIEC), the journal sits at the intersection of fundamental chemistry and practical engineering. That's the "industrial" part — it's not just about molecules in a beaker. It's about molecules in a reactor, a separation column, a membrane module, a catalytic converter running at 400°C with real feedstock and real impurities.
The scope is deliberately broad. Reaction engineering. Separation technology. Process systems engineering. Now, energy and environmental technology. Now, materials for industrial applications. Also, biochemical engineering. Polymer science. If it involves chemical transformation at scale — or the science that enables it — it fits.
One thing that trips people up: there's also Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research* (IECR), published by the American Chemical Society. Practically speaking, different journal. Different publisher. Different history. In real terms, iECR traces back to 1909. That said, j. Ind. In real terms, eng. Even so, chem. * is younger, Korean-founded, but fully international in editorial board and authorship. Both are respected. In practice, both are indexed in SCIE, Scopus, and all the usual databases. But they're not the same.
A journal with a clear identity
What distinguishes J. These issues often become citation magnets. Day to day, * from the pack? First, it publishes both full papers and short communications — the latter for results that are significant but don't need 12 pages of exposition. Third, the review process is known for being thorough but not glacial. Second, it runs regular special issues on hot topics: carbon capture, hydrogen economy, plastic upcycling, battery materials. Also, eng. Ind. A few things. Median time to first decision hovers around 4–6 weeks. Worth adding: chem. In a field where some journals take months just to assign an editor, that matters.
Why It Matters / Why People Care
You might wonder: does the journal you publish in actually change anything? In practice, in academia, yes. In industry R&D, also yes — but differently.
For researchers, J. Plus, its impact factor has climbed steadily — 5. Plus, it's indexed in Web of Science, so it counts for tenure, promotion, grant reporting, and national research evaluations (especially in Korea, China, Japan, and increasingly Europe). That said, 7 in 2023, 6. On top of that, that's not Nature Catalysis* territory, but it's respectable. Because of that, * hits a sweet spot. Even so, chem. Consider this: 1 in 2022 — putting it solidly in Q1 for Chemical Engineering. Eng. So ind. And because the journal publishes a high volume (12 issues per year, often 150+ papers per issue), it's a realistic target for solid, incremental work that might get rejected from higher-impact venues for "lack of novelty.
But here's what most people miss: the readership isn't just academics. That said, industrial researchers subscribe. On the flip side, process engineers at petrochemical companies, membrane startups, battery manufacturers — they scan the table of contents. And i've had engineers at LG Chem and SK Innovation tell me they found a solvent system or catalyst formulation in J. Which means ind. Eng. In practice, chem. Because of that, * that they later piloted. That's the "industrial" part living up to its name.
The citation reality
Let's talk numbers. If you're chasing citation metrics alone, this isn't the lottery ticket. And a typical paper in this journal accumulates 15–25 citations within three years. Now, review articles? But the median is modest. Double or triple that. The most-cited papers — often on CO2 capture materials, photocatalytic water splitting, or advanced oxidation processes — have thousands. It's the steady paycheck.
And that's fine. Most research is incremental. The field advances because hundreds of groups publish careful, reproducible studies on catalyst deactivation kinetics or membrane fouling mechanisms. J. Ind. Eng. Also, chem. * gives those studies a home.
How It Works: Publishing in the Journal
So you have a manuscript. Maybe your tenth. Maybe it's your first submission to this journal. Here's what the process actually looks like — not the idealized version on the website, but the lived experience.
Want to learn more? We recommend journal of physical chemistry letters impact factor and map of new york and massachusetts for further reading.
Manuscript preparation
Start with the guide for authors. Sounds obvious, but half the desk rejections come from ignoring it. The journal uses a standard structure: Title, Abstract (250 words max), Keywords (4–6), Introduction, Experimental/Theoretical, Results and Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgments, References. Supplementary information goes in a separate file.
Word count? So figures and tables should be publication-ready — the journal doesn't redraw them. On the flip side, no hard limit, but most full papers land between 6,000–10,000 words including references. Short communications: under 4,000 words. If your schematics look like they were made in MS Paint, the reviewers will notice.
One quirk: the journal asks for a "Graphical Abstract" — a single figure summarizing the key finding. Still, it appears in the table of contents. Still, make it count. A good graphical abstract gets more clicks. More clicks mean more reads. More reads mean more citations. It's that simple.
Submission system
Everything runs through Editorial Manager. You'll need an ORCID. You'll suggest reviewers — do this thoughtfully. Also, don't just list your friends. Pick people who've published on your exact topic in the last 2–3 years. The editor may ignore your suggestions, but good ones signal you know the literature.
You'll also declare conflicts of interest, funding sources, and author contributions (CRediT taxonomy). This is mandatory. Skip it and the system won't let you submit.
The review process
Here's where it gets real. After submission, the paper goes to an Associate Editor (AE) — usually a professor or senior researcher with expertise in your subfield. Here's the thing — the AE makes a triage decision: send for review or desk reject. Desk rejections happen fast (3–7 days) and usually mean the paper is out of scope, lacks novelty, or has fatal flaws in methodology.
If it goes to review, you'll typically get 2–3 reviewers. Still, the journal uses single-blind review (reviewers know authors; authors don't know reviewers). Which means reviewers have 14 days. In practice, it's often 3–4 weeks. The AE then makes a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Minor revision means the science is solid but needs clarification, better figures, additional references, or small additional experiments. You get 30 days. Major revision means new data, re-analysis, or significant restructuring. You get 60 days. Use them. Rushed revisions get rejected.
Reject doesn't mean the work is bad. It means the AE and reviewers didn't see enough advance for this* journal. You can appeal — but appeals rarely succeed unless you can point to a factual error in the review. Better to take the feedback, improve the paper, and submit elsewhere.
After acceptance
Once accepted, the paper enters production. Check them carefully. You'll get proofs to check — usually 48 hours. Typesetters make errors.
Conclusion
The journey of submitting a manuscript to a reputable journal is a meticulous process that demands attention to detail, scientific rigor, and strategic planning. From crafting a compelling graphical abstract to navigating the review process and meticulously proofreading the final version, each step plays a critical role in determining the paper’s success. The emphasis on publication-ready figures and tables underscores the importance of visual clarity in communicating research findings, while the structured submission system via Editorial Manager ensures transparency and fairness.
A key takeaway is the value of thoughtful reviewer selection and adherence to ethical standards, such as declaring conflicts of interest and using the CRediT taxonomy for author contributions. Think about it: these practices not only enhance the credibility of the work but also align with the journal’s commitment to scholarly integrity. On top of that, the review process, though sometimes challenging, offers an opportunity to refine the research, address gaps, and strengthen the narrative. Whether facing minor or major revisions, authors are encouraged to embrace feedback as a tool for improvement rather than a setback.
The bottom line: the goal is not merely acceptance but the dissemination of high-quality, impactful research. A well-prepared submission, supported by a reliable graphical abstract and thorough revisions, increases the likelihood of visibility, reads, and citations—critical metrics in today’s academic landscape. That said, while rejections are common, they should be viewed as part of the iterative process of scientific communication. By following the guidelines, remaining persistent, and continuously refining their work, authors can figure out this system effectively, contributing meaningfully to their field. The journey may be demanding, but the rewards of sharing rigorous, well-presented research are well worth the effort.
