journal-of-power-sources

Journal of Power Sources (journal-of-power-sources)

Journal positioning

Journal of Power Sources (Elsevier) is an archival venue for the **science and

technology of electrochemical power devices**: batteries, fuel cells, and

supercapacitors at the cell/electrode/electrolyte level — their engineering,

performance, degradation, and diagnostics. Its center of gravity is the **device and

its electrochemistry**: how an electrode, electrolyte, interface, or cell architecture

governs measured device behavior (capacity, rate, efficiency, cycle life, failure). A

paper that reports only a new active material's properties, with electrochemistry as an

afterthought, fits the materials family better; this journal rewards an advance you can

read in the cell's performance and diagnostics. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection

/ re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author

guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Journal of Power Sources Guide for

Authors on the Elsevier site.

When to trigger

• The author names Journal of Power Sources for a battery, fuel-cell, or supercapacitor

manuscript centered on cell/electrode/electrolyte engineering or diagnostics.

• A paper must be re-framed from "we made a material" into a device-and-electrochemistry

story tied to measured cell performance and degradation.

• The author is deciding between this device venue and the materials-mechanism venue

energy-storage-materials, or the systems venue applied-energy.

• The author needs the journal's cell-level performance and diagnostics rigor bar and

desk-reject heuristics.

Scope & topic fit

• Batteries: electrode and electrolyte engineering, cell design, performance, and

the electrochemistry governing rate, capacity, and efficiency at the device level.

• Degradation, aging, safety, and failure analysis: cycle-life, calendar aging,

thermal behavior, and post-mortem/operando diagnostics of cells.

• Fuel cells and electrolyzers: catalyst layers, membranes/electrolytes, and

cell/stack performance, durability, and water/thermal management.

• Supercapacitors and hybrid devices: electrode and electrolyte engineering with

device-level rate and energy/power characterization.

• Diagnostics and characterization methods (EIS, operando, modeling of cells) that

illuminate device behavior, performance, or degradation mechanisms.

• Cell-level modeling and battery-management-relevant analysis tied to measured devices.

Method & evidence bar

• The central claim is a device/electrochemistry advance: the contribution must be

legible in cell-level metrics under clearly stated, realistic protocols, not only in

material characterization.

• Electrochemical testing must report mass/areal loading, current density (C-rate or

mA cm⁻²), voltage window, electrolyte, and cell configuration; half-cell vs. full-cell

context must be honest.

• Performance must be benchmarked against credible device-level state-of-the-art under

comparable conditions; capacity/rate claims at trivial loadings are weak.

• Degradation/diagnostics claims require sufficient cycling/aging duration and a

mechanism supported by operando or post-mortem evidence, not a single fade curve.

• Reproducibility: report cell-build details, number of cells, and statistics; safety-

relevant claims need appropriate characterization.

Structure & house style

• Standard research-article structure (introduction, experimental, results,

discussion); the journal uses highlights and a graphical abstract — re-check current

article types and requirements on the live guide.

• The introduction frames the device/electrochemistry gap and the performance or

degradation problem; the discussion ties electrode/electrolyte/interface variables to

measured cell behavior.

• Figures are load-bearing: rate and cycling data at stated loadings, voltage profiles,

EIS/operando diagnostics, and post-mortem analysis with controls.

• Supporting information carries full cell-build and testing protocols and extended

electrochemical data; main-text figures must support the device claim on their own.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and

../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite

the current Journal of Power Sources Guide for Authors page you checked.

• Search the live site for "Journal of Power Sources guide for authors" and follow the

current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.

• Re-check article types, highlights and graphical-abstract requirements, and

electrochemical-reporting conventions (loadings, current densities, cell type).

• Confirm data-availability and any expectation to report full cell-build and cycling

protocols for reproducibility.

• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use

disclosure requirements.

• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official

instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The advance is legible in cell-level performance/degradation, not only in material characterization.
• [ ] Loading, current density, voltage window, electrolyte, and cell configuration are reported; half- vs full-cell context is honest.
• [ ] Performance is benchmarked against device-level state-of-the-art under comparable conditions, at realistic loadings.
• [ ] Degradation/diagnostics claims have sufficient duration and operando/post-mortem mechanism evidence.
• [ ] Cell-build details, number of cells, and statistics are reported for reproducibility.
• [ ] Highlights and graphical abstract represent the device/electrochemistry advance.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Material-only study with token electrochemistry and no device-level contribution.
• Capacity/rate claims at trivial mass/areal loadings or with undisclosed test conditions.
• Half-cell results presented as if they were full-cell device performance.
• Single fade curve offered as degradation analysis with no mechanism or operando/post-mortem evidence.
• Performance benchmarked against a strawman or under non-comparable protocols.
• Pure materials-synthesis or pure mechanism paper better suited to a materials venue.

Re-routing decision

• Electrode/electrolyte materials and structure–property mechanism as the core → energy-storage-materials.
• Systems-level energy integration / techno-economic scope → applied-energy.
• Membrane/electrolyte transport mechanism as the central science → journal-of-membrane-science.
• Applied electrocatalysis as a process/material advance → chemical-engineering-journal.
• Highest-profile energy-device breakthrough → nature-energy or joule (different selectivity/format; re-check).

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Power Sources
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest device subtopics (battery/fuel-cell/supercapacitor)>
[Device advance] <the cell/electrode/electrolyte advance read in device metrics, one line>
[Test conditions] <loading / current density / cell type / window stated?>
[Diagnostics/degradation] <duration + operando/post-mortem mechanism present?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / electrochemical-reporting / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if material/system-level, a better-matched venue>