journal-of-power-sources

name	journal-of-power-sources
description	Use when targeting Journal of Power Sources or deciding whether an electrochemical-power-device manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the device-and-electrochemistry contribution bar, cell-level performance and diagnostics rigor, house style, the device-vs-materials routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

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>