Journal Guides9 min read•Updated Mar 16, 2026

Advanced Energy Materials Submission Guide: What to Prepare Before You Submit

Advanced Energy Materials's submission process, first-decision timing, and the editorial checks that matter before peer review begins.

By ManuSights Team•March 16, 2026

Readiness scan

Before you submit to Advanced Energy Materials, pressure-test the manuscript.

Run the Free Readiness Scan to catch the issues most likely to stop the paper before peer review.

Run Free Readiness ScanAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.Open Advanced Energy Materials Guide

Stage	What to check
1. Scope	Manuscript preparation
2. Package	Submission via Wiley system
3. Cover letter	Editorial assessment
4. Final check	Peer review

Advanced Energy Materials is one of the clearest “fit matters more than formatting” journals in energy materials. A manuscript can be technically strong and still fail here if the editors think the performance case is incremental, the device validation is thin, or the story feels more like specialty materials work than a genuine energy advance.

The journal targets materials for energy conversion, storage, and harvesting with demonstrated practical relevance. Success requires more than good science. You need a material story that solves a meaningful energy problem and shows why the performance difference matters.

Quick answer: what matters most before you submit

If you are preparing an Advanced Energy Materials submission, the core question is not whether the manuscript is formatted cleanly. It is whether the paper already reads like a top-tier energy materials paper before it enters the Wiley portal.

That means the editors should be able to see, quickly:

what energy problem the material solves
why the performance is more than an incremental improvement
why the device-level validation is convincing enough for this journal
why the manuscript belongs in Advanced Energy Materials instead of a narrower materials venue

Formatting, file prep, and portal details matter. But for this journal, editorial fit and performance credibility matter first.

What Advanced Energy Materials Actually Publishes

Advanced Energy Materials focuses on materials that directly enable energy technologies: battery electrodes, solar cell components, fuel cell catalysts, thermoelectric materials, and related energy systems. The key word is still materials. Not general device engineering, not system optimization, but the material advance that makes energy technology better.

The journal distinguishes itself from competitors like Applied Energy by requiring materials-level innovation rather than device optimization. If you're improving a solar cell by changing the architecture, that belongs in Applied Energy. If you're creating a new perovskite material with record stability, that fits Advanced Energy Materials.

Article types include Full Papers (original research), Communications (rapid publication of significant advances), and Reviews (comprehensive overviews). Communications get faster review but require truly exceptional results. Most submissions should target Full Papers unless you have genuinely groundbreaking performance metrics.

The editorial scope excludes purely fundamental materials science without energy relevance. Your polymer might have interesting properties, but unless it enables better batteries or solar cells, it doesn't belong here. Similarly, energy system modeling without new materials doesn't fit.

Focus areas include: lithium and beyond-lithium batteries, perovskite and organic photovoltaics, hydrogen production and storage materials, thermoelectric generators, supercapacitors, and solid-state energy devices. The common thread is materials that convert, store, or harvest energy more effectively than existing options.

Step-by-Step Submission Process

Start at Wiley's submission portal for Advanced Energy Materials and assume that the technical submission steps are the easy part. The harder part is making the package look editorially complete before anyone opens the PDF.

Upload your main manuscript in the format accepted by the journal, and check the current author instructions before final submission because portal requirements can change. The journal template helps, but clean, readable formatting matters more than rigid template obedience.

Figure requirements are strict. Make sure the files are publication-grade and that every figure can survive a fast editorial read. If the key performance comparison is hard to read or the benchmarking is visually messy, the scientific result will feel weaker than it is.

Supporting Information should include complete experimental details, additional characterization, and the performance evidence needed to trust the main claims. In this field, thin SI often signals a manuscript that is not ready for a top-tier decision.

The cover letter should be plain, specific, and performance-led. Do not treat it as a formal courtesy note. Treat it as the first editorial framing document.

During submission, categorize the paper by energy application carefully. These selections influence early editorial routing and reviewer choice, so they should reflect the manuscript’s real center of gravity.

Suggested reviewers are optional but helpful. Provide 3-5 names with email addresses and brief expertise statements. Don't suggest your collaborators, former advisors, or close colleagues. Independence matters.

Review the submission summary page carefully before finalizing. Missing figures, inconsistent file names, or incomplete author information create avoidable friction at a journal where the real scientific bar is already high.

After submission, keep the manuscript number and final uploaded files organized. If the paper goes to review, you will want a stable record of exactly what the editors and reviewers saw.

Cover Letter That Gets Past Editors

Your cover letter should answer three questions in the first paragraph: What did you make? Why is it better? Why does it matter for energy applications?

Start with the specific material and its energy function: "We report a cobalt-free cathode material for lithium-ion batteries with 280 mAh/g capacity and 5000 cycle stability." Don't bury the lead in background information.

Emphasize performance breakthroughs with concrete numbers. "15% efficiency improvement" is better than "significant enhancement." Editors see hundreds of claimed improvements. Specific metrics help yours stand out.

Address practical relevance explicitly. Energy materials must work in real systems, not just laboratory conditions. If your material only performs well under ideal conditions, acknowledge the limitations and explain why the fundamental advance matters anyway.

Avoid template language from our journal cover letter guide. Every cover letter that says "we believe this work will be of interest to your readers" sounds identical. Instead, explain why your specific results advance the field.

Keep it under 400 words. Editors skim cover letters quickly. Long explanations suggest you're trying to convince them rather than simply describing genuinely good work.

What Editors Really Want (And Common Rejection Reasons)

Editors prioritize materials that enable better energy technologies, not just interesting science. Your work must connect to practical energy challenges: longer battery life, more efficient solar cells, cheaper fuel cells, or more stable energy storage.

The biggest rejection reason is incremental improvement without breakthrough significance. Adding 5% to battery capacity isn't enough unless you explain why that specific improvement matters systemically. Does it enable electric vehicle adoption? Reduce grid storage costs? Make renewable energy more viable?

Editors want system-level thinking. Don't just optimize one property while ignoring others. Better battery capacity means nothing if cycle life decreases proportionally. Higher solar efficiency doesn't matter if manufacturing costs become prohibitive.

Another common failure: claiming practical applications without supporting evidence. If you say your material enables flexible electronics, show flexibility data. If you claim low-cost synthesis, provide cost analysis or at least material price comparisons.

The journal values mechanistic understanding but won't publish mechanism-only papers. Understanding why your material works is important for reproducibility and optimization, but it's not sufficient justification for publication. Show how the mechanism enables better performance.

Editors also reject papers that belong in specialty journals. If your work is purely about lithium battery cathodes without broader implications, consider Journal of Power Sources instead. Advanced Energy Materials wants materials insights that apply across energy technologies.

Finally, avoid overselling preliminary results. Editors see many papers claiming "game-changing" performance based on limited testing. Present your best data honestly and let the results speak for themselves. Hype creates skepticism, not interest.

Review Timeline and What to Expect

Initial editorial screening takes 1-2 weeks. Papers that clearly fall outside scope or lack sufficient novelty get desk rejected quickly. Don't take this personally — it saves everyone time compared to a full review process that would reach the same conclusion.

Peer review typically requires 8-12 weeks once reviewers are assigned. Energy materials papers often need specialized reviewers who understand both materials chemistry and device applications. Finding the right expertise takes time.

Expect 2-4 reviewers per submission. Reviews are generally thorough and constructive. Reviewers understand the technical challenges of energy materials research and provide detailed feedback on experimental design, characterization, and performance claims.

Revision requests are common and don't indicate paper quality problems. Most accepted papers require at least one revision round. Reviewers might request additional experiments, better mechanistic explanation, or more comprehensive performance testing.

The second review round moves faster, typically 4-6 weeks. Reviewers focus on how well you addressed their initial concerns rather than conducting a complete re-evaluation.

Accept/reject decisions come with detailed editorial letters explaining the reasoning. Even rejected papers receive constructive feedback that improves future submissions.

Pre-Submission Checklist

Verify your materials research addresses a specific energy application with quantitative performance metrics. General materials science without energy relevance won't fit the scope.

Check figure quality and formatting. All figures should be readable as standalone items with complete captions explaining what readers are seeing. Energy performance data needs error bars and statistical significance testing.

Complete your Supporting Information before submission. Include full experimental procedures, additional characterization data, and performance comparisons with existing materials. The SI often determines whether reviewers can reproduce and validate your work.

Read recent issues to understand current publication standards. Performance thresholds evolve as the field advances. What seemed impressive two years ago might not meet current expectations.

Consider whether your work fits better in Applied Catalysis B for catalytic energy applications or Energy for system-level analysis. Advanced Energy Materials sits between fundamental materials science and applied energy technology.

Verify all co-author approvals and institutional permissions. Energy materials research often involves industry collaborations with confidentiality requirements. Clear these issues before submission, not during review.

Review your cover letter for specific performance claims backed by data in your manuscript. Editors will fact-check these statements against your results.

Getting your energy materials research published in top-tier journals requires more than good science — it needs strategic positioning and flawless execution. ManuSights helps researchers navigate the submission process with expert feedback on manuscript positioning, experimental design, and editorial expectations.