Advanced Functional Materials Submission Process

The administrative sequence is familiar:

• main manuscript
• figures and supporting files
• author details and declarations
• cover letter
• optional reviewer suggestions

On the surface, this looks routine. In practice, the package still matters because AFM editors use it as an early confidence signal. If the figures are hard to parse, the supporting information feels incomplete, or the cover letter is generic, the manuscript starts from a weaker position.

For AFM, the supplement matters early because functional claims often depend on whether the benchmarking, stability, mechanistic support, and validation all look complete enough to trust.

AFM is screening for function, not just material novelty. Editors want to know:

• what the material does better
• how large the gain really is
• why the gain matters in practice
• why the paper is not just an incremental optimization

If the manuscript sounds stronger than the actual performance difference, the process usually becomes much less favorable.

This journal expects claims to be backed by an evidence stack that feels complete:

• material characterization
• functional performance
• comparative benchmarks
• durability or reproducibility where relevant
• mechanistic support when the interpretation depends on it

If one of those layers is thin, editors hesitate before committing reviewer bandwidth.

Papers can slow down when they sit between domains such as materials synthesis, device performance, catalysis, energy systems, or biomedical applications. The process moves better when the manuscript clearly states its center of gravity.

The route to first decision often gets slower in a few predictable places.

If the paper could plausibly be a device paper, a chemistry paper, a materials paper, or an energy paper depending on which section is read first, reviewer routing becomes harder.

AFM editors see many papers claiming superior performance. If the comparison set is weak, selective, or not current, the process slows because the editor does not yet trust the significance claim.

This is one of the biggest hidden problems in AFM submissions. The paper may show interesting structure or synthesis, but if the functional consequence still feels modest, the process can end early.

Use the cluster around this journal before uploading:

• Advanced Functional Materials journal page
• How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Paper
• Desk Rejection: What It Means, Why It Happens, and What to Do Next

If the paper still needs a long explanation for why it belongs in AFM, the process problem is probably fit.

The title, abstract, and first figure should tell the editor:

• what functional problem is being solved
• what performance improvement matters
• what evidence makes the claim believable
• why the result belongs in AFM rather than a narrower venue

Editors should not have to extract that logic from later sections.

For this journal, the SI is not an afterthought. It is where many of the paper's claims are tested informally by the editor. If the SI feels thin, the process becomes weaker fast.

Your cover letter should explain why the functional advance deserves AFM specifically. Not just what the material is, but why the result matters enough for this journal's editorial threshold.

If the work spans multiple domains, say clearly what kind of paper it is. Editors route faster when the core identity is obvious.

That is the real process dynamic. AFM is not simply asking whether the work is good. It is asking whether the work already looks like a functional breakthrough worth this venue.

Before uploading, ask whether an editor could identify the paper's main lane in one quick read. For AFM, the manuscript should clearly look like one of these:

• a functional materials paper with direct performance consequence
• an energy materials paper whose materials advance is the real center
• a device-linked materials paper with clear mechanistic support
• a responsive or smart-materials paper whose function is convincingly demonstrated

If the paper still feels equally like several different kinds of manuscript, the process usually gets slower because reviewer routing becomes less obvious.

Several patterns repeatedly make the AFM process harder.

The paper sounds more important than the data package supports. Editors notice that quickly.

The benchmark set feels selective. If the comparisons are not current or fair, confidence drops.

The manuscript leads with materials novelty while the functional consequence arrives late. AFM wants the functional story early.

The supplement feels like storage, not proof. At this level, a thin SI is a real process problem.

AFM (IF 19.0, JCI 2.70, Q1 rank 9/187 in Materials Science, Multifunctional) occupies a specific niche: materials research where the functional advance is the story, not the material itself. That's the editorial line you need to understand before submitting.

If your paper demonstrates a clear functional breakthrough in energy, biomedical, optical, or electronic materials: AFM is a strong target. The journal rewards papers where the performance improvement is unambiguous and the evidence package is complete.

If your paper is primarily about material synthesis or characterization without a strong functional payoff: You're better served by journals like Chemistry of Materials, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, or a specialist title in your subfield. AFM will screen for function early and won't get past it.

If you're choosing between AFM and Advanced Materials (IF 26.8): Advanced Materials has a higher bar and broader scope, it publishes across all materials science and expects work that reshapes a subfield. AFM is more focused on functional performance and slightly more accessible. If your paper's strength is a well-demonstrated functional gain rather than a paradigm shift, AFM is the better fit.

If the functional advance is incremental: Neither AFM nor Advanced Materials will work. Consider ACS Nano (IF 16.0) for nanoscale work, or Small, Nanoscale, or Journal of Materials Chemistry A/B/C depending on your specific domain.

Last Verified: Wiley author guidelines and Clarivate JCR 2024 (IF 19.0, JCI 2.70, Q1 rank 9/187 in Materials Science, Multifunctional).

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Advanced Functional Materials, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

Functional advance insufficiently demonstrated at editorial triage (roughly 35%). The Advanced Functional Materials author guidelines require that submissions demonstrate a meaningful functional advance over existing literature. In our experience, roughly 35% of desk rejections involve manuscripts where the performance claim is not clearly supported by quantitative comparison against current benchmarks in the abstract and title. Editors consistently flag submissions where the functional gain must be inferred from characterization data rather than stated directly, because AFM's editorial identity centers on functional performance rather than material description.

Application framing without meaningful literature comparison (roughly 25%). In our experience, roughly 25% of submissions describe a functional advance without benchmarking the performance against the most relevant recent literature. In practice editors consistently screen for benchmark comparisons against current state-of-the-art materials, because AFM's position as a high-impact functional materials journal requires that the advance be unambiguously superior to established alternatives rather than nominally better.

Mechanistic support absent for the functional improvement claim (roughly 20%). In our experience, roughly 20% of submissions report strong functional performance without mechanistic studies explaining why the improvement occurs. Editors consistently reject manuscripts where structure-function relationships are described qualitatively but not supported by spectroscopic, kinetic, or computational evidence, because the mechanistic contribution is expected to be a substantive part of the scientific case rather than speculative commentary.

Characterization complete but functional case not convincing (roughly 15%). In our experience, roughly 15% of submissions include thorough characterization that establishes the material's properties without connecting those properties to functional performance that matters in a real application. Editors consistently flag manuscripts where characterization is the primary contribution but functional testing is limited to initial measurements, because AFM expects functional consequence to be demonstrated rather than projected from material properties.

Cover letter overstates impact without supporting functional data (roughly 10%). In our experience, roughly 10% of submissions are accompanied by cover letters framing the work as a major functional breakthrough while the manuscript itself presents incremental gains or preliminary functional testing. Editors consistently screen cover letters for claims that exceed the manuscript evidence, because overstated significance framing reduces editorial confidence before the manuscript is fully read.

Before submitting to Advanced Functional Materials, an Advanced Functional Materials submission readiness check identifies whether your functional advance, benchmark comparisons, and mechanistic support meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.