Advanced Functional Materials 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an AFM professional in-house editor evaluates whether the functional advance warrants AFM's selective editorial slots. About 60 to 70 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage. A desk rejection most often means the editor concluded that the work lacks demonstrated functional application, device integration, or performance benchmark, even if the chemistry is well-characterized. The strongest manuscripts demonstrate that the material does something useful (device performance, application benchmark, functional integration), not just that the material is new.

The AFM editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with characterization data (XRD, TEM/SEM, XPS, spectroscopy) plus functional performance data (device metrics, performance benchmarks, application tests), Wiley template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming functional advance, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

The professional in-house editor reads the paper and evaluates functional advance (does the material do something useful), device integration potential, performance benchmark adequacy against current state-of-the-art, and Advanced Portfolio family routing.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Wiley Advanced Portfolio editorial team where peer professional in-house editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at AFM or at sister Advanced Portfolio titles (Advanced Materials for materials-novelty focus, Advanced Energy Materials for energy, Advanced Healthcare Materials for biomedical). This editorial-team discussion runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 2 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

AFM handling editors typically invite 2 to 3 external reviewers, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The recruitment window can take longer because reviewers with topic-matched functional-materials subspecialty expertise (especially across device-integration and performance-characterization boundaries) are scarce.

Once reviewers agree to review, the typical AFM peer-review cycle lasts 2 to 6 weeks per reviewer. Reviewers are asked to evaluate functional advance, device integration, performance benchmark, and reproducibility. Reviewer reports for AFM tend to be focused; 1500 to 3000 word reports are typical given the functional-advance focus.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Communications (4 to 6 pages) can go from submission to publication in 2 to 3 months for clean papers, while full articles take 4 to 6 months including revision.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.

• Rejection within 5 to 14 days: Professional in-house editor desk rejection per the 60 to 70 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the AFM editor filter.

• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Editorial Manager portal is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision Pending": Reports are in; expect a decision within 1 week.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from AFM authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 5 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of AFM's 4 to 8 week first-decision distribution. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for functional-materials subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review at the 8-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at AFM.

What you should NOT do during the 5-to-8-week window is email the editorial office. AFM handling editors are managing 40+ active papers; an inquiry at 5 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

• Do not email the editorial office during the first 6 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.

• Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at AFM. Wiley has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.

• Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: functional advance, device integration, performance benchmark adequacy, reproducibility.

• If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.

• Read recent AFM papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.

If your AFM paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Advanced Materials is the natural Wiley Advanced Portfolio cascade for materials-novelty-focused papers. Wiley supports manuscript-transfer with reviewer reports preserved.

Advanced Energy Materials is the Wiley Advanced Portfolio cascade for energy-applications functional materials.

Advanced Healthcare Materials is the Wiley cascade for biomedical functional materials.

Advanced Electronic Materials is the Wiley cascade for electronic functional materials.

Advanced Optical Materials is the Wiley cascade for photonic functional materials.

JACS / ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces are external ACS chemistry-materials cascades. ACS uses ACS Paragon Plus at ACS journal page; editorial contact via acs@acs.org.

Nature Materials is the external Springer Nature top-tier materials cascade. The Nature Materials Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nmat.nature.com handles submission; nmat@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

Wiley asks reviewers at AFM to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

Across Advanced Functional Materials manuscripts, we have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Advanced Functional Materials, Advanced Materials, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Advanced Energy Materials, and Nature Materials. In our pre-submission review work across top materials journals, we see three recurring AFM failure modes after the portal shows Under Review. These are not official Wiley criteria; they are anonymized Manusights observations used to help authors prepare a cleaner revision package.

Source limitation: we rely on public Wiley guidance, journal-page facts, and our internal pre-submission review work, and we do not have access to private AFM editorial records.

Materials-novelty-only framing flagged at professional in-house editor screen. When an Advanced Functional Materials manuscript presents a beautifully characterized new compound without demonstrated functional application, device integration, or performance benchmark, an early rejection or severe reviewer request is common. The strongest AFM manuscripts connect synthesis, mechanism, and application in the abstract, graphical abstract, Figure 1, and benchmark figure.

Check whether your AFM functional claim is visible →

Performance benchmark gaps flagged at desk screen. When an AFM manuscript does not benchmark against current state-of-the-art performance, editors and reviewers consistently flag concerns. The strongest manuscripts include a benchmark table, stable operating conditions, replicate device or sample counts, and a plain explanation of where the material wins and where it does not.

Check if your AFM benchmark table is reviewer-ready →

Wiley Advanced Portfolio cascade offers from handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the work is rigorous but the functional-advance bar of AFM is not met, transfer offers to Advanced Materials, Advanced Energy Materials, Advanced Healthcare Materials, Advanced Electronic Materials, or Advanced Optical Materials are common. The most useful cascade packages preserve the cover-letter fit argument, figure order, and reviewer response framework so the next Wiley editor can evaluate the revised claim quickly.

Check your AFM cascade response plan →

This section reflects Manusights pre-submission review work, not a claim of privileged access to AFM editors or reviewers. Manusights uses uploaded manuscripts only to produce the requested review; we do not train on private author files. Authors using Manusights also have a 60-day money-back guarantee if the review is not useful.

Check your AFM functional-advance package

This page was created from Wiley's public Advanced Functional Materials author guidelines at Wiley author instructions, Wiley Advanced Portfolio editorial policies (professional in-house editor model with PhD backgrounds, 60 to 70 percent desk rejection rate, 4 to 8 week first-decision window, functional-advance editorial criterion, single-anonymous peer review), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with AFM-targeted manuscripts.

For the Wiley Advanced Portfolio functional materials landscape beyond AFM, see Advanced Materials (materials-novelty cascade), Advanced Energy Materials (energy applications), Advanced Healthcare Materials (biomedical materials), Advanced Electronic Materials (electronic materials), Advanced Optical Materials (photonic materials), and external functional materials alternatives (JACS, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Nature Materials).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is functional advance plus device integration (AFM), materials novelty plus broad impact (Advanced Materials), energy-applications materials (Advanced Energy Materials), biomedical materials (Advanced Healthcare Materials), electronic materials (Advanced Electronic Materials), photonic materials (Advanced Optical Materials), broader ACS chemistry-materials (JACS, ACS AMI), or top-tier Nature Portfolio (Nature Materials).

Reviewers at AFM typically draw from 2 to 3 functional-materials subspecialty experts under a single-anonymous model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both functional-advance and device-integration perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the AFM functional-advance-plus-device-integration bar before submission, our Advanced Functional Materials pre-submission diagnostic flags the functional and benchmark weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.