Advanced Materials Review Time

Desk rejection: 2-4 weeks. Advanced Materials uses in-house editors (not academic editors) who are trained materials scientists. They can assess scope and novelty quickly. Papers with clear problems get rejected in 2-3 weeks; papers that are borderline take up to 4 weeks.

First decision for peer-reviewed papers: 6-12 weeks from submission. Here's the rough breakdown:

• Desk review: 2-4 weeks
• Reviewer recruitment: 1-2 weeks
• Active peer review: 4-6 weeks
• Editorial decision: 1 week

Papers on the slower end: Materials papers often require specialized reviewers with expertise in specific synthesis techniques, characterization methods, or application domains. When reviewer recruitment is difficult, expect 14-16 weeks to a first decision.

Post-acceptance to Early View: 2-4 weeks.

Advanced Materials editors read every submission. They assess:

Advance over the existing literature. This is the primary question. In a field where dozens of papers on similar nanoparticle systems, similar energy storage architectures, or similar organic semiconductors are published every month, editors ask: what does this paper establish that the existing literature hasn't? Incremental optimization of an established system (slightly higher efficiency, slightly better stability) is not a desk-passable claim at this impact level.

Characterization completeness. Advanced Materials requires thorough materials characterization. Papers with cursory characterization (XRD and SEM only for a complex composite, TEM without size distribution, electrochemical data without impedance analysis) get desk rejected. Editors check this directly.

Clarity of the advance claim. The abstract needs to state the advance clearly and specifically. Vague significance claims ("could have applications in") without demonstrated or clearly supported mechanism don't hold up at desk review.

Scope fit. Advanced Materials covers the full breadth of materials science: nanomaterials, electronic and photonic materials, energy materials, biomaterials, structural materials, and their interfaces. Papers primarily in chemistry, physics, or biology that use materials as a tool rather than as the central subject are usually better suited to specialty journals.

Specialist reviewer scarcity. Some materials subfields, solid-state battery electrolytes, specific 2D materials, complex polymer architectures, have limited expert reviewer pools. Finding 2-3 reviewers qualified to assess a paper on a niche synthesis or characterization method can take several rounds of invitations.

High characterization density. Advanced Materials papers often include substantial supplementary material. Reviewers who need to assess both main text and a 30-page SI document take longer. That's not a problem with the system; it's a consequence of the journal's rigor expectations.

Revision requirements. Papers returned for major revision and resubmitted go back to reviewers, typically the original reviewers plus sometimes a new one. The second-round review adds 4-8 weeks.

Summer and December. Reviewer availability drops in these periods at every journal, and Advanced Materials is no exception.

The advance claim. This is the single most important thing to get right before submission. Before you click submit, ask: what specific new understanding does this paper establish that wasn't in the literature as of 12 months ago? If the honest answer is "we showed our system performs comparably to the state of the art with slightly different materials," that's not a submission-ready claim for Advanced Materials. If the answer is "we identified a previously unknown degradation mechanism in this class of materials and showed how to suppress it," that's a submission-level claim.

Characterization completeness. Run the characterization you know reviewers will ask for before you submit. For nanoparticles: size distribution statistics from TEM (n > 100), not just representative images. For energy storage: impedance spectroscopy, rate capability, and cycling stability under the relevant conditions. For thin films: cross-section images plus surface morphology. Reviewers at Advanced Materials know what complete characterization looks like. Submitting without it adds a revision cycle.

Reviewer suggestions. The submission form asks for reviewer suggestions. Give 4-5 names of researchers who have published in Advanced Materials in the last 2 years on closely related topics. Editors don't always use suggested reviewers, but good suggestions help when recruitment is difficult.

Cover letter positioning. The cover letter should make the advance over prior work explicit. One paragraph, specific claims, named comparison papers. Editors read cover letters at Advanced Materials. A clear, confident statement of the advance helps the editor assess the paper before reading the full manuscript.

Major revision is the most common positive outcome at Advanced Materials. Reviewers frequently ask for additional characterization, control experiments, or more thorough comparison with prior work. These requests are specific and technical. WILEY gives authors 2-3 months for major revisions.

The revision response document matters. Write it as a structured reply that addresses each reviewer comment explicitly, explains where you've added experiments or data, and argues your case where you disagree with a request. Advanced Materials editors read revision letters closely.

After resubmission, major revisions typically go back to reviewers. Expect 4-8 weeks for a second-round decision.

Minor revision decisions go back to the handling editor rather than reviewers in most cases. Resolution is faster, 2-4 weeks.

Rejection after review happens at Advanced Materials even for papers with good data. The most common reason: reviewers conclude the advance is not sufficient for this journal even though the science is sound. If this happens, read the reviewer comments for where the characterization or significance framing fell short. That information is directly applicable to revising for a lower-IF venue.

Advanced Materials is not the fastest journal in materials science. If you're submitting because of a competitive race, a patent timeline, or a grant report deadline, factor in 10-14 weeks as a realistic conservative estimate from submission to first decision.

Faster alternatives in comparable tiers:

Nature Materials (IF 37.3, JCR 2024), Faster desk decisions, similar overall timeline if papers pass desk.

ACS Nano (IF 15.8, JCR 2024), Somewhat faster to first decision, broader scope.

Angewandte Chemie, Faster for chemistry-adjacent materials work, particularly organic/inorganic synthesis.

Nano Letters, Faster, nanoscience focus, somewhat lower IF (9.6, JCR 2024).

The impact-factor history is useful because it shows Advanced Materials still behaves like a journal that can be strict about breadth and conceptual value.

The JIF is down from 27.4 in 2023 to 26.8 in 2024 and below the 32.1 peak in 2020 and 2021, but the 28.9 five-year JIF shows the journal is still a durable flagship rather than a short-cycle citation story. For authors, that usually means fast editorial triage and little patience for narrow optimization papers.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Advanced Materials, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

Materials synthesis without a real conceptual advance. The journal consistently rewards papers that establish a design principle, a transferable mechanism, or a field-relevant consequence. Incremental performance improvements without a broader insight usually read as sister-journal material, not Advanced Materials material.

Narrow subfield work without cross-domain significance. We regularly see strong electrochemistry, polymer, or nano papers that are technically good but too self-contained for the editorial room. If the significance case stops at one subcommunity, the desk screen usually catches that quickly.

Computational stories without enough experimental anchoring. The local Wiley guidance across this journal family is clear that computation should complement experimental evidence, not replace it. When the theory is elegant but the experimental proof is thin, review time becomes the wrong question because the fit problem comes first.