Advanced Materials Review Time 2026: Time to First Decision and Publication
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Is your manuscript ready?
Run a free diagnostic before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
Decision cue: If you need a yes/no submission call today, compare your draft with 3 recent accepted papers from this journal and only submit when scope, methods depth, and claim strength line up.
Related: How to choose a journal • How to avoid desk rejection • Pre-submission checklist
Quick answer
Advanced Materials first decisions take roughly 6-12 weeks for papers that reach peer review. Desk rejections arrive in 2-4 weeks. The journal's JIF is 26.8 (JCR 2024, the latest official data available in 2026), Q1, ranked 10th out of 460 Materials Science journals. Desk rejection rate is high -- roughly 70-80% of submissions.
Advanced Materials is one of the most-cited journals in materials science. A JIF of 26.8 (JCR 2024) puts it in the top 10 journals in the field worldwide. That position comes with a high desk rejection rate and a rigorous peer review process. Here's what the timeline actually looks like.
Timeline from submission to decision
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.
What the desk review stage actually involves
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.
What slows review down
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.
What authors can control
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.
How review compares to similar journals
Journal | IF (JCR 2024) | Desk decision | First decision |
|---|---|---|---|
Advanced Materials | 26.8 | 2-4 weeks | 6-12 weeks |
Nature Materials | 37.3 | 1-2 weeks | 4-8 weeks |
ACS Nano | 15.8 | 2-3 weeks | 5-9 weeks |
Small | 13.3 | 2-3 weeks | 5-8 weeks |
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces | 8.3 | 2-3 weeks | 5-8 weeks |
Advanced Materials is slower than Nature Materials (which has in-house editors who can move faster) and comparable to ACS Nano and Small. The timeline reflects the depth of review expected at the journal, not an unusually slow process.
After the first decision
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.
If timing matters
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 Bottom Line
Advanced Materials' 6-12 week timeline for peer-reviewed papers is realistic and typical for a top-10 materials journal. The desk rejection rate is high -- plan for that outcome as the base case and submit only when you're confident the advance claim is genuine and the characterization is complete. Papers that pass desk review get rigorous, expert review. The process is slow by quick-publish standards, but the review quality is commensurate with the journal's standing.
Sources
- Wiley Advanced Materials author guidelines
- JCR 2024 (Clarivate Journal Citation Reports) -- impact factor data
- Author experience reports from SciRev and materials science research forums
See also
Free scan in about 60 seconds.
Run a free readiness scan before you submit.
More Articles
Find out before reviewers do.
Anthropic Privacy Partner - zero retention