Advanced Materials Submission Guide

Week 1: Submission intake and editorial screen

The Wiley submission system verifies ORCID registration, template formatting, graphical abstract, Supporting Information completeness, and word/figure cap compliance. The handling Wiley professional editor then reads the cover letter, abstract, and graphical abstract to assess materials advance significance. About 60 to 70 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage.

Week 2: Editorial discussion + Advanced family routing

Borderline papers are discussed across the Wiley materials editorial team. Some receive transfer offers to Advanced Functional Materials, Advanced Energy Materials, Advanced Healthcare Materials, Advanced Optical Materials, Advanced Science, or Small.

Weeks 3 to 4: Reviewer recruitment

For papers passing the editorial screen, 2 to 3 reviewers are recruited with materials subfield expertise. Advanced Materials's reviewer pool spans materials chemistry, physics, engineering, and applied research.

Weeks 5 to 8: External peer review

Reviewers evaluate materials novelty, characterization data depth, application demonstration, and cross-subfield significance. Reports return with materials-focused critique and revision asks.

Weeks 8 to 14: Reviewer-report synthesis and revision rounds

Handling editor integrates reports. Major-revision decisions specify the additional characterization, computational studies, or application demonstration required. Advanced Materials typically allows one round of major revision.

Use this page if you're preparing an Advanced Materials submission and want to understand the Advanced Materials family routing and how the journal differs from sister Wiley Advanced family and competing materials venues.

We reviewed the Advanced Materials page on Wiley, the Advanced Materials author guidelines, the Advanced Materials Editorial Manager portal, and recent issues. We see consistent patterns in Manusights submission reviews that match what the Wiley materials describe.

Source limitations: Wiley official guidance defines scope, article types, submission mechanics, and author-facing requirements, but it does not publish manuscript-level desk decisions; the manuscript-readiness patterns below combine public Wiley guidance, recent issue patterns, and anonymized Manusights pre-submission review work.

Before submitting to Advanced Materials, an Advanced Materials submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

If the manuscript is genuinely materials-first and broad enough for a Nature Portfolio specialty title, compare the framing against the Nature Materials submission guide before treating Advanced Materials as the default top-tier target.

Source: Advanced Materials on Wiley, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

This is the Advanced Materials-specific structural detail authors most often miss:

The strategic implication: authors should match contribution to the right family journal. Energy materials fit AEM; functional materials fit AFM; healthcare materials fit AHM. Advanced Materials occupies the broadest top-tier position.

Three operational signals govern editorial assessment:

1. Materials-research substance. The journal requires substantive materials contribution at top-tier level.

2. Methodological rigor. Synthesis, characterization, and properties must be top-tier.

3. Family-venue fit. Manuscripts must align with Advanced Materials's broad scope rather than fitting better at AFM, AEM, AHM, AOM, etc.

Recent Advanced Materials issues span:

• 2D materials beyond graphene (MXenes, hBN, etc.)

• Perovskite solar cells and LEDs

• Solid-state batteries and Li-metal anodes

• Bioelectronic materials and brain-computer interfaces

• Soft robotics and actuators

• Materials for AI/neuromorphic computing

• Quantum materials and topological materials

• Sustainable polymers and bio-derived materials

For specific recent papers and DOIs, use the current issue list on Advanced Materials on Wiley, because article metadata changes as Early View papers move into issues.

• Initial decision: typically 2-6 weeks (selective desk-rejection)

• First decision after review: typically 8-14 weeks

• Revision rounds: typically 1-2 major revisions to acceptance

• Time to publication after acceptance: weeks (Early View available)

In our pre-submission work with Advanced Materials-targeted manuscripts, four named failure patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections and reviewer concerns. The Wiley professional editor desk-screen is fast and pattern-recognition-driven.

Incremental-modification framing flagged at editor desk-screen. When the materials advance is presented as a modification of an existing material system without distinct novelty (e.g., "we improved the efficiency of X by Y%"), Advanced Materials desk-rejection within 2-4 weeks is common. The strongest submissions frame the materials advance as a category-shift, not a parameter-tuning.

Thin characterization data flagged by reviewers. Materials manuscripts that show device performance without full structural characterization (TEM at multiple scales, XRD, XPS depth profiles, in-situ spectroscopy) consistently trigger reviewer requests for additional data that extend revision rounds by 4-8 weeks. The strongest submissions include comprehensive characterization in the main figures plus deeper datasets in Supporting Information.

Application demonstration without practical-significance framing. When a materials advance is demonstrated only at bench-scale without articulating the practical-significance pathway, reviewers consistently flag the manuscript as "premature for Advanced Materials, fits a specialty journal better." The strongest submissions include a practical-significance section showing why the result matters beyond the laboratory.

Advanced Materials family cascade offers from editor. When the editor concludes the work is rigorous but the broad Advanced Materials scope bar is not met, transfer offers to Advanced Functional Materials (functional advance), Advanced Energy Materials (energy), Advanced Healthcare Materials (biomedical), or Small (nanomaterials) are common. Wiley editors take these transfers seriously and reviewer reports carry forward.

The sources above define the mechanics; the harder question is whether this draft earns review. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Advanced Materials fit check before upload, especially around wrong Advanced Materials family journal chosen, subfield-specific work without broad-materials significance, and methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Three patterns generate the most consistent rejections. This is the part of the page that cannot be rebuilt from Wiley's public author instructions alone: it comes from how Advanced Materials-targeted drafts fail when the manuscript, figures, cover letter, Supporting Information, and data-availability package are read as an editor-facing submission rather than as a finished lab story.

Wrong Advanced Materials family journal chosen

Advanced Materials family mismatch. The first pattern is a routing error inside the Wiley Advanced family. Energy work fits Advanced Energy Materials when the main claim is battery, photovoltaic, catalyst, or fuel-cell performance. Functional-device work often fits Advanced Functional Materials when the broad-field materials principle is thinner than the device-function story. Biomedical scaffolds, drug-delivery materials, and tissue-facing work often fit Advanced Healthcare Materials unless the manuscript's mechanism clearly changes how materials scientists outside healthcare would design the system.

In Advanced Materials submissions, this shows up in the title, abstract, cover letter, and first figure: the manuscript says "Advanced Materials" because the journal is prestigious, but the evidence package says AEM, AFM, AHM, AOM, Small, or Advanced Science. The fix is not cosmetic retargeting. It is to decide whether the first figure proves a broad materials principle or only a strong specialist application.

Check wrong advanced materials family journal chosen before submitting to Advanced Materials →

Subfield-specific work without broad-materials significance

Broad-materials significance not visible in the first two figures. The second pattern is a manuscript whose experiments are technically strong but whose significance is trapped inside one subfield. In Advanced Materials-targeted drafts, reviewers and editors expect the main manuscript figures to connect synthesis, structure, property, and application rather than leaving the design principle for the discussion.

A perovskite, polymer, MXene, bioelectronic material, or solid-state-battery paper may be well executed, but if the abstract only reports an efficiency gain, modulus change, conductivity number, or stability improvement, the submission reads as incremental. Advanced Materials needs the cover letter and figure sequence to show why the material design rule travels across systems. The practical fix is to rebuild the opener around the transferable mechanism and move narrow performance narration into supporting context.

Check subfield specific work without broad materials significance before submitting to Advanced Materials →

Methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar

Characterization and application evidence do not carry the claim. The third pattern is an evidence-package gap. Advanced Materials editors can often see it before peer review: the manuscript has attractive performance data, but the Supporting Information is thin on XRD, XPS, TEM, SEM, spectroscopy, controls, cycling stability, degradation analysis, batch reproducibility, or raw-data availability. Sometimes the first figure looks polished while the methods section, supplementary figures, and data statement still cannot support the central claim.

In our Advanced Materials reviews, the fix is usually to strengthen the evidence spine before submission: align the main figures with the mechanism, move decisive characterization out of buried supplements when it changes the claim, name what the raw data repository contains, and make the cover letter explain why the complete package belongs at Advanced Materials rather than at a specialist sister journal.

A Advanced Materials manuscript readiness check can identify whether broad-materials framing, family-venue fit, and methodological rigor align before submission.

Check methodological execution doesn't clear top tier bar before submitting to Advanced Materials →

• Is Advanced Materials a good journal?

• Journal of Materials Chemistry submission guide

• Nature Materials submission guide

• Advanced Functional Materials Submission Guide

• Advanced Energy Materials Submission Guide

Use these nearby guides when the target journal is still uncertain:

• Advanced Materials journal guide

• Advanced Science Submission Guide

• Advanced Functional Materials Submission Guide

• Advanced Energy Materials Submission Guide

• Accounts of Chemical Research Submission Guide

• ACM Computing Surveys Submission Guide

• Cement and Concrete Research Submission Guide

• IEEE Transactions On Industrial Informatics Submission Guide

• IEEE Transactions On Evolutionary Computation Submission Guide

• IEEE Transactions On Image Processing Submission Guide

• Nature Chemistry Submission Guide

If your manuscript is already in the portal, use the Advanced Materials Under Review status guide to interpret the status window, follow-up threshold, and reviewer-risk preparation while you wait.

For the related journal overview, see Advanced Materials journal guide. In our work on Advanced Materials submissions, we observe that editors specifically screen the abstract, first figures, cover letter, and evidence package for whether the manuscript answers the journal's stated fit test; our analysis of Advanced Materials pages treats those checks as submission-risk signals, not as official guidance.

Last verified: April 2026 against Advanced Materials editorial pages.