Advanced Science Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Wiley editorial disclosures (accessed June 2026).

Submission caps: Research Articles cap at 5000 to 8000 words main text with up to 8 figures and a 250-word abstract. Reviews run 6000 to 10000 words; Communications cap at 3000 to 4000 words. Submissions require a graphical TOC entry (4 cm by 6 cm at minimum 300 dpi). Supplementary information files commonly accept up to 50 MB per upload.

• Day 0: Wiley submission upload. The Wiley journal page submission portal accepts the package (manuscript, abstract, graphical TOC, ORCID identifiers, cover letter establishing the interdisciplinary contribution, conflicts of interest disclosure, funding statement, author contributions, data availability statement, suggested reviewers, supplementary information), runs Wiley integrity checks, and routes to a handling editor matching the interdisciplinary materials subfield.

• Days 1 to 14: First editor read. The editor evaluates substantive contribution (not incremental), multi-technique characterization or validation depth, interdisciplinary appeal, and quantitative performance comparison to state-of-the-art. About 40 to 50% of submissions are desk-rejected here.

• Days 14 to 70: Peer review. Two to three reviewers spanning the materials subspecialty, nanotechnology, biomedical materials, electronics, photonics, or computational science as appropriate. Reviewer reports return on a 6 to 10 week cadence.

• Days 70 to 100: First editorial decision. Major revision is the most common outcome for papers that pass desk review.

• Days 100 to 180: Revision rounds and publication. Wiley production typically pushes accepted papers online within 2 to 4 weeks of acceptance.

Source: Advanced Science author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the contribution is substantive

• whether characterization is rigorous

• whether interdisciplinary appeal is broad

• a clear substantive contribution

• multi-technique characterization

• interdisciplinary appeal

• performance comparison to state-of-the-art

• a cover letter establishing the contribution

• Incremental contribution without novel principle.

• Missing characterization or validation.

• Weak interdisciplinary appeal.

• Specialty research without broader interest.

Advanced Science is a flagship interdisciplinary materials open-access journal in the Advanced family.

Interdisciplinary standard: the journal differentiates from Advanced Materials (high-impact materials) and specialty Advanced journals by being broader interdisciplinary scope.

Open-access expectation: all articles are open access.

The 40-50% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest Advanced Science editor-fit notes establish:

• the substantive contribution

• the characterization or validation

• the interdisciplinary appeal

• the performance metrics

Advanced Science requires these at first submission:

• main manuscript file in Wiley format (Research Article cap: 5000-8000 words, 8 figures, 250-word abstract)

• cover letter establishing the interdisciplinary appeal that justifies Advanced Science over a specialty journal (Advanced Materials, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, etc.)

• graphical TOC at publication resolution

• author byline with ORCID iDs for all authors (the journal strongly enforces ORCID; it is increasingly required by institutions and funders)

• author CRediT contribution statement

• conflict-of-interest disclosure covering all funding sources (per the journal's stated alignment with COPE, IUPAP, and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity)

• ethics statement (for any human-subjects, animal, biosafety-regulated, or dual-use research work)

• data availability statement

• open-access APC funding declaration (institutional, funder, or Wiley transformative agreement)

• LMIC waiver application via Wiley if applicable

• suggested reviewers (must NOT include co-authors or same-institution colleagues)

• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

For Advanced Science submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is cover letters that pitch the work as "advanced materials" without naming the interdisciplinary leap. The Wiley Advanced portfolio uses interdisciplinary appeal as the explicit differentiator between Advanced Science (broader scope, OA-only) and Advanced Materials (materials-focused, hybrid OA): submissions that read as Advanced Materials work without the cross-field hook are routinely transferred or desk-rejected.

Advanced Science manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The professional in-house editor model produces longer first-decision windows than academic-editor journals.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and technical check

The platform performs automated checks (word count against the 5000-8000 envelope, figure count against the 8-figure cap, abstract length against 250 words, ORCID compliance, declarations). Editorial staff verify the cover letter, ethics statement, and APC funding declaration. Submissions exceeding the word or figure envelope are returned.

Day 5 to 70: Professional-editor desk-screen

A Wiley in-house editor reviews scope fit, interdisciplinary appeal, novelty above the relevant literature, and how the work would land in Advanced Science's broad cross-field readership. This stage runs longer than at academic-editor journals: in-house editors handle high submission volume and the professional triage is more substantive.

Day 70 to 100: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers under single-anonymous review. The reviewer pool is shaped to test the interdisciplinary claim, not just the specialty depth.

Day 100 to 180: Decision, revision, and publication

First editorial decisions typically arrive between days 70-100, with major revision being the most common outcome for papers that pass desk review. Revision rounds typically lead to publication between days 100-180.

• Is Advanced Science a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an Advanced Science contribution readiness check.

Read the public instructions for mechanics, then pressure-test the package the way an editor will see it. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Advanced Science fit check before upload, especially around incremental contribution without novel principle, missing characterization or validation, and weak interdisciplinary appeal. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Source limitations: official Advanced Science journal and publisher pages define scope, article types, and submission mechanics, but they do not publish manuscript-level desk decisions for Advanced Science; the patterns below combine public guidance, recent issue review, and anonymized Manusights pre-submission review work for this journal family.

Across materials and interdisciplinary manuscripts targeting Advanced Science, three submission shapes reliably predict desk-screen failure. Across 21 Advanced Science-targeted Manusights pre-submission reviews since April 2026, the median readiness score was 70/100; the leading concern was interdisciplinary claim strength. That pattern matches Wiley's current Advanced Science positioning: the journal is fully open access, charges an APC on accepted articles, and publishes interdisciplinary science across materials science, physics, chemistry, medical and life sciences, and engineering.

We review the abstract, first figure, graphical TOC, methods, characterization panels, benchmark table, supplementary information, data availability statement, author declarations, and cover letter together. Advanced Science is not just asking whether the experiment works. It is asking whether the result travels across fields and whether the package gives an editor enough evidence to justify a broad, OA-only venue rather than a narrower Advanced portfolio journal.

Incremental contribution without novel principle

Advanced Science editors look for substantive advances. We observe submissions reporting modest improvements without novel mechanism routinely desk-rejected. The abstract should name the new design principle, synthesis route, biological mechanism, device architecture, computational framework, or translational bridge. The benchmark table should compare against state-of-the-art methods with enough context that an editor can see what changed, not just that a metric improved. If the claim is "higher efficiency," "better stability," or "improved biocompatibility" without a transferable principle, the work often reads like a specialty-journal paper.

Check incremental contribution without novel principle before submitting to Advanced Science →

Missing characterization or validation

Editors expect multi-technique characterization. We see manuscripts with thin characterization data routinely returned. Before upload, pressure-test the methods, main figures, and supplementary files for orthogonal characterization, controls, benchmark reproducibility, sample size, statistical analysis, durability or stability testing, and data/code access where relevant. A strong Advanced Science package lets materials specialists, device specialists, biomedical readers, and computational reviewers see the same claim from different evidence angles.

Check missing characterization or validation before submitting to Advanced Science →

Weak interdisciplinary appeal

Advanced Science specifically expects broad relevance. We find papers framed for narrow specialty without interdisciplinary connection routinely declined. The cover letter and graphical TOC should make the cross-field bridge visible: which communities need the result, what each community learns, and why the work is not better served by Advanced Materials, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, or a specialty Advanced journal. An Advanced Science contribution check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Advanced Science among top interdisciplinary materials journals.

Check weak interdisciplinary appeal before submitting to Advanced Science →

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

• 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

• Journal of Materials Chemistry A Submission Guide

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top interdisciplinary materials journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the contribution must be substantive beyond incremental improvement. Second, characterization should be multi-technique. Third, interdisciplinary appeal should be broad. Fourth, performance comparison should be quantitative.

For Advanced Science-targeted manuscripts, the single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for Advanced Science is the specialty-versus-interdisciplinary distinction. Advanced Science editors expect broad interdisciplinary appeal. Submissions framed for narrow specialty audiences routinely receive "specialty journal" feedback during desk screening. We coach authors to articulate the cross-community relevance. Papers framed as "we developed a new material approach that demonstrates broad implications across materials science, energy applications, and biomedical engineering" receive better editorial traction than papers framed for narrow specialty.

For Advanced Science-targeted manuscripts, beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for Advanced Science. First, manuscripts where the abstract emphasizes specialty findings without broader implications are flagged for narrow framing. Second, manuscripts where characterization is single-technique are flagged for characterization gaps. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with Advanced Science's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.

The Advanced Science submissions we coach toward acceptance distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, the cover letter names the interdisciplinary leap (which two fields does this work bridge, and why does each field need to read the other's work to understand the advance) in the first 80 words. Second, the graphical TOC communicates the interdisciplinary outcome visually, not just the chemistry or materials result, because Wiley professional editors use the TOC during their substantive desk-screen.

Third, the recent-literature engagement names at least 3 Advanced Science papers from the past 18 months and explicitly frames how this work bridges adjacent fields that the journal has been actively cultivating.

Advanced Science is handled by professional in-house Wiley editors, not academic editors: the substantive desk-screen is deeper and more skeptical than at academic-editor journals because the editors handle high submission volume across the Advanced portfolio.

They are testing two specific signals on first read: whether the interdisciplinary appeal would survive Advanced Materials review (it should NOT, which is why it belongs in Advanced Science), and whether the OA-only access cost is justified by the breadth of likely citation. Burying the contribution in a typical materials-paper structure cues an Advanced Materials transfer recommendation, not an Advanced Science accept-for-review.

At Advanced Science, author-team authority is read through interdisciplinary track record more than single-field bibliometrics. A submission from authors who have published only in materials journals reads differently than one from authors with publications across (e.g.) materials AND biomedical engineering, OR chemistry AND machine learning. Naming 3-5 recent Advanced Science papers in the introduction and positioning the work against the journal's cross-field editorial direction (rather than against the narrow specialty literature) signals the team understands what the journal selects for.

Source limitations: This Advanced Science Submission Guide page combines official guidance where available, public publisher or product materials, and Manusights editorial analysis for Advanced Science; it is an independent readiness screen, not official guidance from the journal, publisher, or service. In our work, we observe that editors specifically screen Advanced Science submissions for fit, evidence completeness, and reviewer-risk signals before the manuscript can benefit from strong prose.

For the related journal overview, see Advanced Science submission guide. In our work on Advanced Science 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 Science pages treats those checks as submission-risk signals, not as official guidance.