Advanced Science Submission Guide

For the current citation metric, source year, and interpretation, use the dedicated Advanced Science impact-factor guide. This submission page owns fit, package, and editorial-triage decisions.

Source: Wiley's Advanced Science journal metrics and open access pages (accessed 2026-10-08).

Length and format: Wiley's guide describes a typical Research Article as around 3,000 to 8,000 words with 3 to 8 display items, and a typical Review as 10,000 to 20,000 words with 5 to 15 display items, though submitted manuscripts can be any length. An older Wiley Guide for Authors PDF (created in 2018) that is still online gives a stricter maximum for Full Papers of about 7,500 words and eight display items, so the publisher's documents differ; follow the current guide. Abstracts are limited to 200 words. The table-of-contents text should be 50 to 60 words, and the table-of-contents figure should be 55 mm by 50 mm or 110 mm by 20 mm.

• Day 0: Wiley submission upload. Wiley's author guidelines say manuscripts are submitted and tracked through Wiley Authors. The package is an editable manuscript file with figures and tables, an ORCID ID, co-author details, the data availability, funding, conflict of interest, and ethics statements that apply, and supplementary information as separate files.

• 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. Wiley's 2025 median from submission to first decision is 9 days, a figure that includes editorial decisions, and Wiley does not publish a desk-rejection rate.

• Peer review. Manuscripts of potential interest are typically sent to at least two reviewers, chosen across the materials subspecialty, nanotechnology, biomedical materials, electronics, photonics, or computational science as appropriate. Wiley does not publish a reviewer-report turnaround time.

• First editorial decision. The editor decides whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received.

• Revision rounds and publication. Wiley's 2025 medians are 89 days from submission to acceptance and 15 days from acceptance to publication.

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

• Interdisciplinary by application only: the paper combines fields in vocabulary, but one field supplies the entire advance and evidence.
• Headline material without mechanism: performance is impressive while structure-property, device, biological, or physical explanation remains speculative.
• Validation below the claim: one prototype, model system, or benchmark supports language about broad use or translation.
• Main story hidden in the supplement: the decisive control or comparison is not visible in the first-read article.

The recovery route depends on the pattern. Narrow the venue or claim when the work is genuinely specialist; add mechanism evidence when the central explanation is testable; strengthen the comparator or validation when the conclusion promises transfer; and move claim-bearing evidence into the main narrative.

• 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 editorial screen: decisive, because editors decide which manuscripts go to formal review, and Wiley does not publish a desk-rejection rate.

The strongest Advanced Science editor-fit notes establish:

• the substantive contribution

• the characterization or validation

• the interdisciplinary appeal

• the performance metrics

Wiley's author guidelines say you will need an editable manuscript file, an ORCID ID, and the title-page co-author details and ethics and integrity statements that apply before you submit. A strong Advanced Science package usually also includes:

• main manuscript file as an editable document (Word, or a single PDF generated from LaTeX) with text, figures, and tables; Wiley requests its template for revised manuscripts, and new submissions do not need reformatting (abstract of 200 words maximum)

• cover letter establishing the interdisciplinary appeal that justifies Advanced Science over a specialty journal (Advanced Materials, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, etc.); it is also where you must disclose a previously rejected submission and explain what changed

• table-of-contents text (50 to 60 words) and graphic (55 mm by 50 mm or 110 mm by 20 mm), which Wiley asks for when preparing revised manuscripts

• an ORCID ID (Wiley notes that institutions and funders are increasingly requiring ORCID IDs)

• 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 approval and patient consent statements where the research involves human participants, and clinical trial registration for interventional trials

• data availability statement

• a plan for the APC if the manuscript is accepted (an institution, funder, or society with a Wiley Open Access Account may cover all or part of it)

• APC waivers and discounts are automatic for corresponding authors from institutions on Wiley's Waivers and Discounts List, with no action needed from authors

• suggested reviewers if the live submission form asks for them (avoid co-authors and same-institution colleagues)

• a description of any generative AI use, placed in the Methods section, a disclosure, or the Acknowledgements as Wiley's policy describes

• 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. Wiley publishes only journal-level medians for 2025: 9 days from submission to first decision (editorial decisions included), 89 days from submission to acceptance, and 15 days from acceptance to publication. It does not publish a stage-by-stage schedule.

Intake and technical check

Wiley's guide says the editorial office will send a manuscript back for revision if the manuscript, figures, or tables are difficult to read or the quality of English is poor, and all manuscripts are tested with plagiarism detection software before acceptance.

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. Wiley's peer review policy says manuscripts are rejected by the editors at this stage if they are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, need extensive improvement in the language, or do not fall within the aims and scope of the journal.

External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen are typically sent to at least two reviewers under single-anonymous review. The reviewer pool is shaped to test the interdisciplinary claim, not just the specialty depth.

Decision, revision, and publication

The editor then decides whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received. Wiley's 2025 medians are 89 days from submission to acceptance and 15 days from acceptance to publication.

• Advanced Science Cover Letter: Interdisciplinary Fit Template

• Is Advanced Science a good journal?

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

Use the public instructions for mechanics, then look at the package the way an editor will. 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. In our pre-submission review work on Advanced Science manuscripts, the leading concern is 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 2026 JCR release 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

Of the Advanced Science manuscripts we pre-screen, the ones that clear the desk make a broad, cross-disciplinary case for impact, while the ones that stall read as solid but narrow results submitted to a high-profile open-access venue mainly for its visibility.

Advanced Science spans materials, chemistry, physics, life sciences, and engineering, and editors triage for work whose significance reaches beyond a single specialty. A competent incremental advance in one subfield reads as a better fit for a dedicated journal.

Submit if your finding is genuinely broad in interest and you can state that breadth early. Think twice if the contribution is specialist and the main draw is the journal profile rather than fit, since the APC makes that a costly mismatch.

This page was researched from Advanced Science's author guidelines, Wiley editorial-policy materials, Clarivate JCR data, SciRev community reports, and our pre-submission review work on submissions to Advanced Science and adjacent venues.

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.

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, so the desk-screen is an editorial judgment about fit and evidence before any reviewer reads the paper.

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.

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.

The reference style can be fixed in an hour. The venue decision cannot. Compare my abstract's fit with Advanced Science Journal before I reformat.