Applied Sciences Basel Review Time

The official MDPI journal page and stats page are direct: Applied Sciences is a broad applied-natural-sciences journal, it is open access, and it offers a quick first decision. SciRev has far less volume here, but the current community page still shows about 2.7 months for a first review round and 2.7 months total handling time for the lone accepted case in the public record. That is a useful reminder that a fast first decision does not mean the whole process stays equally short.

What those pages do not tell you is whether speed is the right reason to submit. That depends on the manuscript's strategic fit:

• is the paper broad enough for a multidisciplinary applied venue?
• is the contribution clearly practical, not only technically interesting?
• is the MDPI journal signal acceptable for the audience and career context that matter?

That is why timing is only one layer of the decision.

The important distinction is that the journal can be fast without making the full process trivial.

Broad-scope journals can sort quickly when they know what they want. Applied Sciences wants work that is:

• genuinely applied
• legible beyond one tiny technical niche
• complete enough to review without basic structural repair

That lets editors make early decisions on papers that are:

• too theoretical
• too narrow
• too weakly validated for the applied claim
• better suited to a field-specific engineering or materials journal

So the fast first-decision signal often reflects journal-shape clarity more than scientific certainty.

The slower papers are often the ones that are acceptable in principle but not clearly positioned.

That usually means:

• reviewer disagreement about whether the paper is broad enough
• applied framing that sounds stronger in the abstract than in the validation
• insufficient real-world conditions, cost logic, or operational testing
• a manuscript that is technically competent but not obviously stronger than better specialist alternatives

When this journal gets slower, the problem is often scope quality, not only reviewer speed.

For year-over-year impact factor data, see the applied sciences basel impact factor page.

Applied Sciences was flat year over year at 2.5 in both 2023 and 2024, down from a peak of 2.838 in 2021 but up from 1.8 in 2017. The 2.7 five-year IF and 5.5 CiteScore show that the journal has real scale and steady visibility, but not the citation concentration of a stronger field journal. That is one reason the journal can remain broad and fast: its value proposition is operational efficiency and breadth, not extreme editorial selectivity.

The timing numbers hide several practical realities:

• fast first decision does not mean high certainty of acceptance
• large-scope journals often expose scope mismatch quickly
• fast publication after acceptance says little about how many rounds it takes to get there
• a paper can fit the workflow and still be the wrong strategic journal

So timing is useful, but it is not enough.

In our pre-submission review work, the most common timing mistake is submitting because the journal is broad and quick rather than because it is the right audience. Applied Sciences moves fastest when the application case is obvious and the paper can survive a broad reviewer pool. It becomes slower when the manuscript needs specialist context the journal is not really organized around.

The papers that move better usually look like complete applied studies from the first page, not narrow technical papers trying to borrow a broader applied label.

In our pre-submission review work on Applied Sciences-targeted manuscripts, three patterns most consistently predict slow review at Applied Sciences (MDPI, Basel). Of manuscripts we screened in 2025 targeting Applied Sciences and peer venues, the patterns below are the same ones our reviewers flag in real time. The named editorial-culture quirk: Applied Sciences reviewers focus on technical correctness across multidisciplinary engineering topics; manuscripts without explicit experimental validation extend revision.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. Applied Sciences editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with the journal's editorial scope (applied-sciences research evaluated on technical soundness across engineering and physical-sciences disciplines). The named failure pattern: manuscripts without explicit experimental validation extend revision rounds. Check whether your abstract reads to Applied Sciences's scope →

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. Applied Sciences reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Methodology sections without numerical-results documentation extend reviewer assignment. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete →

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at Applied Sciences (MDPI, Basel) screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Check whether your reference list is clean against Crossref + Retraction Watch →

Editorial detail (for desk-screen calibration). Verify the current Editor-in-Chief and handling-editor list on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. Submission portal: https://susy.mdpi.com. Manuscript constraints: 200-word abstract limit and 8,000-word main-text cap (Applied Sciences flexible during peer review). We reviewed each of these constraints against current journal author guidelines (accessed 2026-05-08); evidence basis for the patterns above includes both publicly documented author-guidelines and our internal anonymized submission corpus.

Manusights submission-corpus signal for Applied Sciences (MDPI, Basel). Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to Applied Sciences and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is Applied Sciences reviewers focus on technical correctness across multidisciplinary engineering topics; manuscripts without explicit experimental validation extend revision. In our analysis of anonymized Applied Sciences-targeted submissions, the documented review timeline shows a bimodal distribution between manuscripts that clear Applied Sciences's scope-fit threshold within the first week and those that get extended editorial-board consultation. Top-line triage is handled by the journal's editorial team; verify the current handling editor on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a cover letter.

For Applied Sciences, the first question is not "how fast is review?" It is "is this the right journal model for the paper?"

That is why the better next reads are:

• Applied Sciences journal profile
• Applied Sciences submission guide
• Applied Sciences acceptance rate
• Applied Sciences cover letter guide

A Applied Sciences scope and signal check is usually more useful than optimizing around the 16-day figure.

Applied Sciences review time is fast enough to be attractive if the paper genuinely belongs in a broad MDPI applied-science venue. If not, the speed can become a distraction from the bigger issue, which is journal strategy. The timeline is real. It just should not be the main reason you choose the venue.

The Manusights Applied Sciences readiness scan. This guide tells you what Applied Sciences (MDPI, Basel)'s editors look for in the first 1-2 weeks of triage. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that check before you submit. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Applied Sciences (MDPI, Basel) and peer venues; the named patterns below are the same ones the journal's handling editors and outside reviewers flag at the desk-screen and first-review stages. Median 1.5 months to first decision; methodology-incomplete papers go longer. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

If you have already submitted, see Applied Sciences (Basel) Under Review for the portal meaning, follow-up threshold, and reviewer-risk preparation window. That status page connects this guide to the live waiting period after submission.