Applied Sciences Basel submission guide

Recent Applied Sciences DOI examples include 10.3390/app16073606, 10.3390/app16083829, and 10.3390/app16083847. The useful lesson is not the DOI format itself. It is that accepted papers usually make their application lane, benchmark context, and implementation relevance visible quickly.

The actual submission flow through MDPI's portal is straightforward once the manuscript package is ready. The harder part is making sure the paper is genuinely prepared before the upload begins. Authors who start with a complete, application-focused package move through the portal quickly. Authors who use the portal to figure out whether the paper is ready create avoidable friction at every step. The steps below assume the package is already in good shape.

Applied Sciences runs many special issues. That can help if the fit is real, but it can also create lazy submissions. Do not choose a special issue just because it looks close enough. Make sure the scope and guest-editor framing actually match the manuscript. If the paper is stronger as a regular article, submit it that way.

Before the portal opens, make sure the abstract answers three questions immediately:

• what practical problem is being solved

• what technical advance makes the paper different

• what evidence proves the solution is credible

That is especially important in a journal with broad scope, because editors need a fast reason to believe your paper belongs in their queue.

Your cover letter should be short and concrete. State:

• the application area

• the engineering or applied-science advance

• why the findings matter outside a narrow lab context

• why Applied Sciences is the right audience

Avoid generic claims like “this work will interest your readers.” Name the actual reader group instead.

The fastest way to create delay is a sloppy package. Upload:

• main manuscript

• figures in the required format

• supplementary files

• data/code availability statement if relevant

• funding and conflict disclosures

Do not assume the journal will let small inconsistencies slide. Broad journals still screen for basic professionalism.

On journals with a busy editorial workflow, formatting mismatches, missing symbols, and bad figure ordering can easily slip in during upload. Always review the system-generated proof before final submission. Check that figure captions match the figures, that supplementary file cross-references are correct, that equation symbols rendered properly, and that author affiliations and funding lines are accurate. A submission that looks clean in the source files can still arrive at the editor with garbled tables or missing figure panels.

Before submitting to Applied Sciences Basel, an Applied Sciences Basel submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Across applied-science and engineering manuscripts targeting Applied Sciences (MDPI Basel), three recurring decision risks matter most across submissions that the journal's editors filter out at the desk-screen stage.

Relevant published-guidance constraints:

• MDPI published author guidelines, Applied Sciences covers all aspects of applied physics, applied chemistry, engineering, environmental and earth sciences, and applied biology

• it is not a home for work disconnected from a real engineering or applied-science problem

• CHF 2400 APC for accepted papers

• routes through MDPI SuSy submission system submission portal

• cover letter must explain why the manuscript fits the journal's scope

• requires publishing all experimental controls and making full datasets available

• runs an editorial gate driven by application-validation visibility

Use the three checks below before you open MDPI SuSy submission system Applied Sciences upload slot.

Application claim tested under idealized conditions

Across Applied Sciences-targeted manuscripts, we consistently see authors submit work where the introduction frames a clear application case (we present this method for autonomous-vehicle perception, this material for aerospace structural application, this algorithm for industrial defect detection, this control system for power grid stabilization, this sensor for environmental monitoring, this device for medical diagnostics, this catalyst for industrial process, this construction technique for civil infrastructure, this manufacturing method for production line) but the experimental validation uses idealized laboratory conditions that do not reflect the actual operational environment the application would require.

Applied Sciences editors apply an operationally-validated first-read test: the validation conditions must reflect the application context with realistic operating parameters.

Specific patterns editors flag at desk:

• autonomous-vehicle perception tested on KITTI / nuScenes / Waymo at controlled-illumination clear-weather without adverse-weather / sensor-degradation / edge-case testing

• aerospace structural application tested at single-load static condition without fatigue / impact / thermal-cycling / multi-axial loading

• industrial defect detection tested on clean lab samples without production-line noise / contamination / lighting variation / throughput-rate constraints

• power-grid control tested on IEEE 9-bus or 14-bus without realistic transmission-network / renewable-uncertainty / N-1 contingency conditions

• environmental sensor tested in distilled water at room temperature without real water-matrix / temperature-pH-DO-NOM variation / fouling / drift

• medical-diagnostic device tested on healthy subjects without disease-cohort / age-stratified / multi-site / inter-rater variability

• catalyst tested in controlled batch reactor without continuous-flow / scale-up / catalyst-deactivation / industrial-feedstock-impurity conditions

• construction technique tested on small-scale specimens without full-scale / multi-environment / long-term-durability testing

• manufacturing method tested on prototype runs without production-rate / batch-to-batch / supply-chain-integration testing

Manuscripts with idealized-only validation often belong at specialty fundamental venues where idealized testing suffices, or need to be restructured with realistic operational-validation.

The fix is to design experimental validation around realistic operating conditions from the start (named real-world dataset / realistic test scenarios / industrial-relevant parameters / multi-condition sensitivity / production-scale where appropriate), include operational-validation as primary evidence (not idealized-only with operational mentioned as future work), and benchmark against named state-of-the-art under comparable operational conditions.

Check whether your Applied Sciences manuscript validates the application under realistic conditions →

Benchmark comparison missing or too narrow

We frequently see Applied Sciences manuscripts present a technical advance (new algorithm / new material / new device / new method / new system) without quantitative comparison against existing methods that would allow editors and reviewers to assess how the result positions relative to current practice.

Applied Sciences readers come from engineering and applied-science fields where comparative context is necessary to evaluate practical relevance.

Specific patterns editors flag:

• performance claims in general terms ("improved", "enhanced", "superior") without specific quantitative comparison numbers

• comparison only against authors' previous work rather than against state-of-the-art from the last 24 months published in venues like IEEE Access / IEEE Transactions / Nature Machine Intelligence / Nature Communications / Science Advances / Applied Energy / Applied Thermal Engineering / Advanced Materials

• comparison against weak or outdated baselines (algorithms from 5-10 years ago when recent benchmarks exist

• materials from earlier generation when newer materials have surpassed)

• single-metric comparison when the application requires multi-metric (accuracy + latency + energy + memory for ML algorithms

• strength + ductility + weight + cost for materials

• efficiency + power-density + cost + reliability for power systems)

• comparison table presents authors' method advantages without acknowledging trade-offs (no method advances on all metrics simultaneously

• honest comparison includes the dimensions where authors' method is comparable or worse)

• benchmark dataset choice favors the authors' method without justification (cherry-picking favorable datasets)

• comparison against published baselines without using authors' own published code (which would catch implementation differences)

Manuscripts without proper benchmarking face revision-or-reject decisions, with redirect to specialty venues where weaker benchmarking is acceptable.

The fix is to build a benchmark-comparison table as part of the first-draft writing (named 3-5 state-of-the-art systems from the last 24 months with publication years and quantitative metric values), use authors' own published code for baselines where available, compare across multiple metrics relevant to the application, acknowledge trade-offs openly, and position the work explicitly against the field's current best.

Check whether your Applied Sciences benchmark table is strong enough for first read →

Specialist-tone framing for multidisciplinary audience

The third recurring pattern in Applied Sciences-targeted manuscripts is manuscripts arriving with framing and tone that reflect the expectations of a higher-tier specialist journal rather than a multidisciplinary applied venue.

This typically happens when the manuscript was recently rejected from a higher-tier specialty journal (Nature Materials / Nature Photonics / IEEE Transactions / specialty Wiley / specialty Elsevier) and sent to Applied Sciences without adaptation.

Applied Sciences editors specifically check whether: the introduction explains the practical relevance to engineers and applied scientists across disciplines (not just within the specific research area); jargon is defined on first use (assuming reader knowledge from one specialty only is wrong for multidisciplinary readership); methods section is accessible to readers from adjacent applied-science fields (not just specialists in the immediate sub-field); results section presents findings in terms multiple disciplines can interpret;

discussion addresses practical applications across multiple engineering / applied-science domains where appropriate; figure captions are standalone-readable; abbreviations defined; sub-field-specific frameworks explained briefly for outside readers; cover letter argues why the paper belongs in a broad applied-science venue rather than a narrower specialist alternative.

Specific patterns editors flag: manuscript opens with sub-field-specific motivation assuming reader knowledge; methods section uses sub-field-specific shorthand without explanation; results emphasize sub-field-specific metrics without translation; discussion engages only sub-field-specific literature; cover letter argues high-impact framing rather than multidisciplinary relevance; conclusion summarizes contribution in sub-field terms only.

Manuscripts that read as compressed specialty-journal submissions face desk rejection or major revision.

The fix is to honestly assess whether the work has multidisciplinary relevance that justifies Applied Sciences over specialty venues, restructure the introduction to motivate the work for engineers and applied scientists across disciplines, define jargon and explain frameworks for outside readers, make figure captions and methods accessible across sub-fields, write the cover letter to name which multidisciplinary applied-science communities will benefit from the work, and if the contribution is genuinely specialist-only, route to the appropriate specialty venue.

Check whether your Applied Sciences manuscript is submission-ready →

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.