Applied Sciences-Basel submission guide

Applied Sciences runs a high volume of special issues, and that creates a real strategic choice.

Submit to a special issue only if:

• the topic statement matches the manuscript closely
• the guest editor group makes sense for the paper
• the paper benefits from being read next to a focused set of related submissions

Choose a regular submission if:

• the special issue fit is only partial
• the paper is broad enough to stand on its own
• the special issue language is forcing you to oversell a theme that is not the manuscript's real strength

This matters because a weak special-issue fit can make the paper look opportunistic. Editors and reviewers notice quickly when a paper has been dropped into a topical bucket without a convincing reason.

Before you click final submit, the package should look complete from three angles:

Editorial fit

The title, abstract, and cover letter should all make the same case about why the work belongs in an applied, multidisciplinary venue.

Technical credibility

The figures and methods should show more than proof-of-concept performance. Editors need enough validation to believe the application case is credible.

Professional execution

The files should be clean, the supplementary material should feel intentional, and the data/code statement should not look like an afterthought.

Broad journals still reject or delay papers that feel rushed, even when the underlying work is decent.

Editors will notice the fit signal before they notice your effort. On a first pass, they will usually ask:

• is the application case clear from page one
• is the technical contribution more than a small parameter tweak
• are the experiments or benchmarks strong enough for the claims
• does the paper speak to a real applied-science audience

Reviewers will then focus on whether the work is complete enough to support practical use. In this journal, that often means:

• better benchmark comparisons
• stronger characterization
• more honest limits
• clearer explanation of implementation constraints

If your work is best described as exploratory or conceptual, say that honestly and narrow the claims. Overclaiming utility is a fast way to lose trust in review.

For this journal, the first round of reviewer pressure usually lands in a few familiar places:

• whether the benchmark comparison is fair and current
• whether the validation environment is realistic
• whether the claimed application is broader than the evidence supports
• whether the paper explains implementation limits clearly enough

That means the strongest version of the manuscript is usually the one that is slightly more restrained, slightly better benchmarked, and much clearer about what the method or system can and cannot do.

For a broad applied journal, presentation matters more than many authors assume. A strong Applied Sciences package usually makes four things clear immediately:

• what real-world problem the paper is solving
• what the technical contribution adds beyond a routine parameter improvement
• how the method or system was validated against a relevant baseline
• what the limits are if a reader tried to use the result in practice

If any one of those is still fuzzy, the paper often reads as competent but not editorially convincing. Tightening that first-read experience can matter as much as another small experimental addition.