IJMS MDPI Submission Guide: Requirements, Formatting and What Editors Want

Source: IJMS Instructions for Authors, 2026 JCR release, accessed October 2026.

IJMS editorial workflow at MDPI SuSy (MDPI SuSy submission system) runs on MDPI's standard editorial process (technical pre-check, editorial pre-check, peer review, first decision). Editors screen for methodological completeness, molecular-science centrality, and reproducibility evidence in the first read.

Receipt and technical pre-check

The Editorial Office completes a technical and ethics pre-check of adherence to the Instructions for Authors and MDPI's ethics policies, including article type selection and overall legibility. Items worth having right include the abstract length (about 200 words maximum), the data availability statement, the AI-use declaration and the 120 MB upload cap; the template is encouraged but free format is accepted at first submission, and an ORCID iD is strongly recommended rather than required. Manuscripts that fail the pre-check to the extent that further review is prevented do not proceed.

Editorial pre-check and editor assignment

An Academic Editor takes the paper. The scope read decides whether the contribution is broad molecular-science work or better routed to sister MDPI journals (Cells, Biomolecules, Cancers, Antioxidants) or to specialty venues (J. Biol. Chem., Cell Reports, EMBO J.).

Reviewer invitation and reports

Single-anonymous peer review with >=2 reviewers (mandatory). IJMS reviewers consistently flag underpowered experiments (nless than 3) and missing statistical-test specification. Reviewers who accept an invitation are generally given 7 to 10 days, and reviewers of a revised manuscript are asked to report within three days.

First decision (median about 17.5 days)

Reject / major revision / minor revision / accept. MDPI's median of about 17.5 days is faster than most subscription venues. Revision windows are generally five days for minor revision and ten days for major revision; MDPI reports acceptance to publication in 2.9 days at the median (first half of 2026).

Editors screen IJMS uploads against the following artifacts at MDPI SuSy tech-check (MDPI SuSy submission system). Missing required items can stop a manuscript at the technical pre-check rather than letting it reach substantive review.

The required artifacts are the cover letter (with molecular-science-centrality framing and any prior-rejection / preprint disclosure), the manuscript file (the MDPI IJMS Word or LaTeX template is encouraged; free format is accepted at first submission), the abstract (about 200 words maximum), the keywords (three to ten), the author contributions statement (CRediT taxonomy), the conflicts of interest declaration, the funding statement and source listing, the data availability statement (mandatory;

public repository deposits strongly preferred for sequencing, structural, proteomics data), the institutional review board statement (for human-subjects or animal work), the ethics approval and consent statement (where applicable), the suggested reviewers (three non-conflicted experts; the editors will not necessarily approach them), the supplementary materials (within the 120 MB upload cap), and the author biography (300-1,500 characters, encouraged for SciProfiles).

MDPI strongly recommends that authors have an ORCID iD, which can be added in the submission system.

The requirements are settled. Fit is the open question. The review tells you whether your paper clears the IJMS MDPI fit check before upload, especially around molecular-science contribution weaker than the clinical or applied promise, methods look complete but reproducibility details are not traceable, and special-issue speed or APC logic outruns journal-fit discipline. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

For manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, three patterns generate the most consistent desk-screen failures before authors reach the fast MDPI review path. Official guidance explains the upload checklist, article types, template expectations, ethics declarations, data availability statement, and APC process. The author decision layer is harder: whether the title, abstract, methods, figures, cover letter, supplementary files, references, and repository plan prove that the work is molecular-science-centered enough for IJMS rather than simply formatted for the MDPI portal.

Molecular-science contribution weaker than the clinical or applied promise

Across IJMS-targeted manuscripts, the most common failure pattern is a paper whose abstract promises a disease, therapy, biomarker, environmental, or engineering advance while the molecular-science contribution remains secondary. IJMS can publish across biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, immunology, structural biology, genetics, bioinformatics, and molecular medicine, but the editor still needs the molecular component to be the protagonist.

Weak submissions often have a title and abstract that emphasize clinical or applied value, figures that show phenotype or performance before mechanism, and a cover letter that says the work is timely without explaining what molecular understanding improved.

The fix is not a sentence of molecular vocabulary. The abstract should name the pathway, interaction, molecular axis, structural feature, assay result, gene program, protein behavior, metabolite pattern, or mechanism that makes IJMS a real fit. Figure 1 should establish that molecular question early. The methods should support the mechanistic claim with enough detail for another lab to understand the assay, reagent, model, and statistical choices.

The cover letter should explain why IJMS is the right molecular-sciences audience instead of Cells, Biomolecules, Cancers, Scientific Reports, PLOS ONE, Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, or a clinical journal. If the molecular contribution cannot carry the submission, the manuscript should be rerouted before the APC and fast-review timeline become the main decision drivers.

Check molecular science contribution weaker than the clinical or applied promise before submitting to IJMS MDPI →

Methods look complete but reproducibility details are not traceable

For manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a second pattern is a methods package that appears complete at a glance but cannot yet survive reproducibility scrutiny. The manuscript may use the MDPI template, include figures and supplementary files, and provide declarations, yet still omit reagent source details, antibody clone identifiers, cell-line authentication records, passage numbers, software versions, sequencing depth, normalization choices, exclusion criteria, statistical-test specification, or repository access.

IJMS reviewers can move quickly, which means these gaps are found quickly. A fast process helps only when the package is already disciplined.

The manuscript components should make traceability easy. The methods section should not force reviewers to infer supplier, version, dose, timing, or analytical pipeline details. Figure legends should name sample sizes and controls. Supplementary files should hold extended validation, not basic information missing from the main methods.

The data availability statement should identify concrete repositories, accession numbers, code locations, or access procedures rather than defaulting to "available on request." The references should support the exact methods used, not only the disease or pathway context. If these pieces are missing, reviewers at IJMS, Cells, Biomolecules, Scientific Reports, and PLOS ONE will all see the same weakness.

Check methods look complete but reproducibility details are not traceable before submitting to IJMS MDPI →

Special-issue speed or APC logic outruns journal-fit discipline

Across IJMS-bound manuscripts, the third pattern is a paper routed to IJMS because a special issue, fast median first-decision timeline, or institutional APC agreement made the journal attractive before the authors proved fit. The cover letter names the special issue, the abstract borrows the issue language, and the manuscript follows the template, but the study still reads as if it belongs at a narrower molecular-biology, oncology, pharmacology, bioinformatics, or applied biomedical venue.

Editors and reviewers can tell when the special issue is doing too much of the fit argument.

The practical test is to ask whether the manuscript still belongs in IJMS if the special-issue invitation disappears. If yes, the molecular-science contribution, methods, figures, data availability statement, supplementary package, and references should all make that clear. If no, the better path may be a narrower MDPI title, a society journal, Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, Scientific Reports, or PLOS ONE depending on the evidence shape.

The cover letter should state why IJMS as a journal is right, not only why the special issue is convenient. The strongest IJMS submissions use MDPI's speed as an operational advantage after the scientific fit is already sound.

Check whether your International Journal of Molecular Sciences manuscript is submission-ready →

IJMS covers molecular science broadly, including:

• Biochemistry: Enzyme kinetics, metabolomics, protein biochemistry, lipid biology

• Molecular biology: Gene expression, RNA biology, epigenetics, molecular mechanisms

• Cell biology: Cell signaling, cell cycle, organelle biology, microscopy-based studies

• Immunology: Innate and adaptive immunity, cytokines, immune cell biology

• Structural biology: Protein structure, computational modeling, cryo-EM, NMR

• Bioinformatics: Computational methods, data analysis, database development with biological application

• Genetics and genomics: Variant analysis, population genetics, functional genomics

IJMS publishes both original research articles and reviews. Reviews are not by invitation only; you can submit unsolicited reviews if the topic fits the scope.

IJMS states that papers that only contain clinical trials or clinical data are not acceptable. Its scope is studies in which molecules are the object of study, so epidemiological studies, purely applied biomedical work, and engineering papers without a molecular science component are a poor fit.

Most authors submit Research Articles. Reviews are well-suited to IJMS because the journal's broad readership benefits from accessible synthesis of a molecular topic.

IJMS uses MDPI's proprietary online submission system. The process:

1. Register at the MDPI SuSy submission system (MDPI's submission platform)

1. Select the journal (International Journal of Molecular Sciences) and article type

1. Upload your manuscript files:

• Main manuscript (Word (.docx) or LaTeX (.tex))

• Figures (inserted in the main text; optionally also uploaded in a single zip archive at minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or 300 dpi or higher)

• Supplementary materials (if any)

1. Complete the submission form: abstract, keywords, cover letter, author information, conflict of interest

1. No payment at submission: MDPI charges the APC (CHF 2,900) only for articles accepted for publication, and invoices are emailed shortly after acceptance

MDPI's Editorial Office checks submissions against the Instructions for Authors at the technical pre-check. Free format is accepted at first submission, and you are asked to format to the journal guidelines at the revision stage.

Manuscript template: MDPI provides a Word template that applies their formatting automatically. Using the template is strongly recommended, it handles margins, fonts, heading styles, and reference formatting. Download from the IJMS author instructions page.

Sections: Introduction, Results, Discussion, Materials and Methods, Conclusions (optional but recommended), References. MDPI uses a Results + Discussion structure where the two can be combined or kept separate.

Abstract: About 200 words maximum, as a single paragraph in the style of a structured abstract but without headings. Citations to previously published papers are not required in abstracts (MDPI style guide). Should summarize background, methods, key results, and conclusions. Make it keyword-rich.

Keywords: 3 to 10. Mix specific molecular targets with general category terms.

Figures: Separately uploaded graphics need a minimum of 1000 pixels width/height, or 300 dpi or higher; TIFF, JPEG, EPS and PDF are preferred and common formats are accepted. Figures are inserted in the main text after the paragraph in which they are first cited.

Tables: In the main text. Complex tables can go in supplementary materials.

References: MDPI uses numbered references [1], [2] etc. in the text with a numbered reference list. The template handles this automatically. MDPI's reference style gives abbreviated journal names; DOIs are not mandatory but highly encouraged.

Author contributions: Required. Use CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) format: "Conceptualization, J.S. and M.L.; Methodology, J.S.;..." etc.

Data availability statement: Required. Specify data repository (Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad, or journal-specific repository) and DOI if available. If data can't be shared, explain specifically why.

Ethics statement: Required for human subjects research (include IRB number) and animal studies (include institutional protocol number). Cell line papers should note source and authentication.

Conflict of interest statement: Required. MDPI takes COI disclosure seriously; be thorough.

MDPI's cover letter is shorter and less influential than at high-selectivity journals. It still matters for framing. Include:

1. Article type and title

2.2-3 sentences on what the paper shows and why it's novel

1. The two statements MDPI requires in every cover letter: neither the manuscript nor any parts of its content are under consideration for publication with or published in another journal, and all authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to IJMS

1. Any prior submissions of the manuscript to MDPI journals (MDPI recommends giving the previous manuscript ID)

The cover letter won't rescue a paper outside scope, but a clear cover letter helps editors route your paper to an appropriate academic editor quickly.

IJMS does desk-reject papers, though at a lower rate than higher-impact journals. Common desk rejection triggers:

• Out of scope. Clinical endpoints without a molecular science component, engineering papers, or pure computational work without biological context.

• Incomplete methodology. Missing reagent details, cell line authentication, antibody clone information, or statistical methods.

• Missing ethical documentation. Human samples or animal work without the required ethics statement and approval numbers.

• No data availability statement. MDPI makes the statement mandatory for research articles, and the technical pre-check can stop a manuscript that lacks one.

• Obvious methodological problems. Underpowered studies, statistical errors visible from the abstract, or claims that dramatically overreach the data.

IJMS charges CHF 2,900 for papers accepted after peer review (MDPI's IJMS APC page, accessed 2026-10-09). It is invoiced after acceptance, not at submission.

MDPI lists discounts and waivers through:

• Its Institutional Open Access Program (the discount level is set by the agreement between MDPI and the institution)

• Reviewer vouchers, which can be applied to the APC of a future submission before acceptance

• Personal invitations from Editorial Offices to submit to a journal or Special Issue, which may carry discounts or waivers

• Discounts for members of the affiliated societies listed on the IJMS page

Check MDPI's APC page for current eligibility rules before you submit.

IJMS's editorial process is fast. MDPI does not publish how long the pre-checks before external review take, but it reports a median of about 17.5 days from submission to first decision (first half of 2026). For the full timeline breakdown, see IJMS review time.

After acceptance, MDPI's production process is extremely fast: MDPI reports 2.9 days from acceptance to publication at the median (first half of 2026).

For IJMS-targeted manuscripts, three patterns consistently predict desk-screen failure at International Journal of Molecular Sciences. These are the patterns handling editors and reviewers catch at first-pass triage.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. IJMS editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with molecular biology research with reproducible methodology and adequate statistical power. The named failure pattern: underpowered experiments (nless than 3) without justification get extended methodology revision. Check whether your abstract reads to IJMS's scope

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. IJMS reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Missing statistical-test specification extends reviewer assignment. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at International Journal of Molecular Sciences screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Check whether your reference list is clean against Crossref + Retraction Watch

Editorial evidence signal for International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Our review of public author guidance, recent published article packages, and Manusights pre-submission review patterns points to this practical risk: Ijms reviewers consistently flag underpowered experiments (nless than 3) and missing statistical-test specification; rapid review-time depends on methodology completeness. Treat this as a fit-and-artifact screen rather than a private outcome claim; official journal pages remain authoritative for submission mechanics and policy requirements.

IJMS is Q1 in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (rank 72/319, 2026 JCR release), but context matters. The journal published 10,013 articles in a single year, that's one of the highest volumes of any Q1 journal. The IF of 5.6 and JCI of 0.71 reflect that volume.

What this means practically: IJMS is a legitimate, indexed, Q1 venue with fast turnaround and broad scope. It's not a prestige journal. If you need a reliable publication with a real JIF and don't need the signaling power of a lower-volume, higher-selectivity title, IJMS is a solid choice.

Choose IJMS if you need fast publication (a median of about 17.5 days to first decision), you're comfortable with the 2,900 CHF APC, your work is molecular-science-focused, and you value Q1 indexing over selectivity signaling.

Think twice if your field views high-volume MDPI journals skeptically, you're building a tenure case where selectivity perception matters, or a society journal in your subdiscipline would carry more weight with reviewers who'll read your CV.

Last verified against MDPI author guidelines and Clarivate 2026 JCR release (JIF 5.6, JCI 0.71, Q1, rank 72/319 in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology).

For manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

• Out-of-scope submission without a molecular science component. The IJMS author guidelines say that papers that only contain clinical trials or clinical data are not acceptable, and the journal's aims and scope describe molecules as the object of study, which makes epidemiological studies, purely applied biomedical work, and engineering papers without a molecular science component a poor fit.

In our pre-submission review work, we see many desk rejections involve manuscripts that study disease endpoints or biological systems without connecting findings to a molecular mechanism, pathway, or structural biology insight that would interest the journal's molecular science readership. Editors specifically screen for manuscripts where the molecular science component is central to the contribution, not peripheral to an applied or clinical question.

• Incomplete methodology missing reagent details or authentication. We also often find many submissions arrive with methods sections that do not include the reagent source details, cell line authentication records, antibody clone identifiers, or statistical methods specification that MDPI's editorial standards require for molecular biology and cell biology manuscripts. In practice, editors consistently return manuscripts where key methodological information is missing before sending them for peer review, because incomplete methods prevent reproducibility assessment and are treated as evidence of inadequate preparation rather than as a revision request.

• Missing data availability statement or ethics documentation. A related pattern is that many submissions are returned at the initial screening stage because the data availability statement does not specify the repository and access procedures for supporting data, or because human subjects or animal research sections do not include the required IRB approval number, institutional protocol number, or ethics statement required by MDPI.

In our analysis of submission difficulties at IJMS, this pattern is most common in submissions from authors unfamiliar with MDPI's mandatory compliance requirements, where these items are enforced before any scientific review begins.

• Conclusions overreach the molecular evidence in the submitted study. A related pattern is that many submissions frame mechanistic, causal, or clinical conclusions from molecular correlations, single-model experiments, or underpowered studies that do not support the interpretive claims being made. Editors consistently screen for manuscripts where the conclusions are proportionate to the molecular evidence type and the study design, because overreach from single-assay or single-cohort data to broad mechanistic conclusions is among the most common reviewer objections at journals in this tier.

• Cover letter too generic to confirm journal fit. A related pattern is that many submissions arrive with cover letters that describe the research area and findings without confirming that the work fits IJMS's molecular science scope or including the two statements MDPI requires in every cover letter. MDPI states that APC-related information is not shared with Academic Editors who are making editorial decisions, so the cover letter does not need an APC or waiver plan.

Before submitting to International Journal of Molecular Sciences, an IJMS submission readiness check identifies whether your methodology, scope alignment, and documentation meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Or see example reports before you finalize.

In our pre-submission review work on International Journal of Molecular Sciences submissions, the most common issue is reporting and scope rather than novelty: IJMS evaluates soundness and whether the work fits the relevant section, so an incomplete methods description, weak validation, or a study that does not match its section is what stalls a paper. Because the bar is rigor and fit rather than broad importance, a clearly scoped, fully reported molecular study moves fastest. Submit if your work is sound, in scope, and completely reported; think twice if the methods are thin or the section fit is unclear.

This page was created from the official IJMS author instructions, MDPI publication policies, MDPI APC information, Clarivate JCR data, SciRev community reports, and our pre-submission review work on molecular science submissions. For the Manusights layer, we reviewed recent IJMS papers, plus recent Manusights work reviews from authors considering IJMS.

It covers upload preparation, article-type fit, file readiness, and the editorial screen before review. Source limitations: we did not test a private live MDPI upload session for this page; portal guidance is based on public MDPI materials and pre-submission review patterns.