International Journal of Molecular Sciences Submission Process

For metric-only intent, use International Journal of Molecular Sciences impact factor. This page is for the submission-process workflow and pre-upload readiness decision.

IJMS says manuscripts should be submitted through MDPI's system, fit the journal's molecular-sciences scope, and provide full experimental details so results can be reproduced. The instructions also state that IJMS has no maximum manuscript length if the text is concise and comprehensive.

The editorial workflow is fast but structured. MDPI describes a technical pre-check by the Editorial Office, then an editorial pre-check by an Academic Editor for scope fit and scientific soundness. If the paper passes, it receives at least two peer reviews. Minor revisions are usually given 5 days, and major revisions are usually given 10 days.

Editorial policy states that manuscripts must fit the journal scope, be scientifically sound, and provide enough methodological detail for reproduction before the paper moves deeper into review. SciRev data (8 author reports, read October 2026) reports author experiences with IJMS review speed, which is useful context but should be treated as author-reported, not an official MDPI performance guarantee.

How this page was created: we reviewed the official IJMS homepage, MDPI instructions for authors, public issue pages, and Manusights pre-submission review notes for molecular-sciences manuscripts.

Official guidance explains the upload mechanics. This page focuses on the manuscript-level decision that MDPI pages cannot make for an author: whether the draft is ready for a fast academic-editor screen rather than merely complete enough to upload.

Across the recent IJMS papers we reviewed, the strongest submission packages made the molecular-level contribution impossible to miss. They did not rely only on a special issue invitation, a broad disease frame, or a generic biology claim.

In our pre-submission review work on recent manuscripts targeting IJMS, we see a recurring failure pattern: the paper may be technically formatted for MDPI, but the abstract, methods, and results do not make the molecular mechanism, reproducibility controls, or data availability concrete enough for a fast editorial pre-check. Source limitation: this is pre-submission Manusights analysis, not private MDPI editorial data.

Authors should treat IJMS speed as an editorial-screening constraint. A vague molecular mechanism, missing data path, or special-issue-first rationale can fail quickly even if the portal submission is complete.

In practice, editors specifically screen whether the molecular object, reproducible method, and data-availability path are visible before the paper leans on a disease, therapeutic, environmental, or engineering frame. A failure pattern is a manuscript that looks complete in the MDPI portal but still leaves the molecular contribution implicit until late in the Results section.

For article-pattern calibration, we reviewed recent IJMS publication records. The useful pattern for authors is that accepted papers state a molecular object of study, a reproducible method, and a section or special-issue fit much earlier than weaker submissions.

IJMS runs many active special issues at any time. If you were invited to submit to a special issue, select that issue during submission. The process is the same, but a guest editor may handle the initial triage instead of a regular academic editor.

Special issue invitations do not guarantee acceptance. Guest Editors are Academic Editors under MDPI's policy, and decisions to accept or reject are made by the assigned Academic Editor.

Go to MDPI SuSy submission system, log in, and click "Submit New Manuscript." Select International Journal of Molecular Sciences. If submitting to a special issue, select the specific issue from the dropdown.

Choose from: Article (original research), Review, Communication (short report), Brief Report, or other types. Article is the most common. IJMS publishes no word limit for any type, but conciseness is expected.

Provide the title, abstract, and keywords. Add all authors with affiliations (and ORCID identifiers, which MDPI strongly recommends). Specify CRediT author contributions (conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing, etc.) for each author.

Upload the manuscript file (Word or LaTeX). The total upload size cannot exceed 120 MB across all files. Figures should be high resolution (for separately uploaded graphics, a minimum of 1000 pixels width/height, or 300 dpi or higher). Supplementary files go as separate uploads.

MDPI requires a data availability statement. Options include: data in public repository (with DOI), data in supplementary material, data available on request, or no new data created. Be specific. Vague statements can draw a query.

Complete the conflicts of interest, funding, and ethics declarations. All funding sources need specific grant numbers. If no funding, state it explicitly. IRB approval numbers are required for any human subjects research.

You can suggest reviewers and exclude specific people. MDPI asks for three suggested reviewers, who should not be current collaborators of the co-authors or have published with any co-author within the last three years, and should be from different institutions to the authors. The Editorial Office screens the suggestions, and the editors will not necessarily approach them.

Review the compiled manuscript. Check figure quality, reference formatting, and supplementary file accessibility. Submit.

Use the preview step to catch missing figure panels, unlinked supplementary files, broken references, and data-availability wording before the academic editor sees the package.

The Editorial Office runs a technical and ethics pre-check first, verifying that the manuscript meets the minimum requirements for consideration by an Academic Editor: adherence to the Instructions for Authors and MDPI's Research and Publication Ethics policies, overall legibility, appropriate article type selection, and ethics and research integrity screening (all MDPI submissions are checked for plagiarism with iThenticate). The Editorial Office then compiles proposed reviewers and an Academic Editor is invited for the editorial pre-check. The Academic Editor is a working scientist in a relevant field, not an MDPI staff member.

The academic editor checks:

• does the manuscript fit IJMS scope (molecular sciences, broadly)?

• is the methodology sound enough to justify review?

• are the claims proportional to the evidence?

• is the manuscript complete enough to send to reviewers without requesting missing basics?

Papers that clearly fall outside scope or have obvious methodological problems are returned at this stage. This is less common at IJMS than at highly selective journals, but it does happen.

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

This guide tells you what International Journal of Molecular Sciences editors look for before reviewer assignment, and Manusights checks whether your paper passes the molecular-mechanism, reproducibility-control, data-availability, and special-issue routing tests that official MDPI guidance cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we never train on submitted manuscripts.

Across molecular-sciences manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, the strongest IJMS pages are not the ones that simply restate MDPI portal steps. They help authors decide whether the manuscript is ready for a fast academic-editor screen. IJMS is broad enough to publish molecular biology, biochemistry, molecular medicine, pharmacology, structural biology, omics, environmental molecular science, and applied molecular systems, but the common editorial bar is still molecular evidence. Across the IJMS-bound manuscripts we review, three patterns repeatedly decide whether the paper feels reviewable or merely uploadable.

Molecular mechanism hidden behind disease, therapy, or application framing

Across molecular-biology and molecular-medicine manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, the most common failure mode is a paper whose abstract promises a disease, therapeutic, environmental, or engineering advance while the manuscript never makes the molecular mechanism explicit enough for an IJMS academic editor.

The figure sequence may show phenotype, viability, expression change, or material performance, but the abstract and introduction do not state the molecular question in a way that distinguishes IJMS from PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports, Cells, Cancers, Molecular Biology Reports, or Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences.

The methods may be competent, the references may be current, and the cover letter may mention a special issue, yet the editor still has to infer why the work belongs in a molecular-sciences journal rather than a broader biomedical or applied venue.

The fix starts in the manuscript components most visible at triage. The title should name the molecular axis, pathway, structure, interaction, gene set, metabolite class, or mechanistic model rather than only the clinical or application endpoint. The abstract should connect the principal result to the molecular evidence that supports it. Figure 1 should make the molecular contribution visible before secondary phenotype or performance figures.

The discussion should separate what the data show mechanistically from what the authors hope the finding may imply later. The cover letter should explain why IJMS is the right molecular-sciences venue, not just why the work is timely.

When the manuscript cannot make that case, the better redirect target may be PLOS ONE for soundness-first breadth, Scientific Reports for cross-disciplinary reporting, Cells or Cancers for cell-biology or oncology depth, or a narrower society journal where the applied endpoint is the real protagonist.

Check whether your IJMS manuscript makes the molecular mechanism visible before submission ->

Template-complete methods that still leave controls and data access underdeveloped

Across molecular-sciences manuscripts targeting International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a second recurring pattern is a submission that satisfies MDPI file and template expectations but still feels underdeveloped as a reproducible scientific package. IJMS can move quickly because the administrative checklist is clear, but speed does not remove the need for visible controls, raw-data access, and method detail.

The weak version has a structured manuscript, clean figure files, a data availability statement, and supplementary tables, yet the methods do not tell a reviewer enough about antibodies, cell lines, sequencing depth, compound validation, software versions, statistics, normalization choices, image acquisition, or exclusion criteria.

The data statement may say data are available on request, while the figures depend on raw blots, microscopy images, code, sequence files, or processed omics tables that are not clearly deposited.

This problem is especially visible in papers that compare IJMS with PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports, Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, or Cells as possible homes. Those venues may tolerate different narrative styles, but none of them rescue a manuscript whose controls are implied rather than documented.

For IJMS, the methods section should contain enough experimental detail for reproduction, the figure legends should name controls and sample sizes, the supplementary files should hold the extended validation rather than duplicate the main figures, and the references should support the exact assay choices rather than the broad topic.

The cover letter can help by naming the core methodological safeguards, but it cannot compensate for missing controls. A strong IJMS package makes the academic editor see that reviewer time will be spent on interpretation and significance, not on reconstructing whether the experiment was adequately controlled.

Check whether your IJMS methods and data package are reproducible before submission ->

Special-issue invitation stronger than the journal-fit argument

Across IJMS-targeted manuscripts, the third pattern is a paper submitted because an MDPI special-issue invitation created momentum before the authors proved that the manuscript fits International Journal of Molecular Sciences as a journal. The cover letter may name the special issue, the abstract may use the issue's topic language, and the references may cite recent IJMS articles, but the paper still reads like it was written for a narrower field journal.

Academic editors can usually separate real IJMS fit from invitation-driven routing: a genuine fit has molecular-sciences substance in the title, abstract, figures, methods, and discussion, while a weak fit depends on the special-issue label to explain why the paper is there.

The practical test is to remove the special-issue title and ask where the manuscript would belong. If the answer is still IJMS because the paper advances molecular mechanism, molecular methods, molecular pathology, molecular pharmacology, or molecular systems understanding, the submission is coherent.

If the answer becomes Cancers, Cells, Frontiers in Immunology, Frontiers in Pharmacology, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Scientific Reports, or PLOS ONE, the manuscript probably needs either reframing or rerouting.

The manuscript components should work together: the abstract should name the molecular contribution, the figure order should build the evidence chain, the methods should support reproducibility, the data availability statement should identify concrete files or repositories, and the cover letter should explain both journal fit and issue fit. IJMS is fast, but the fastest path is not always the best path.

Authors get a cleaner editorial read when the journal-level argument is stronger than the invitation.

Check whether your IJMS special-issue routing is stronger than the invitation ->

At least two review reports are collected through MDPI's SuSy submission system. IJMS uses single-anonymized review (reviewers know the authors' identities), with an Open Peer Review option where authors can choose to publish the review reports alongside the article. Reviewers who accept an invitation are generally given 7 to 10 days, which is faster than most journals.

This aggressive timeline is part of why MDPI's median first decision is about 17.5 days, though a slow reviewer or a major-revision round can extend that as an edge case well beyond three weeks.

Reviewers evaluate:

• scientific soundness and experimental rigor

• whether methods are described in enough detail for reproduction

• whether conclusions are supported by the data

• clarity and organization of the manuscript

• adequacy of the literature review

• Accept: the paper is ready for publication with minimal changes.

• Accept after minor revision: small changes needed (generally five days to revise). Revised manuscripts may or may not be sent back to reviewers, depending on the reviewers' recommendations and whether they requested to see the revised version.

• Major revision: substantive concerns. Generally ten days to revise. Reviewers who request major revision or recommend rejection are always sent the revised manuscript.

• Reject and encourage resubmission: the current version is not publishable, but authors can resubmit to the same journal after completing revisions; the resubmission receives a new manuscript ID, is linked to the original submission, and goes to the same reviewers.

• Reject: the paper does not meet the journal's standards.

Multiple revision rounds are possible: up to two rounds of major revision are usually allowed, and more may be facilitated if the Academic Editor recommends it.

MDPI says reviewers who accept an invitation are generally given 7 to 10 days, and that extensions are common. If the process seems stalled well beyond the reported median of about 17.5 days to first decision, you can contact the editorial office.

Special issues often have submission deadlines. If you are close to the deadline, submit what is ready. It is better to submit on time and revise than to miss the window. But do not submit an incomplete manuscript just to meet a deadline.

IJMS covers molecular sciences broadly, but "molecular" is the operative word. A purely clinical study, a purely engineering paper, or a study without molecular-level investigation may be returned for scope mismatch.

MDPI's in-house production teams apply the house style to accepted manuscripts. Using the MDPI template shortens copy-editing and publication, and extensive English editing is not covered by the APC: if extensive editing is required, the paper could be returned to you at the English editing stage.

• the manuscript clears template checks but the molecular-level contribution is still not obvious enough at triage

• the special-issue fit is clearer than the journal-fit argument for IJMS as a broad molecular-sciences journal

• the data-availability statement is too vague for a fast editorial read even though it is technically present

• the paper reads like a narrower field-journal draft that has not really been reframed for IJMS