Is Your Paper Ready for Materials (MDPI)? A Realistic Pre-Submission Checklist

I've seen researchers treat MDPI journals as easy targets where anything gets through. That's wrong, and it leads to frustrating desk rejections. Materials has editorial standards, and they've tightened in recent years as the journal has worked to protect its indexing status and impact factor.

Novelty, even if it's modest. Your paper doesn't need to rewrite a subfield. But it does need to show something new. If you've tested a well-known alloy composition under conditions that have already been studied, with results that confirm what everyone expected, that won't pass editorial screening. The bar isn't "change the field." It's "add something that wasn't known before." A new composition, a previously untested processing condition, a surprising property measurement, any of these can work.

Clear experimental methodology. Materials editors pay attention to whether your methods section is reproducible. Vague descriptions like "samples were prepared using standard techniques" will get flagged. If a reader couldn't replicate your experiment from your methods section alone, you've got a problem.

Appropriate characterization depth. This is where a lot of papers stumble. If you're reporting on a new composite material, editors expect more than just tensile testing. They want structural characterization (XRD, SEM/TEM), thermal analysis where relevant, and enough data to support the claims you're making. A paper that claims improved mechanical properties but only shows one type of test is going to draw criticism.

Statistical treatment of data. Surprisingly many submissions to Materials don't include error bars, standard deviations, or any indication of reproducibility. Editors have become stricter about this. If you ran three samples, say so and show the variation. If you ran one sample, that's a problem you should fix before submitting.

Let's address this directly, because it affects every submission decision involving an MDPI journal.

MDPI has been criticized for high publication volumes, aggressive email solicitations, and the perception that its journals prioritize quantity over quality. Some researchers won't submit to any MDPI journal on principle. Others see MDPI journals as perfectly legitimate venues that happen to operate at scale.

Here's my honest take: Materials isn't a predatory journal. It's indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, it has a genuine impact factor, and it undergoes real peer review. But the reputation concern is real, and it varies by field and geography. In some European and Asian institutions, MDPI journals are treated as standard publication venues. In some US departments, there's lingering skepticism.

What this means practically: if you're an early-career researcher building a publication record, a paper in Materials counts and it'll get cited. If you're going up for tenure at a department that's picky about journal prestige, you should know that some committee members might view MDPI publications differently than a paper in Acta Materialia or Advanced Materials. That's not fair, but it's reality.

The question isn't whether Materials is legitimate. It is. The question is whether it's the right strategic choice for your career stage and institutional context.

Materials covers an unusually broad range of topics within materials science. That's both an advantage and a source of confusion.

What clearly fits:

• Metals and alloys (processing, characterization, mechanical behavior)
• Polymers and polymer composites
• Ceramics and glass
• Nanomaterials and nanocomposites
• Biomaterials and biocompatible materials
• Construction materials (concrete, cementitious systems)
• Energy materials (batteries, fuel cells, photovoltaics)
• Coatings and thin films
• Computational materials science

What doesn't fit (and gets desk-rejected):

• Pure chemistry papers with no materials application
• Device physics papers where the materials aspect is incidental
• Clinical studies on biomedical implants (better for biomaterials-specific journals)
• Papers that are really chemical engineering dressed up as materials science

The scope trap with Materials is different from specialty journals. At specialty journals, you get rejected for being too broad. At Materials, you're more likely to get rejected for submitting something that's adjacent to materials science but isn't really about the material itself. If your paper's main contribution is a new synthetic route for a known compound, and you don't characterize the resulting material in any depth, that's a chemistry paper, not a materials paper.

Here are the specific manuscript types that consistently get bounced:

The "we made it and tested it" paper with no insight. You synthesized a material and ran standard characterization. The XRD shows it's crystalline. The SEM shows the morphology. The tensile test shows the strength. But you haven't explained why any of these results matter or what they tell us that we didn't already know. This is the most common rejection pattern at Materials. Editors want interpretation, not just data.

The review paper that's really a literature list. Materials publishes reviews, but they expect reviews that synthesize and offer perspective. If your review reads like an annotated bibliography, "Smith et al. (2020) studied X, Jones et al. (2021) studied Y", it won't pass. Reviews need a thesis, a framework, and conclusions that go beyond "more research is needed."

Incomplete characterization paired with strong claims. If you're claiming your new material outperforms existing alternatives, you need to actually test against those alternatives under comparable conditions. Saying "our material shows promising properties" while only comparing to one reference sample isn't enough.

Resubmissions from higher-tier journals without revision. Editors can often tell when a paper has been rejected elsewhere and resubmitted without changes. If Acta Materialia or Journal of the American Ceramic Society rejected your paper with reviewer comments, address those comments before sending it to Materials. The reviewers at Materials might raise the same issues.

Materials uses single-blind peer review, meaning reviewers know who you are but you don't know who they are. Most papers go to 2-3 reviewers.

The timeline is genuinely fast by academic standards:

• Editorial triage: 1-3 days
• Reviewer assignment: 3-7 days
• First review round: 2-4 weeks
• Revision period: 7-14 days (MDPI gives tight deadlines)
• Second review (if needed): 1-2 weeks
• Production to publication: 1-2 weeks
• Total for accepted papers: 6-10 weeks

That revision deadline deserves special attention. MDPI journals are known for giving short revision windows, often 7-10 days for minor revisions and 14 days for major revisions. If you can't turn around revisions quickly, talk to the editorial office. They'll usually grant extensions, but you need to ask.

One thing I've noticed about MDPI reviews: they tend to be shorter and more checklist-oriented than reviews at subscription journals. You'll often get 5-10 specific comments rather than the multi-page narrative reviews you might see at Acta Materialia. This isn't necessarily bad, it means you'll know exactly what needs fixing, but it can feel less substantive.

Ask yourself these questions honestly:

Does your paper report something new? Not a marginal variation on existing work, but a genuinely new result, method, or observation. The novelty bar at Materials isn't as high as Acta Materialia, but it exists.

Is your characterization complete for the claims you're making? If you claim improved mechanical properties, have you tested more than one property? If you claim thermal stability, have you run TGA/DSC? Match your characterization to your claims.

Can you explain why your results matter? Not just what you found, but why someone working on a different material or application should care. If the "so what" isn't clear to you, it won't be clear to reviewers.

Is $2,600 in your budget? The APC is a real consideration. If your grant doesn't cover publication charges, check whether your institution has an MDPI agreement. Many universities have negotiated discounts or prepaid credits.

Are you comfortable with MDPI's reputation in your specific community? This varies enormously by field and institution. If you're unsure, ask a senior colleague who's on hiring or tenure committees.

A Materials (MDPI) manuscript fit check at this stage can identify scope mismatches and common structural issues before you finalize your submission.

A few practical tips specific to Materials:

Use the Special Issue route if one fits. Materials runs dozens of Special Issues at any given time. Submitting to a relevant Special Issue can mean faster reviewer assignment (the guest editors often have reviewers lined up) and slightly higher visibility within the themed collection. The review standards are the same as regular submissions, but the logistics tend to move faster.

Don't skimp on figures. Materials is an online-only journal, so there's no page charge pressure. High-quality figures with clear labels, scale bars, and color that works in both screen and print formats will make reviewers' lives easier. I've seen papers rejected partly because the SEM images were low resolution or the graphs were illegible.

Write a graphical abstract even if it's not required. MDPI's platform displays graphical abstracts prominently, and papers with them get more clicks. Spend 30 minutes making a clear, visually appealing summary figure.

Before submitting, consider running your manuscript through a Materials submission readiness check to catch scope mismatches, incomplete characterization claims, and structural issues that might trigger a desk rejection.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Materials, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

Synthesis papers without a measurable property advantage over existing alternatives (roughly 35%). The Materials author guidelines are explicit that new materials must offer measurable improvements rather than novelty as an end in itself. In our experience, roughly 35% of synthesis submissions describe a new material's preparation and characterization without establishing what advantage it offers over what already exists. Editors consistently return these papers with the observation that synthesis alone, without a demonstrated performance benefit over comparable alternatives, does not meet the journal's novelty requirement.

Composite and hybrid material papers without microstructural evidence of interfacial bonding quality (roughly 25%). In our experience, roughly 25% of composite papers claim reinforcement or improvement in bulk properties without providing microstructural evidence explaining why the improvement occurs. Editors consistently require TEM or SEM evidence of the interfacial region when a paper attributes improved mechanical, thermal, or electrical properties to a composite structure. A result section that reports tensile strength gains without showing the interface between matrix and reinforcement is treated as incompletely supported.

Biomaterial papers without cytotoxicity testing on relevant cell lines (roughly 20%). In our experience, roughly 20% of biomaterial and tissue engineering scaffold papers reaching us for pre-submission review present detailed physical and chemical characterization without the ISO 10993 cytotoxicity evaluation that editors consistently require before a biomedical materials paper can be considered complete. Papers that report contact angle, porosity, and mechanical properties but defer biocompatibility assessment to future work are returned because the biological performance data is considered a core component of the submission, not an optional supplement.

Thin film and coating papers without adhesion or durability testing under relevant service conditions (roughly 15%). In our experience, roughly 15% of thin film papers report optical or electrical properties without mechanical performance data relevant to the intended application. Editors consistently treat adhesion and durability characterization as obligatory for coating papers, not as enhancements. A paper that characterizes the optical transmittance and conductivity of a new coating but does not address how it performs under thermal cycling, moisture exposure, or mechanical stress is classified as partially characterized and returned accordingly.

Computational materials papers without synthesis feasibility or experimental verification (roughly 10%). In our experience, roughly 10% of DFT or molecular dynamics submissions predict new properties for materials that have not been synthesized and do not connect the prediction to an experimentally realizable pathway. Editors consistently distinguish between computational papers that advance understanding of known materials and those that predict properties for hypothetical materials without a plausible path to verification. The latter category is treated as hypothesis-generating rather than a complete contribution to the journal's scope of impactful materials work.

SciRev community data for Materials confirms the review timeline and rejection patterns documented above.

Before submitting to Materials, a Materials manuscript fit check identifies whether your characterization depth, novelty framing, and experimental completeness meet Materials's editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Ready to submit if:

• You can pass every item on this checklist without qualifying language
• An experienced colleague in your field has read the manuscript and agrees it's competitive
• The data package is complete - no pending experiments or analyses
• You have identified why Is Your Paper Ready for Materials (MDPI) specifically (not just prestige) is the right venue

Not ready yet if:

• You skipped items on this checklist because you "plan to add them later"
• The methods section still has draft or incomplete protocol text
• Key figures are drafts rather than publication-quality
• You cannot articulate what distinguishes this paper from recent (MDPI) publications