Materials Acceptance Rate

Academic editors check scope (any area of materials science, broadly defined), completeness of characterization data, and basic scientific soundness. Two external reviewers then evaluate the work under single-blind review. The APC is approximately 2,600 CHF (~$2,900 USD) with no subscription-track alternative.

The most common reviewer complaint across Materials submissions is insufficient characterization. If you have made a new composite, alloy, coating, or functional material and the characterization is limited to XRD and SEM, that is not enough for 2026. Reviewers expect a characterization package that matches your specific claims. If you are claiming improved mechanical properties, they want tensile testing data with proper statistics and error bars. If you are claiming a novel phase, they want TEM or synchrotron data, not just a suspicious XRD peak. If you are reporting corrosion resistance, they want electrochemical testing with appropriate controls. If you claim enhanced thermal properties, they want DSC or TGA data.

Papers that read as engineering reports rather than materials science research get flagged at triage. The materials science angle needs to be genuine: the paper should advance understanding of the material itself, not just report an engineering process optimization where the material is incidental.

Papers previously rejected from higher-tier journals and resubmitted without addressing reviewer concerns are also identified by experienced reviewers. They recognize the signs: formatting artifacts from a different journal's template, oddly specific scope framing that does not quite match Materials, and reference lists that stop two years ago because the manuscript has been sitting on a hard drive since its last rejection. If you are resubmitting after a rejection elsewhere, address the previous reviewers' comments first.

Special issues generate a large share of submissions to Materials. MDPI recruits hundreds of guest editors who invite colleagues and contacts to submit. The papers go through review, but the editorial oversight varies by guest editor. If you are submitting to a special issue, check the guest editor's own publication record and look at papers already published in the collection. Some special issues produce focused, high-quality collections. Others are looser thematic groupings where a paper on biodegradable polymers appears alongside corrosion coating studies.

With a 65% acceptance rate, the question is genuinely not "can I get in?" It is "should this paper go here?" Three factors determine the answer.

First, have you tried more selective venues? If your work could realistically land at Journal of Materials Science (IF ~4.5, ~30-40% acceptance), Materials Science and Engineering: A (IF ~6.4, ~25-35%), Journal of the European Ceramic Society (IF ~6.0, ~30-35%), or a relevant society journal, those should be your first targets. They offer higher impact factors, stronger institutional recognition, and no mandatory APC for subscription-track papers. A paper published there gets more reputational return. If you have already been rejected from a more selective journal and have addressed the reviewer comments, Materials is a logical and legitimate next step.

Second, does your department or hiring committee distinguish by publisher? In competitive materials science departments, search committees know the difference between Acta Materialia and Materials (MDPI). A CV heavily weighted toward MDPI journals, regardless of the technical quality of the individual papers, may raise questions during promotion or hiring review. This is not universal, and it varies by country, institution, and sub-field. But it is real enough that early-career researchers should ask senior colleagues before building a publication record that relies primarily on MDPI venues.

Third, consider MDPI's more specialized journals. Nanomaterials (IF ~4.7) covers nanoscale materials with a higher impact factor. Polymers, Coatings, Crystals, and Metals each cover subsets of Materials' scope with better-targeted audiences. If your paper fits one of these narrower venues, you may reach a more relevant readership and benefit from a higher IF, all within the same MDPI system and editorial workflow. Researchers sometimes default to Materials because of the broad name, but a more specific MDPI title is often the better choice.

The APC of ~2,600 CHF is a factor for budgeting. Unlike hybrid journals where subscription-track publishing is free, every accepted Materials paper requires payment. Check whether your institution has an MDPI agreement. MDPI also offers case-by-case waivers for authors from low-income countries, and editorial board members sometimes receive discounts.

The most common mistake is submitting with incomplete characterization and assuming the 65% acceptance rate means lower data quality standards. It does not. Incomplete characterization is the top revision trigger across MDPI journals, and Materials is no exception. Every new material or property claim needs to be supported by the characterization data appropriate for that claim.

The second mistake is shoehorning a paper into a special issue it does not genuinely fit. Guest editors invite broadly, and researchers sometimes submit to a special issue based on a personal connection with the editor rather than genuine thematic alignment. Reviewers notice when a paper does not belong in the collection, and the disconnect undermines the paper's credibility during review.

The third mistake is not trying a more selective journal first. If your paper presents genuine novelty and you have not submitted to Acta Materialia, Journal of Materials Science, MSE:A, or a relevant society journal, you may be leaving impact and recognition on the table. The 65% acceptance rate at Materials is appealing for its certainty, but the reputational return at a more selective venue is higher if your work is strong enough to get through.

The fourth mistake is the reverse: dismissing Materials because of generalized MDPI skepticism without checking the actual journal metrics and what your sub-field community publishes. Materials is indexed, carries a real IF, and papers published there get cited in the materials science literature. A few Materials papers mixed with publications in more selective venues is a perfectly normal CV pattern in many departments.

For Materials, you do not need to guess. MDPI provides acceptance rate data, and the journal's statistics page reports decision times and article volumes. Check the MDPI statistics page for Materials.

Then scan recent publications in your sub-area to confirm that comparable work is being published. If you see papers with similar scope, characterization depth, and methodological approach, your submission is within range.

Also consider whether one of MDPI's more specialized journals (Nanomaterials, Polymers, Coatings, Crystals, Metals) is a better fit. These reach more targeted audiences and some carry higher impact factors than Materials.

Materials is a legitimate Q2 materials science journal with fast turnaround, high volume, and an acceptance rate of approximately 65%. It is appropriate for technically sound work that does not require a top-tier venue.

The speed (6-8 weeks submission to publication) and guaranteed open access are genuine advantages for researchers with timeline pressure or funder mandates. For researchers whose work presents genuine novelty, try Acta Materialia, Journal of Materials Science, or MSE:A first. Materials will still be there if those journals decline.

If your characterization data is complete, your conclusions match your evidence, and you have considered whether a more selective venue should be tried first, prepare your manuscript and submit. A pre-submission manuscript check can flag characterization gaps, scope issues, and formatting problems before your paper enters the queue.