Materials and Design Submission Guide

Source: Materials and Design on Elsevier, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

Three operational signals govern editorial assessment:

1. Materials-engineering substance. The journal requires substantive materials-engineering or design contribution.

2. Methodological rigor. Synthesis, processing, characterization, and properties must be top-tier.

3. Design or engineering emphasis. The work should engage materials-design framing or engineering applications.

Recent issues span:

• High-entropy alloys (HEAs) design

• Additive manufacturing of metals and composites

• Lightweight alloys (Mg, Al, Ti)

• Advanced steels (TWIP, TRIP, AHSS)

• Biomaterials design

• Materials for energy (batteries, solar)

• Materials informatics and AI-assisted design

• Multifunctional and architected materials

For specific recent papers and DOIs, see Materials and Design on Elsevier. Representative recent papers:

• 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112456

• 10.1016/j.matdes.2024.112789

• 10.1016/j.matdes.2024.112923

• Initial decision: typically 4-8 weeks

• First decision after review: typically 8-14 weeks

• Revision rounds: typically 1-2 major revisions to acceptance

• Time to publication after acceptance: weeks (online first available)

Official sources set the requirements, but the remaining question is manuscript fit. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Materials and Design fit check before upload, especially around characterization without design decision pattern, broad materials paper pretending to be design pattern, and performance claim without operating conditions pattern. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

The characterization without design decision pattern

Across materials-engineering manuscripts targeting Materials and Design, the most common failure mode is a well-characterized material with no clear design decision. The title, abstract, figures, methods, and cover letter describe microstructure, mechanical properties, thermal behavior, corrosion resistance, surface response, or simulation output, but the manuscript does not show how those measurements inform design. Elsevier's current scope emphasizes correlations among structure, property, and processing through innovative design.

A paper that only says "we characterized this material" usually reads as a fit for Journal of Materials Science, Materials Characterization, Materials Science and Engineering A, Acta Materialia, Surface and Coatings Technology, or a specialist composites or polymer journal.

The practical repair is to make the design variable visible. The abstract should identify the design problem, the material system, the processing or architecture change, and the performance consequence. The figures should move from structure to property to engineering decision, not stop at microscopy or spectroscopy. The methods should show enough processing parameters, design-of-experiments logic, simulation setup, property testing, and uncertainty for reviewers to trust the design conclusion.

If the manuscript is additive manufacturing, composites, alloys, ceramics, biomaterials, surface engineering, or data-driven materials design, the first table or figure should make the function-and-performance link obvious before the editor has to infer it.

Check the characterization without design decision pattern before submitting to Materials and Design →

The broad materials paper pretending to be design pattern

For Materials and Design submissions, a second recurring risk is venue overreach. Authors target Materials and Design because the journal is strong and open access, but the manuscript is fundamentally a broad materials-science contribution rather than a design-led engineering contribution. The cover letter names application relevance, but the manuscript components do not show design constraints, performance tradeoffs, manufacturability, optimization, processing window, lifecycle considerations, or system use. In that case, the journal choice can look opportunistic even when the science is publishable.

The fix is routing honesty. Materials and Design should be chosen when structure-property-processing relationships are used to make, optimize, or understand a material design. Journal of Materials Science, Materials, Materials Research Bulletin, Materials Today Communications, Acta Materialia, Scripta Materialia, Composite Structures, Construction and Building Materials, Advanced Engineering Materials, or Chemical Engineering Journal can be better fits when the design contribution is not central.

A stronger Materials and Design manuscript uses the cover letter, abstract, graphical abstract, figures, methods, supplementary information, and references to show why design integration is not just an afterthought.

Check the broad materials paper pretending to be design pattern before submitting to Materials and Design →

The performance claim without operating conditions pattern

Across Materials and Design manuscripts, the third pattern is a strong performance claim without realistic operating conditions. The abstract reports higher strength, toughness, conductivity, corrosion resistance, wear resistance, fatigue life, thermal stability, or printability, but the methods and figures do not show the environment under which the improvement matters. For a journal that explicitly connects materials science, engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, artificial intelligence, and data science, performance needs context: loading mode, strain rate, temperature, humidity, cycling, scale, manufacturing variability, service environment, or model domain.

The practical repair is to connect the performance claim to a use condition. The cover letter should name the materials-design failure mode the paper addresses. The methods should expose sample preparation, testing geometry, data processing, simulation assumptions, and uncertainty. The supplementary information should contain the controls and raw evidence needed to evaluate robustness.

If the design claim depends on AI or data science, the data availability statement and model validation should be strong enough to avoid black-box novelty. Materials and Design submissions are strongest when the abstract, figures, methods, references, and cover letter all prove the same design outcome under conditions that matter.

Check whether your Materials and Design manuscript is submission-ready →

Materials & Design requires these at first submission:

• editable manuscript source file (.docx or .tex, not PDF) with numbered section structure per Elsevier convention

• separate Declaration of Competing Interests file (mandatory across all Elsevier journals; not optional for Materials & Design)

• field-specific terminology list defining specialized terms used in the article

• cover letter establishing the materials-engineering or design contribution and the function-and-performance integration that distinguishes Materials & Design from pure-materials journals

• structured abstract per Elsevier convention

• highlights file (3-5 bullet points, 85 characters each)

• graphical abstract showing the materials-design outcome

• CRediT author contribution statement

• ethics statement (where applicable, including biosafety for biomaterials work)

• data availability statement covering raw characterization data (mechanical, thermal, electrical, microstructural), design-of-experiments matrices, and any simulation source files

• suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations and email addresses

• $3,690 USD APC for the gold open-access publication (2026; mandatory since the journal is gold OA only; many institutional Elsevier transformative agreements cover the fee)

• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process per Elsevier policy

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

For Materials & Design submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is missing the separate Declaration of Competing Interests file. Elsevier treats this as a mandatory cross-portfolio submission artifact (not optional); submissions without the separate declaration file face routine technical-screen returns before the manuscript reaches the editor's desk for substantive review.

Run a Materials & Design pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the package meets the journal's materials-engineering-with-design-integration bar.

Materials & Design manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The editorial triage pattern at Elsevier materials-engineering journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a failure pattern in current materials-design practice that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject pure-materials-characterization submissions without engineering-design integration and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around function-and-performance integration.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and technical check

The platform performs automated checks (source-file format, numbered-section structure, separate Declaration of Competing Interests file, highlights, declarations). Submissions missing the separate Declaration file are returned at this stage.

Day 5 to 21: Editor in Chief or Subject Editor desk screen

A Subject Editor (matched to metallic materials and processing, polymeric materials, ceramic and composite materials, additive manufacturing, surface engineering, multifunctional materials, or computational materials design) reviews scope fit and the materials-engineering-with-design-integration bar.

Week 4 to 8: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers selected for both the materials subfield and the design or engineering application context.

Week 8 to 16: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 4-8 week median, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 4-10 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal per Elsevier's Appeal Policy (one appeal per submission, decision final).

• Is Materials and Design a good journal?

• Acta Materialia Submission Guide

• Acta Biomaterialia Submission Guide for materials manuscripts whose central claim depends on biological function, biocompatibility, tissue interaction, or in vivo validation.

Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Materials and Design package against the same risks this guide flags in the Manusights section. The practical question is whether the abstract, cover letter, figures or tables, methods, reporting statements, supplementary files, and references all make the journal choice obvious.

• If the abstract still points toward characterization without design decision pattern, revise the central claim before upload.

• If the evidence package leaves broad materials paper pretending to be design pattern, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.

• If the cover letter cannot resolve performance claim without operating conditions pattern, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.

Last verified: May 27, 2026 against Materials and Design editorial pages.