Journal Guides10 min read•Updated Oct 9, 2026

Materials Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to See

Materials editors screen for scope clarity and section fit across a broad materials-science platform. A cover letter that names the section and states a clear materials result moves fastest.

By Manusights Editorial TeamPublished March 24, 2026

Editorial processThe Manusights editorial team researches and maintains these guides using source review, field-specific analysis, and our documented editorial process.How we work

Readiness scan

Before you submit to Materials, pressure-test the manuscript.

Run the Free Readiness Scan to catch the issues most likely to stop the paper before peer review.

Check my manuscriptPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.See example reports

Time to decision14.4 days medianFirst decision Open access APCCHF 2,600Gold OA option

What makes this journal worth targeting

Materials's scope and readership determine whether the journal is a useful target.
Scope specificity matters more than headline metrics for most manuscript decisions.
Manusights does not list an acceptance rate for Materials.

When to look elsewhere

When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope, borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
If timeline matters: Materials takes 14.4 days median. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
If OA is required: gold OA costs CHF 2,600. Check institutional agreements before submitting.

Question	What to do
Use this page for	Getting the structure, tone, and decision logic right before you send anything out.
Most important move	Make the reviewer-facing or editor-facing ask obvious early rather than burying it in prose.
Common mistake	Turning a practical page into a long explanation instead of a working template or checklist.
Next step	Use the page as a tool, then adjust it to the exact manuscript and journal situation.

Materials (MDPI) at a glance	Value
Impact Factor	3.7 (2025, as listed on the MDPI journal page, read October 2026)
Rejection rate (MDPI stats page)	43% for 2025; 33% for 2026 through 30 June
Desk rejection rate	No published figure
First decision (MDPI median, first half of 2026)	About 14.4 days
Publisher	MDPI
Key editorial test	Materials-science focus + correct section routing
Cover letter required	Yes

Quick answer: a strong Materials (IF 3.7 (2025), 43% rejection rate in 2025) cover letter names the target MDPI section, states a clear materials-science result, and shows the submission is complete. The journal covers everything from metals to polymers to biomaterials, so the editor's first task is routing, help them do it without guessing.

What Materials Editors Screen For

Criterion	What They Want	Common Mistake
Section fit	Named MDPI section for correct routing	Writing a generic letter without specifying the target section
Materials focus	Paper is about materials science, not pure chemistry or physics	Framing work as chemistry or physics with no materials angle
Clear result	A specific materials-science result stated up front	Vague descriptions that do not identify what was found
Submission completeness	All files, figures, and supplementary materials included	Incomplete submissions that delay the fast MDPI workflow
Scope clarity	Editor can route the paper immediately without guessing	Broad descriptions that span multiple sections without clarity

What the official sources do and do not tell you

The official Materials instructions require a cover letter with every submission. It should be concise, explain why the content of the paper is significant in the context of existing work, and explain why the manuscript fits the scope of the journal, and it must include two statements: that neither the manuscript nor any part of its content is under consideration with, or published in, another journal, and that all authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to Materials. They do not prescribe a template.

What the journal model does imply is clear:

the manuscript should be recognizably about materials, their properties, processing, or performance

the editor needs to know which section the paper targets

the letter should reduce friction in a fast editorial workflow

That means section selection and materials focus matter more here than novelty claims.

What the editor is really screening for

At triage, the academic editor is usually asking:

is this paper about materials science, or is it a chemistry or physics paper that happens to mention a material?

does it fit the section the author selected?

does the submission look complete enough to send to reviewers without extra back-and-forth?

is the contribution stated clearly enough to justify peer review?

A cover letter that answers these questions in the opening paragraph will clear triage fastest.

A practical template you can adapt

Dear Editor,

We submit the manuscript "the manuscript title" for consideration in the
[SECTION NAME] section of Materials.

This study addresses the specific materials-science problem. We
show that the main result, with relevance to [application or
materials domain].

The manuscript fits Materials because it reports findings on
[material type or property] rather than purely fundamental
chemistry or physics. We selected the [SECTION NAME] section
because [one-sentence justification].

We confirm that neither the manuscript nor any parts of its content
are currently under consideration for publication with or published
in another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and
agree with its submission to Materials.

Sincerely,
Corresponding author

The section-naming sentence is the most important addition compared to a generic MDPI letter. MDPI also asks authors to acknowledge any prior submission of the manuscript to an MDPI journal and to give proposed and excluded reviewers in the submission system, not in the cover letter.

Mistakes that make these letters weak

never naming the target section, forcing the editor to route blindly

framing the paper as pure chemistry or pure physics with no materials angle

describing the study topic without stating what was found about the material

using high-impact novelty language instead of showing clear materials relevance

submitting a paper whose center of gravity is catalysis or device physics, not the material itself

These mistakes slow triage or lead to desk rejection.

What should drive the submission decision instead

Before polishing the letter further, confirm the journal fit. Materials is broad but explicitly materials-focused; papers whose real contribution is catalytic mechanism, device architecture, or fundamental physics will struggle regardless of letter quality. Check the journal's own author guidelines and browse recent papers in your target section to verify alignment.

Practical verdict

The strongest Materials cover letters are short, section-specific, and materials-focused. They tell the editor where to route the paper and what the materials contribution is.

So the useful takeaway is this: name your section, state the materials result, and keep the letter clean. A Materials cover letter framing check is a direct way to pressure-test whether your framing already does that before submission.

What we see in our pre-submission review work on Materials submissions

For manuscripts targeting Materials, five cover letter patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections and routing delays, even when the materials data is technically solid.

Never naming the target section. Materials is organized into more than 20 sections, among them Biomaterials, Materials Simulation and Design, Construction and Building Materials, Electronic Materials, Metals and Alloys, Polymeric Materials, Porous Materials, and others.

A cover letter that submits "to Materials" without naming the section forces the managing editor to make a routing decision without authorial guidance, which slows processing and occasionally results in routing to the wrong section. The cover letter should name the specific section in its first sentence and provide one sentence explaining why the paper belongs there.

Framing the paper as chemistry or physics with no materials angle. Materials is a materials-science journal, not a general chemistry or condensed matter physics journal. A cover letter that describes synthesis of a novel compound, photocatalytic activity under visible light, or electronic band structure calculations without connecting these to a material's properties, processing, or performance in an application context is framing the paper as chemistry or physics.

The materials angle must be explicit: what material is being characterized, what property of that material is being studied, and what does the result mean for how the material can be used or processed?

Overclaiming significance. MDPI's instructions ask the cover letter to explain why the content of the paper is significant, placing the findings in the context of existing work, and why the manuscript fits the journal's scope. MDPI's editorial independence statement says the Academic Editor decides on the suitability of the selected reviewers, the adequacy of the reviewers' comments and the authors' response, and the overall scientific quality of the paper. In practice the letter should tie any significance claim to evidence: is the study well-designed, are the conclusions supported by the data, and is the work relevant to the journal's scope?

A cover letter that opens with unsupported significance language ("this study makes a major contribution to the field of...") does not do what MDPI asks. The cover letter should place the findings in the context of existing work and demonstrate scope fit and methodological competence, not simply assert how important the work is.

Paper whose real contribution is catalytic mechanism or device physics. Materials scope includes catalytic and electronic materials, but the journal's primary focus is the material itself, not the catalysis mechanism or device architecture it enables. A cover letter for a study that spends three pages characterizing photocatalytic degradation kinetics, optimizing reaction conditions, and proposing a mechanistic pathway, with two pages describing the material that was synthesized, is presenting a catalysis paper with a materials component.

Chemical Engineering Journal, Applied Catalysis B, or a catalysis-specific journal may be the more appropriate venue. The cover letter should confirm that the materials contribution is the primary advance, not a vehicle for an applied chemistry result.

Duplicate or boilerplate cover letter template not adapted to Materials scope. A cover letter that was written for another journal and has been adapted by changing only the journal name, or that uses the generic MDPI template without section-specific content, signals that the author has not invested effort in the submission. Editors at MDPI journals read many cover letters.

The distinguishing factor between a letter that gets reviewed and one that gets returned for revision is whether it demonstrates knowledge of the journal's specific section structure and editorial model. One sentence naming the section and explaining the fit is sufficient; a generic one-paragraph description of the work is not.

A Materials cover letter framing check is the fastest way to verify that your framing meets the editorial bar before submission.

Submit Now If / Think Twice If

Submit to Materials if:

the paper's primary contribution is in materials science: characterization, processing, properties, or application of a defined material class

the specific MDPI section has been identified and the paper fits its recent publication record

the cover letter names the section and states the materials-science result in the first paragraph

the methodology is appropriate for a materials-science study: structural characterization, mechanical testing, thermal analysis, or equivalent materials-specific evaluation

the submission is complete with all required figures, supplementary materials, and declarations

Think twice if:

the primary contribution is catalytic mechanism, device architecture, or fundamental physics, where the material is a vehicle rather than the subject

Advanced Materials, ACS Nano, or another higher-impact materials journal is worth attempting first if the advance is significant

Journal of Materials Science or Materials Science and Engineering A would be a more precise scope fit for structural or mechanical materials work

the section fit is unclear because the work spans multiple materials domains without a clear primary contribution

the cover letter cannot distinguish the materials advance from a chemistry or physics paper in one direct sentence

Readiness check

Run the scan while Materials's requirements are in front of you.

See how this manuscript scores against Materials's requirements before you submit.

Check my readinessPrivate API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.See example reports

How Materials Compares for Cover Letter Strategy

Feature	Materials	Journal of Materials Science	Applied Materials Today	ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces
IF (JCR 2024)	3.2	~3.8	~8.3	~8.3
Desk rejection	No published figure	Not published	Not published	Not published
Cover letter emphasis	Materials-science focus + correct MDPI section routing	Structural, functional, and composite materials with broad scope	Applied materials science with device or technology relevance	Interface and surface engineering with application consequence
Best for	Broad materials science across sections, fast MDPI workflow	Wide-scope materials science with structural and mechanical focus	Applied materials with technology-enabling advance	Applied materials and interfaces with engineering consequence

Frequently asked questions

It should name the specific MDPI section and state what materials-science result the paper reports. The journal is broad, so the editor needs scope clarity immediately.

Writing a generic letter that never specifies which section of Materials the paper targets, or framing the work as pure chemistry or physics with no materials focus.

Yes. MDPI's instructions say a cover letter must be included with each manuscript submission, and it must contain two statements: that the manuscript is not under consideration with or published in another journal, and that all authors have approved it and agree with its submission to Materials. It is also your chance to frame scope and section fit for the handling editor.

Materials has an Impact Factor of 3.7 (2025), as listed on MDPI's journal page. MDPI's statistics page reports a rejection rate of 43% for 2025 and 33% for 2026 through 30 June, and desk rejection is common when the materials focus is unclear or the section choice is wrong.

1. Materials instructions for authors, MDPI.
2. Materials section list and scope, MDPI.
3. MDPI editorial process, MDPI.
4. Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR 2024), Clarivate.

Free guide

A cover letter is a routing note, not a sales pitch.

The editor is deciding one thing from it: is this worth my reviewers time, and does it belong here. The guide is a one-page skeleton written to that decision, so the letter answers it in the first minute rather than restating your abstract.

Put the guidance to work

Move from draft advice to a practical manuscript pass.

Choose the reporting framework first, then use the final checklist when the manuscript and submission files are ready to travel together.

Find a reporting guideline Match a study design to the reporting framework it needs.Open the final checklist Finish the complete package before uploading it to a journal.

Internal navigation

Where to go next

Start here

Materials journal guide

Same journal, next question

Supporting reads

Conversion step

Run a free manuscript preview

Back to all articles