Materials Submission Guide: What Editors Screen Before Review
Materials's submission process, first-decision timing, and the editorial checks that matter before peer review begins.
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.
Key numbers before you submit to Materials
Acceptance rate, editorial speed, and cost context — the metrics that shape whether and how you submit.
What acceptance rate actually means here
- Materials accepts roughly ~50-60% of submissions — but desk rejection runs higher.
- Scope misfit and framing problems drive most early rejections, not weak methodology.
- Papers that reach peer review face a different bar: novelty, rigor, and fit with the journal's editorial identity.
What to check before you upload
- Scope fit — does your paper address the exact problem this journal publishes on?
- Desk decisions are fast; scope problems surface within days.
- Open access publishing costs ~$1,800-2,200 if you choose gold OA.
- Cover letter framing — editors use it to judge fit before reading the manuscript.
How to approach Materials
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Manuscript preparation |
2. Package | Submission via MDPI system |
3. Cover letter | Editorial assessment |
4. Final check | Peer review |
Quick answer: this Materials submission guide is mainly a focus and completeness test. Materials is broad, but that does not mean it is a junk drawer. The current MDPI instructions still ask for full experimental details, controls, and complete datasets where possible, and the journal's fast workflow means a weakly framed submission gets filtered quickly. If the paper is not unmistakably about a material and its properties, processing, structure, or performance, the fit is weaker than many authors assume.
Run a Materials pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit, or work through this guide manually.
What this Materials submission guide should help you decide
The real question is not just whether the journal covers your area. The question is whether the manuscript is centered on a materials-science contribution rather than on adjacent chemistry, device engineering, or process optimization.
That distinction matters because Materials now combines three things that create temptation:
- broad scope
- fast editorial handling
- free-format initial submission
Those features make the journal look forgiving. But the same instructions also say that research articles should report scientifically sound experiments and provide a substantial amount of new information, and that full experimental details and controls should be available so others can reproduce the work. So the page should help you answer the real commercial question: does this submission look complete and materials-centered enough to move cleanly through a high-volume but still technical review system?
What editors actually want from a Materials submission
Screen | What passes | What gets returned |
|---|---|---|
Materials centrality | The paper is fundamentally about a material class, structure, processing route, property map, or materials-performance relationship | The paper is really chemistry, catalysis, or engineering with a material mentioned in passing |
Characterization completeness | The evidence package matches the specific property or mechanism claims | The manuscript makes a large claim from a thin set of measurements |
Scope clarity | The submission can be routed cleanly inside a broad materials journal | The paper feels split across multiple identities without a clear center |
Reproducibility | Experimental details, controls, and data logic are strong enough for others to follow | The methods look abbreviated, selective, or hard to reproduce |
Package readiness | The required sections, back matter, and cover letter are already in order | The manuscript still feels administratively or scientifically provisional |
What the official package and journal surface imply
Element | Official or practical expectation | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
Article standard | MDPI says articles should report scientifically sound experiments and a substantial amount of new information | Soundness is necessary, but thin incremental work still struggles |
Full detail requirement | The instructions require full experimental detail and publication of controls and datasets where possible | Missing methods or weak controls create immediate friction |
Free-format submission | Materials accepts free-format initial submission, but the manuscript still needs the required sections and consistent references | Free-format is not the same as loose or incomplete |
Cover letter | The current instructions say a cover letter must explain significance and journal fit | Editors expect authors to state the materials case directly |
Speed signal | The Materials instructions page currently shows a 16-day time to first decision | Early editorial skepticism matters because the queue moves fast |
The main practical implication is simple: this journal does not need you to perfect house style before submission, but it does need you to know what kind of paper you are sending and why it belongs there.
Evidence boundary: MDPI publishes Materials aims and scope, article types, submission checklist, cover-letter requirements, data and supplementary-material expectations, APC information, and SuSy upload instructions, but it does not publish a stable desk-rejection rate by materials class. Official guidance should remain the source of truth for upload rules; use the fit screen below to test whether the abstract, figures, methods, controls, supplementary material, data statement, and cover letter prove a materials-science contribution rather than a speed-driven journal choice.
Failure patterns that waste a Materials submission
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.
Failure Patterns That Make a Paper Feel Weak for Materials
The paper is really chemistry with a materials wrapper. This happens when synthesis, mechanism, or reaction language dominates and the actual materials contribution stays vague.
The paper is really an engineering report. If the manuscript is mainly about process parameters, manufacturing throughput, or device operation and the material itself is secondary, the fit weakens.
The characterization stack is lighter than the claim. Materials reviewers are not lenient because the journal is broad. If the paper claims a novel phase, unusual interface behavior, large mechanical improvement, or a new functional mechanism, the evidence has to match.
The manuscript does not identify a clear material question. A broad journal still expects a sharp center. When the reader cannot tell whether the paper is about alloys, coatings, polymers, ceramics, or biomaterials in a way that matters scientifically, the submission becomes harder to route and easier to reject.
The free-format benefit is misunderstood as a quality waiver. Authors sometimes interpret free-format as permission to submit a half-built package. It is not. It simply lowers formatting friction at the start.
Before submitting to Materials, a Materials submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.
Start with the official rules for upload mechanics, then judge the draft itself. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes the Materials fit screen before upload, especially around broad scope as fallback pattern, incomplete controls in a fast review system pattern, and speed driven submission without fit argument pattern. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Materials
The broad scope as fallback pattern
In our pre-submission review work with materials-science manuscripts targeting Materials, we often see papers submitted because the journal is broad rather than because the manuscript has a clear fit. The title, abstract, figures, methods, and cover letter describe a coating, alloy, polymer, ceramic, composite, biomaterial, nanomaterial, or functional material, but the manuscript does not identify the actual materials question. MDPI's own instructions ask authors to read the aims and scope, prepare the manuscript with the required sections, address ethics, copyright, authorship, figure formats, data, and references, and include a cover letter explaining significance and fit. Those requirements make broad scope a responsibility, not a waiver.
The repair is to make one materials contribution unmistakable. The abstract should state what structure, property, processing route, function, or mechanism changed and why that matters. The figures should support that claim directly rather than presenting a generic characterization stack. The methods should include enough experimental detail for reproducibility, including controls and full datasets where possible. The cover letter should explain why Materials is better than Journal of Materials Science, Materials and Design, Polymers, Coatings, Ceramics, Metals, Nanomaterials, Applied Sciences, or a specialist society journal. A broad journal can work well, but only when the manuscript still has a sharp center.
Check whether your Materials manuscript passes the the broad scope as fallback pattern screen →
The incomplete controls in a fast review system pattern
In our pre-submission review work with Materials submissions, the hidden risk is not usually formatting. It is incomplete controls. MDPI's instructions say full experimental details must be provided so results can be reproduced, and that authors should publish experimental controls and make full datasets available where possible. That is exactly where many otherwise publishable manuscripts look weak: the abstract overstates a property change, the figures show only favorable samples, the methods skip negative controls or replicate details, and the supplementary material does not contain the raw data needed to evaluate the claim.
The fix is to align the evidence stack with the claim before upload to SuSy. For alloys, ceramics, polymers, coatings, biomaterials, composites, and nanomaterials, the main figures should show the controlling comparison, not just the best result. The supplementary material should include raw spectra, micrographs, mechanical curves, thermal data, electrochemical data, repeat measurements, uncertainty, and processing conditions when those support the claim. The data availability statement should be specific rather than boilerplate. If the paper's evidence is strong enough for a narrower venue such as Materials and Design, Acta Materialia, Journal of Materials Science, ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, or Advanced Engineering Materials, authors should consider whether Materials is the best strategic fit.
The speed driven submission without fit argument pattern
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Materials, the third pattern is a submission built around speed rather than journal fit. Authors see the fast editorial workflow, open-access model, Special Issue ecosystem, and free-format initial submission and assume the main risk is administrative. The manuscript then arrives with a weak cover letter, generic title, broad abstract, unclear material contribution, and references that do not establish the exact literature gap. This is risky because Materials' instructions still require a cover letter stating significance and fit, plus author approval, conflict disclosure, data and supplementary-material discipline, and correct file preparation.
The practical repair is to write the fit argument before final formatting. The cover letter should name the material class, the specific gap, and why Materials readers need the result. The abstract should avoid vague impact language and state the measurable contribution. The methods should make reproducibility visible. The figures and tables should be arranged around the main property, mechanism, processing, or function claim. If the submission is mostly about catalysis, biomedical application, device engineering, or process optimization, a specialist journal may be better. Materials is strongest when the manuscript uses breadth to reach a broader materials audience, not when breadth hides an underdeveloped fit case.
Check whether your Materials manuscript passes the Sullivan-pass substance screen →
Materials versus a more selective or narrower venue
Venue | Best fit | Manuscript evidence needed | Better alternative when |
|---|---|---|---|
Materials | Broad MDPI materials-science paper with complete evidence | Abstract, figures, methods, controls, supplementary material, and data statement show a clear materials contribution | The journal choice is driven only by speed |
Journal of Materials Science | Broad Springer materials-science contribution | Structure-property-use argument is central and well contextualized | The paper is better served by open-access MDPI workflow |
Materials and Design | Materials engineering and design | Processing, structure, property, and design logic are integrated | The manuscript is not design-led |
Acta Materialia | Metals, alloys, deformation, and structural mechanisms | Microstructure, mechanics, or phase evidence is field-leading | The work is broader or less selective |
Nanomaterials | Nano-centered materials research | Nanoscale mechanism and characterization drive the claim | The paper is not genuinely nano-centered |
Use Materials when:
- the paper is solidly materials-science work with a clear contribution
- the characterization and controls are complete
- the manuscript does not rely on extreme novelty claims to be publishable
- a broad materials readership is actually useful
Use a narrower or more selective venue when:
- the paper belongs naturally to a specialist audience such as polymers, coatings, ceramics, alloys, or nanomaterials
- the work could realistically compete in a stronger journal and the additional editorial upside matters
- the contribution is mostly chemistry, catalysis, or device engineering rather than materials science itself
For function-led materials where the core question is whether a design produces a smart-materials consequence, use the SmartMat submission guide as the more specific fit check before defaulting to a broad materials venue.
Materials submission portal and editorial triage timeline
Materials submissions go through the MDPI SuSy system at https://susy.mdpi.com/. The current instructions say authors should use the Word or LaTeX template where useful, include a cover letter, ensure all authors approve the submission, address publication ethics, copyright, authorship, figure formats, data, and references, and prepare supplementary material where needed. MDPI states that Materials has no maximum paper length, while optional author biographies run 300-1500 characters.
Day 0 to 2: SuSy technical intake
The system and editorial office check manuscript files, author information, cover letter, conflicts of interest, ethics statements, supplementary material, data availability language, figure formats, and whether the article type is complete enough for handling.
Day 2 to 7: scope and completeness screen
Editors assess whether the title, abstract, figures, methods, controls, references, and cover letter show a materials-science contribution rather than chemistry, device engineering, or process optimization with a materials wrapper.
Week 1 to 4: reviewer assignment and peer review
Manuscripts that pass scope screening are routed to reviewers who can evaluate the material class, characterization, controls, reproducibility, and data availability. The central question is whether the evidence supports the material claim made in the abstract.
Week 4 onward: decision, revision, and production checks
Revision requests usually focus on missing controls, insufficient characterization, weak data availability, unclear methods, figure interpretation, and overclaiming in the abstract or conclusion. Accepted manuscripts move through copyediting and proofing after authors supply any final source, figure, and supplementary files.
Submit If
- the paper's main contribution is clearly about the material itself
- the evidence stack supports the core property, mechanism, or processing claim directly
- the methods and controls are complete enough for a fast review system
- the broad Materials audience is a real advantage rather than a fallback excuse
Think Twice If
- the paper becomes hard to classify once you remove the application section
- the strongest result would still need major extra characterization to feel credible
- a narrower materials journal would serve the reader and reviewer pool better
- the journal choice is driven only by speed, not by fit
What to fix before you submit
If the paper is close but not ready, work through the package in this order:
- rewrite the abstract around the material contribution rather than the general application field
- add the exact characterization the central claim depends on
- make sure methods, controls, and back matter are complete enough to satisfy the reproducibility bar
- align the framing with the Materials cover letter guide, Materials acceptance-rate page, and Materials desk-rejection guide
- ask honestly whether a narrower materials journal is the stronger home
A focused Materials submission readiness review is most useful when the problem is not basic quality, but whether the paper is genuinely materials-centered and evidentially complete enough for this workflow.
For non-MDPI alternatives, compare the Journal of Materials Chemistry C submission guide and the Journal of Materials Science submission guide.
For design-led engineering materials or mechanics-led solids papers, compare the Materials and Design submission guide and the Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids submission guide.
Frequently asked questions
It helps you decide whether the manuscript is genuinely a materials-science paper, whether the characterization supports the claims, and whether the package is complete enough for the journal's fast editorial workflow.
The common problems are incomplete characterization, weak materials-science centrality, papers that are really chemistry or engineering reports, and packages that are administratively incomplete or poorly scoped.
The current instructions emphasize full experimental detail, controls, and data availability where possible. Materials now accepts free-format submission initially, but the manuscript still needs the required sections and a cover letter that explains why the work fits the journal.
Materials is broad and fast, but it still expects a real materials contribution and a defensible evidence package. If the paper could realistically compete at a stronger specialist venue, that may be worth trying first. If the work is solid, complete, and clearly materials-centered without being a prestige play, Materials is more plausible.
Final step
Submitting to Materials?
Run the Free Readiness Scan to see score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Target journal carried over: Materials
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Materials
- Is Your Paper Ready for Materials (MDPI)? A Realistic Pre-Submission Checklist
- Materials Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- Energy Storage Materials Under Review: What the Status Means
- Materials Acceptance Rate: What Authors Can Use
- Materials Impact Factor 2026: 3.2, Q2, Rank 25/96
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Submitting to Materials?
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.