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.
Senior Scientist, Materials Science
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation for materials science and nanoscience journals, with experience targeting Advanced Materials, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, and Small.
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.
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.
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.
In our pre-submission review work
In our pre-submission review work on Materials-targeting manuscripts, we repeatedly see that editors actually punish scope ambiguity more than authors expect. Because the journal is broad, teams assume broad framing will help. In practice, broad framing often makes the paper feel less grounded.
We also see that characterization mismatch is the hidden commercial risk. A paper can be technically sound in a general sense and still feel underpowered if the evidence does not directly support the material claim being sold in the title and abstract.
Our analysis of manuscripts targeting Materials shows that the strongest submissions make one materials-science claim and defend it with the exact measurements that claim requires. We have found that editors specifically screen for whether the materials contribution remains obvious after removing prestige language, general application language, and broad field framing. If the answer is no, the manuscript usually needs a different journal or a tighter rewrite before submission.
The official MDPI instructions point in the same direction. They emphasize reproducibility, controls, data availability, and a cover letter that explains significance and fit. That is a strong sign that the journal wants cleaner scientific packaging, not less of it.
Materials versus a more selective or narrower venue
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
Submit If / Think Twice If
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.
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.
Sources
Final step
Submitting to Materials?
Run the Free Readiness Scan to see score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
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 Progress in Materials Science? How Editors Actually Decide
- Materials Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- Materials Acceptance Rate: What Authors Can Use
- Materials Impact Factor 2026: 3.2, Q2, Rank 25/96
- Pre-Submission Review for Materials Science Manuscripts: What Reviewers Expect
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Submitting to Materials?
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.