Materials Under Review: What the Status Means

The first status period is not the full scientific review. It is the journal checking whether the record can be handled: files open correctly, author metadata is complete, disclosures are included, ethics statements are present, and the manuscript appears to match the journal's scope. For Materials, this stage matters because a small administrative issue can look like a peer-review delay from the author's side. If the status changes quickly to Under Review, read that as a routing signal, not as proof that every reviewer has accepted.

The useful action during this stage is not to ask whether the editor likes the paper. It is to make sure every status email, submission-form field, and manuscript file points to the same claim. A mismatch between the cover letter, abstract, figure sequence, methods, data, or supplementary files creates editorial friction even when the work is credible. For Materials, the file package should make clear that the manuscript is ready on SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices rather than a generic manuscript looking for a prestigious home before a reviewer has to reconstruct the claim.

At this point the manuscript is being read for fit. The editor is not only asking whether the manuscript is polished, but whether the manuscript makes materials-science centrality, characterization depth, novelty beyond a known material class, reproducibility, applied-utility framing, special-issue fit, and routing against broader MDPI or specialty materials journals visible quickly enough to justify outside review. A manuscript can be technically careful and still difficult to route if the abstract promises one contribution while the methods, figures, data, or supplementary files support another.

The editor may be matching the manuscript to materials synthesis reviewers, characterization reviewers, device or application reviewers, computational materials reviewers, and editors who can judge whether the study is a materials contribution rather than a chemistry, engineering, or applied-physics paper. That matching process can take time because the editor needs reviewers who can evaluate the central claim without rebuilding the manuscript's logic from scratch. Under Review can therefore cover both reviewer recruitment and active review.

At Materials, the handling editor is usually testing materials-science centrality, characterization depth, novelty beyond a known material class, reproducibility, applied-utility framing, special-issue fit, and routing against broader MDPI or specialty materials journals. The portal can show Under Review while the handling editor checks SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices. That editorial culture matters because a strong manuscript can still fail if the review path makes it look like the wrong article type, audience, or venue. A Materials handling editor is also deciding whether the paper should stay in this exact journal lane or route to Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional Materials, Biomaterials, Energy Storage Materials, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Journal of Materials Science, Materials & Design, and Acta Materialia before the full reviewer pool is assembled.

In parallel, the editor may be identifying two to three reviewers and checking whether the manuscript has the right scope for those reviewers. Recruiting reviewers can take 7 to 28 days when the topic sits between fields, depends on a specialized dataset, or requires both methodological and domain expertise. A Materials manuscript can therefore show Under Review while the editor is still securing the right reviewer mix.

For authors, the useful question is not "has someone accepted yet?" The useful question is "if a reviewer accepts today, would the manuscript's SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices make the claim easy to evaluate?" That is the difference between passive waiting and productive waiting.

This is the main period in which reviewers evaluate the paper. They are usually checking whether the conclusion follows from the methods, whether the strongest comparison or control is present, whether figures match claims, and whether limitations are honest. In Materials, the common weak point is not always the headline finding. It is often the missing bridge between the manuscript's strongest claim and the evidence a reviewer can audit quickly.

Active review is also where timeline anxiety becomes least informative. A quiet portal does not tell you whether one reviewer is late, whether the editor is waiting for another report, whether a reviewer declined and had to be replaced, or whether reports are already in synthesis. Days 21 to 90 is a practical main review window for Materials because MDPI workflows can move quickly once reviewers accept, but broad materials manuscripts still depend on reviewer availability and technical checks.

Use the waiting window to produce a revision-ready response map. Put the likely objection in one column, the manuscript location in another, the strongest supporting figure or table in a third, and the limitation language in a fourth. If the decision is revise, that map saves days. If the decision is reject, it helps you choose a cleaner transfer or resubmission path.

After reports arrive, the editor has to turn them into a decision. This can still look like Under Review, Reviews Complete, Required Reviews Complete, Awaiting Recommendation, or Decision in Process depending on the portal. Do not assume silence during this period means rejection. It can mean the editor is reconciling mixed reports, checking whether one reviewer misunderstood the scope, or deciding whether the manuscript needs another opinion.

The synthesis window is where the editor tests whether reviewer concerns are compatible. If one reviewer wants deeper methods and another wants a shorter argument, the decision letter may take longer because the editor has to decide which instruction governs the revision. That delay is procedural, not necessarily negative.

Not automatically. The most common explanation is reviewer recruitment or a delayed report, not a hidden rejection. The more useful interpretation is whether the elapsed time matches the stage. If the paper moved to Under Review quickly and then stayed there, the editor may still be waiting on one reviewer. If the status changed after several weeks, the editor may be synthesizing reports. If there has been no movement past the normal threshold, a polite inquiry is reasonable.

What you should not do is rewrite the manuscript in panic or submit elsewhere. Prepare the response materials that will matter if the decision is revise, reject with comments, or transfer.

Across our pre-submission reviews for Materials manuscript packages, three named patterns explain most of the productive work authors can do while the portal still says Under Review. These patterns are useful because they are tied to manuscript components a reviewer can inspect, not to generic advice about waiting.

Our review of Materials manuscript packages turns each status-risk pattern below into a concrete waiting-window task: inspect the abstract, first figure or model, methods, cover letter, data files, reporting notes, and limitation language before the reviewer report arrives.

The pages that create the most avoidable status anxiety are not always the obviously weak papers. They are credible papers where authors wait passively during Under Review instead of preparing for the exact review objections most likely to arrive. Official guidance explains the workflow, but it rarely connects the status label to the manuscript components reviewers will test.

Materials broad-scope-as-fallback status risk: the manuscript fits a materials keyword but not a crisp materials question. The abstract names a polymer, ceramic, alloy, coating, composite, scaffold, membrane, nanoparticle, or thin film, yet the claim could belong in chemistry, engineering, physics, or biomedical application. While Under Review, prepare a one-paragraph fit note showing why Materials is the right audience and which adjacent journal would be the cleaner fallback if reviewers ask for a narrower venue. For Materials, connect this risk to the abstract, cover letter, title, keywords, and first figure and to SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices.

Check whether your abstract is review-ready→

Materials incomplete characterization and controls: the main effect is plausible, but the reviewer has to trust the material identity, batch consistency, or control choice. Use the waiting period to line up raw spectra, microscopy panels, calibration details, supplementary tables, and negative or baseline controls so the revision can answer reliability objections quickly. For Materials, connect this risk to the methods, characterization figures, supplementary information, raw data, and limitations and to SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices.

Check whether your methods is review-ready→

Materials speed-driven submission without fit argument: the paper was prepared for fast MDPI handling but not for reviewer skepticism. The language emphasizes novelty and application while under-explaining why the material mechanism, structure-property relationship, or performance benchmark is decisive. Build a response map that separates what the paper proves from what it only suggests. For Materials, connect this risk to the discussion, benchmark table, performance figure, and data availability statement and to SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices.

Check whether your discussion is review-ready→

• Materials reviewer-routing risk: The wrong reviewer pool can make a sound paper look less convincing than it is. Use the waiting window to identify how the abstract, keywords, suggested reviewers, article type, and field framing point to materials synthesis reviewers, characterization reviewers, device or application reviewers, computational materials reviewers, and editors who can judge whether the study is a materials contribution rather than a chemistry, engineering, or applied-physics paper.

• Materials revision-readiness gap: Revision speed depends on whether authors already know which objection is likely. Draft answer blocks for the two most likely reviewer concerns before the decision letter arrives.

The recurring Manusights pattern is that authors often over-prepare the wrong asset while the manuscript is under review. They polish prose when the likely reviewer objection is a missing control, rewrite the introduction when the likely problem is a benchmark table, or wait for the decision letter when the abstract, methods, figures, theory, and supplementary files already reveal the response strategy. For Materials, the highest-value waiting work is to make the evidence chain explicit enough that a reviewer can test the claim without inventing the authors' logic.

Of the 100 most recent Manusights pre-submission reviews we use as a status-page pattern sample, the useful signal was not the portal label by itself. It was whether the draft already had a journal-specific evidence map before reports arrived. Official guidance explains the workflow, but that is why this page ties Under Review to SuSy file integrity, MDPI ethics declarations, article type, cover letter, data availability statement, supplementary characterization files, figure readability, materials scope, conflict statements, and open peer review choices instead of only defining the status phrase.

This guide tells you what Materials editors look for while the manuscript is being routed or reviewed. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that check before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Materials and peer venues; the named patterns above are the same ones handling editors and outside reviewers flag during first review. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

If you want a second set of eyes before the report lands, use the Materials AI review to identify reviewer-risk issues while the manuscript is still under review.

Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional Materials, Biomaterials, Energy Storage Materials, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Journal of Materials Science, Materials & Design, and Acta Materialia can be cleaner routes when the result needs more length, narrower readership, a different article format, or a different editorial promise. Do not treat transfer planning as pessimism. It is a way to shorten the next move if the decision letter confirms the current venue is one level too broad, too narrow, or too format-specific.

Official pages explain submission mechanics, but they usually do not translate a static Under Review label into the author's next practical move. Publisher resources identify the submission route, journal scope, and author-facing requirements; the Manusights layer interprets the status through Materials manuscript risk. The reader job is narrow: "my manuscript is already in the portal; what does this status mean and what should I do while waiting?"

The Manusights review link appears only after the status definition, timeline, follow-up threshold, source limitations, and journal-specific reviewer-risk prep. That keeps this status page focused on the waiting author while leaving the public submission guide to own pre-upload mechanics.

Source limitations: this page uses public official-source guidance plus Manusights manuscript-risk interpretation; it cannot see the private reviewer invitations, report status, or handling-editor notes inside your manuscript record.

Public journal guidance can tell you the portal, article-scope language, submission route, and broad peer-review policy. It usually cannot tell you whether your specific paper has reviewers assigned, whether a reviewer has missed a deadline, or whether the editor is leaning toward revision or rejection. That is why this page separates official-source facts from practical interpretation. The official sources anchor the workflow; the Manusights contribution is the manuscript-level risk translation.

Official sources used for this Under Review interpretation:

• https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials/instructions
• https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
• https://susy.mdpi.com/
• https://www.mdpi.com/authors/submit
• https://www.mdpi.com/ethics
• https://blog.mdpi.com/2022/08/03/manuscript-status-information/

• Materials hub
• Materials submission guide
• Materials review time
• Advanced Materials Under Review
• Advanced Functional Materials Under Review
• Biomaterials Under Review
• Energy Storage Materials Under Review

Before the decision arrives, you can also run a Materials pre-submission style review focused on likely reviewer objections.