Matter Submission Guide

Source: Matter on Cell Press, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

The strategic implication: pure-energy work fits Joule; pure-chemistry work fits Chem; broad materials work fits Matter; OA broader work fits Cell Reports Physical Science.

Three operational signals govern editorial assessment:

1. Materials-research substance. The journal requires substantive materials contribution.

2. Cross-disciplinary integration. The journal favors work that bridges materials subfields or connects to broader physical sciences.

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

Recent issues span:

• Bio-inspired and biomimetic materials

• Soft robotics and actuators

• Quantum and topological materials

• Sustainable polymers and bio-derived materials

• Materials for AI/neuromorphic computing

• 2D materials beyond graphene

• Battery and energy-storage materials

• Optical and photonic materials

For specific recent papers and DOIs, see Matter on Cell Press. Representative recent papers:

• 10.1016/j.matt.2023.10.012

• 10.1016/j.matt.2024.04.023

• 10.1016/j.matt.2024.06.034

• Initial decision: typically 1-3 weeks (selective desk-rejection)

• First decision after review: typically 8-16 weeks

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

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

The sources above define the mechanics; the harder question is whether this draft earns review. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Matter fit check before upload, especially around wrong Cell Press venue chosen, materials substance thin or narrow, and methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

Wrong Cell Press venue chosen

Matter competes with Joule (energy) and Chem (chemistry). The fix is informed routing within the Cell Press family.

Check wrong cell press venue chosen before submitting to Matter →

Materials substance thin or narrow

Matter values broad-materials significance with cross-disciplinary integration. The fix is to articulate the broad-materials contribution.

Check materials substance thin or narrow before submitting to Matter →

Methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar

The fix is rigorous execution. A Matter manuscript readiness check can identify whether broad-materials framing, cross-disciplinary integration, and methodological rigor align before submission.

Check methodological execution doesn't clear top tier bar before submitting to Matter →

Matter requires these at first submission (formatting requirements listed in other Cell Press sections do NOT need to be met during initial submission):

• main manuscript file (format-neutral at first submission per Cell Press convention)

• cover letter explaining why the paper is significant and broadly interesting to Matter's diverse materials-science readership

• title, abstract, and structured introduction

• "progress and potential" box (a key feature of all Matter articles): non-expert-accessible description of fundamental research and future potential for translational technology and societal impact (mandatory at first submission)

• author byline with full names, affiliations, and ORCID iDs

• author CRediT contribution statement

• competing-interests declaration

• ethics statements where applicable (animal protocols, human-subjects work, biosafety for living-materials work)

• data and code availability statements with deposit accessions

• supplementary information with extended characterization and experimental detail

• suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations

• $9,950 USD APC for the Cell Press OA option (2026; subscription publishing has no APC)

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

• presubmission-inquiry response reference if the submission follows an inquiry to matter@cell.com

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript with Cell Press journal-specific formatting (which is enforced at revision rather than first submission)

For Matter submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is "progress and potential" boxes written for materials specialists rather than for the non-expert audience Cell Press specifies. The progress and potential box is a substantive editorial filter, not a formatting box: Matter editors use it during the desk-screen to triage whether the materials advance can be communicated to a broad readership, which is the journal's core scope. Boxes written as a second abstract face routine major-revision requests on the broad-readership-fit check before scientific critique begins.

Run a Matter pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the broad-materials framing, cross-disciplinary integration, and "progress and potential" box meet the journal's standards.

Matter manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The editorial triage pattern at Cell Press materials journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a failure pattern in current materials practice (single-application demonstrations without cross-disciplinary insight, narrow-specialty work without broad materials-science consequence) that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject incremental materials work without the broad-readership case and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around translational-with-fundamental-mechanism integration.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and Cell Press editorial-office technical check

The Cell Press platform performs format-neutral intake checks (declarations, ORCID linking, "progress and potential" box presence, ethics references). Editorial staff verify the cover letter and the broad-readership argument.

Day 5 to 21: Editor desk-screen on broad-materials and cross-disciplinary integration

A Matter editor (full-time professional editor at Cell Press) reviews scope fit against the broad-materials-with-cross-disciplinary-integration bar. Submissions are routed (with editor guidance where helpful) to sister Cell Press journals (Joule for energy-materials, Chem for chemistry-materials, Cell Reports Physical Science for broader physical-science work) when the cross-disciplinary fit is wrong.

Week 4 to 12: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers selected for both the materials subfield and any cross-disciplinary expertise relevant to the work. Cell Press's reviewer pool overlaps with adjacent materials and physics journals.

Week 12 to 20: Decision, revision, and Cell-Press-formatting at revision

First decisions arrive at the 6-10 week median post-desk-screen, typically as major revision. Revision cycles add 6-12 weeks each. Cell Press journal-specific formatting (figure resolution, reference style, supplementary structure) is enforced at revision rather than first submission.

• Is Matter a good journal?

• Joule Submission Guide

• Advanced Materials Submission Guide

Before the reviewer-invitation stage, read the Matter 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 wrong Cell Press venue chosen, revise the central claim before upload.

• If the evidence package leaves materials substance thin or narrow, strengthen the methods, controls, figures, or supplementary material rather than expecting reviewers to infer it.

• If the cover letter cannot resolve methodological execution doesn't clear top-tier bar, compare the target journal against the adjacent venues named above before submitting.

Last verified: April 2026 against Matter editorial pages.