Nature Materials Submission Guide

Official Nature Materials pages explain content types, initial submission steps, publishing models, and policies. They do not tell you whether your paper's first read feels like a Nature Materials paper or like a strong specialty-journal paper. This guide focuses on the pre-upload editorial screen: whether the materials advance is the primary novelty, whether the first figure makes the advance visible, and whether the paper can justify Nature Materials instead of Nature Communications, Advanced Materials, Nature Nanotechnology, Nature Energy, or a narrower society journal.

Official guidance is strongest on submission mechanics and publisher policy. This guide is intentionally focused on the manuscript-level judgment those pages cannot make: whether the abstract, Figure 1, cover letter, characterization, and references prove a materials-first advance rather than a strong application story.

If you want the quick pre-upload call, run a Nature Materials submission readiness check before opening the Nature Materials submission system.

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Nature Materials publishing options, Nature Materials editorial disclosures, accessed May 2026.

Source: Nature Materials submission guidelines, content types, and presubmission enquiries, Springer Nature.

Use this page when you are still deciding:

• whether the materials advance is significant and broad enough for Nature Materials

• whether characterization is complete enough for the structural and property claims

• whether the application context supports or overshadows the materials work

• how to position a cover letter for Nature Materials vs. Nature Communications or Advanced Materials

Before a credible Nature Materials submission goes into the system:

• a clear materials advance: a new composition, structure, processing route, or property

• complete characterization at appropriate scale (atomic-resolution structural data where relevant)

• property measurement directly probing the materials advance

• evidence of cross-subfield implications

• a cover letter that argues materials-first significance

• Application is the primary frame. "We use [material] for [application]" without a clear materials-first advance is routinely returned.

• Incremental performance. A 5-10% improvement on an established materials system without a deeper insight that explains why the small improvement matters.

• Characterization gaps. A new structural claim without atomic-resolution imaging where the structure depends on it; a property claim without comparison to state-of-the-art.

• Single-subfield focus. A materials paper whose only demonstrated relevance is to one application area; editors look for cross-subfield implications.

• Missing benchmarking. Comparing to your prior materials, not to literature state-of-the-art in Nature Materials, Advanced Materials, or relevant specialty journals.

Nature Materials is the broadest high-impact materials-research venue. The editorial standard is a materials advance with cross-subfield implications.

Materials-first, application-second: the journal differentiates from Nature Energy (energy-first), Nature Electronics (electronics-first), and Nature Nanotechnology (nano-first) by demanding the materials property or behavior be the primary contribution, even when applications follow.

The 75-85% desk rejection rate: editors triage hard. The editorial screen is decisive.

The benchmarking standard: Nature Materials editors expect comparison to the best-reported systems. Performance claims without state-of-the-art context are weakened.

The package needs:

• a materials advance stated cleanly in the abstract's opening

• characterization that demonstrates the structural claim at appropriate resolution

• property measurements that connect to the materials advance directly

• evidence of cross-application or cross-subfield relevance

The cover letter must accomplish:

• state the materials advance in one sentence

• explain why this advance matters across multiple materials subfields

• distinguish from Nature Communications, Advanced Materials, or specialty venues

• avoid overstating application impact relative to the materials advance

The first figure should make the materials advance immediately visible. The strongest opening figures combine structural characterization (atomic-resolution where relevant) with the property measurement that justifies the advance.

Nature Materials reviewers expect:

• structural characterization at appropriate resolution

• compositional verification (XPS, EDS, atom probe, EELS where relevant)

• property measurement directly probing the materials advance

• statistical reporting across multiple samples or measurements

• comparison to state-of-the-art performance

Papers missing one of these typically receive desk rejections or substantial first-round revision requests.

Nature Materials's flow follows the Nature Portfolio editorial process; the first-decision target is 4 to 8 weeks. Treat as planning ranges, not promises.

• Day 0: mts-nm upload. The Nature Portfolio portal accepts the package, runs originality and characterization-data deposition checks, and routes to an editor matching the materials subfield.

• Days 1 to 14: First editor read. The editor evaluates materials-advance significance, characterization completeness, and broad relevance. About 80 to 85 percent of submissions are desk-rejected in this band.

• Days 14 to 28: Reviewer invitations. Nature Materials typically invites three reviewers with deep materials and characterization expertise.

• Days 28 to 100: Peer review. Reviewer reports return on a 6 to 12 week cadence; characterization-heavy papers extend the timeline because reviewers verify structural, compositional, and property measurements.

• Days 100 to 150: First editorial decision. Major revision is the most common outcome for papers that pass desk review.

• Days 150 to 360: Revision rounds and acceptance. Single-revision acceptances run roughly 5 to 8 months; multi-round revisions push closer to 12 months.

• the materials advance is real but the application framing dominates

• the work is single-subfield and lacks cross-subfield relevance

• characterization is technically complete but underwhelming for atomic-scale claims

• the work would land better at Advanced Materials, Nature Communications, or a specialty venue

• the device-level result is strong but the underlying materials insight is incremental

• Is Nature Materials a good journal?

• Nature Photonics submission guide for manuscripts where the primary novelty is optical, photonic, or light-matter physics rather than a materials-design principle.

• Advanced Materials submission guide

• Nature Nanotechnology submission guide

Before upload, run your manuscript through a Nature Materials scope and breadth readiness check to confirm the materials advance is the primary contribution.

Across materials-research manuscripts targeting Nature Materials, three recurring decision risks matter most across submissions that the journal's editors filter out at the desk-screen stage. (Per Nature Materials published submission policies, the journal does NOT accept presubmission inquiries (unlike some other Nature journals);

the in-house editorial team applies a fast scope-and-significance screen at desk with approximately 75-85 percent desk-rejection within days, leaving a 15-25 percent send-to-review rate and an approximately 7-9 percent acceptance rate; the editorial bar is "materials-first advance with implications across established subdisciplinary boundaries" rather than application of materials to one specific problem.) Use the three checks below before you open Nature Portfolio journal page upload slot.

Application-framing dominance

Across Nature Materials-targeted manuscripts, we consistently see authors submit work where the abstract and cover letter lead with the application problem (we improved perovskite solar cell efficiency from X to Y, we increased lithium-ion battery capacity from A to B, we achieved record OLED brightness, we built a faster transistor, we made a stronger composite, we synthesized a better catalyst for reaction Z, we demonstrated higher thermoelectric ZT) and the materials advance appears only as the means to the application result.

Nature Materials in-house editors apply the documented "materials-first" test at desk: the abstract's first sentence must name a fundamental materials-science advance (new materials class, new structural / electronic / magnetic / topological mechanism, new processing-property relationship, new synthesis principle, new self-assembly behavior, new emergent phenomenon, new metastable phase, new defect-engineering principle, new interface phenomenon, new dimensionality crossover, new ordering / disorder principle); the second sentence may name the supporting demonstration in an application;

the cover letter must explicitly argue why the materials advance has implications across materials-research subfields (not just within the one application domain).

Manuscripts that read as "application paper using materials" get redirected within days to: Nature Energy (energy applications: PV, batteries, electrocatalysis, fuel cells, solar fuels); Nature Electronics (electronic-device applications: transistors, sensors, displays, neuromorphic); Nature Photonics (photonic-device applications); Nature Catalysis (catalysis applications); Nature Communications (broader scope, less stringent significance bar); Joule (energy science with quantitative analysis); Matter (Cell Press, materials with applications focus); Advanced Materials (high-impact specialty venue accepting more application-driven work); or Wiley / Elsevier specialty venues for the specific subfield.

The fix is to either (a) reframe the contribution as materials-first with the application as demonstration evidence (often requires restructuring the manuscript, not just rewriting the abstract); or (b) route honestly to the appropriate Nature specialty journal or specialty venue where application-driven work belongs.

Check whether your Nature Materials abstract leads with materials-first novelty →

Incremental performance advance on an established materials system

We frequently see Nature Materials manuscripts report performance improvements on established materials systems (perovskite solar cells improved from 26 to 27 percent, lithium-ion cathodes with X percent capacity retention improvement, 2D heterostructures with improved transport, MXenes with improved capacitance, NMC / LFP cathodes with structural stability gain, silicon-anode batteries with cycling improvement, high-entropy alloys with hardness gain, MOFs with surface-area gain) without a fundamentally new materials-science mechanism or principle to justify Nature Materials' broad-audience bar.

The in-house editorial team specifically checks whether the advance: introduces a new mechanism (named electronic / structural / magnetic / topological / spin-orbit / phonon / defect / interface / dimensionality / disorder mechanism that was not previously identified in this materials class); or reveals a new materials-design principle (transferable to other systems beyond the studied composition, with explicit discussion of which other materials classes the principle applies to);

or characterizes a new emergent phenomenon (correlated states, topological order, hidden phase, photoinduced phase, strain-induced order, interface superconductivity, moire physics, kagome physics, altermagnetism); or develops a new processing or synthesis principle (transferable to other materials, not just optimization of one route).

Manuscripts that report record numbers without one of these elements face desk rejection regardless of the magnitude of the numerical improvement.

The fix is to identify which mechanism / principle / phenomenon the advance reveals (not just the performance metric), build the abstract and cover letter around that fundamental contribution, demonstrate the principle on at least one additional system beyond the headline demonstration, and argue explicit transferability in the discussion (specifically which other materials classes the work informs).

Check whether your Nature Materials mechanism claim is stronger than a record metric →

Single-subfield-only relevance

The third recurring pattern in Nature Materials-targeted manuscripts is high-quality work with deep impact in one subfield (energy storage, photovoltaics, optoelectronics, catalysis, structural materials, biomaterials, magnetic materials, quantum materials) but framing that does not establish cross-subfield implications.

Nature Materials' editorial culture (rooted in the broad Nature-portfolio audience model) treats single-subfield framing as a venue-misfit even when the work is excellent within its subfield.

In-house editors specifically check whether the cover letter and abstract: argue cross-subfield implications explicitly (naming 2-3 materials-research subfields where the advance informs other researchers' work, not just the one application area); position the work against the broader materials-research literature (citing recent Nature Materials / Nature / Science papers from multiple subfields rather than just the application's subfield literature); discuss design principles that transfer across materials classes (new mechanism applicable to several materials families); and identify the materials-research community (not just the application community) as the audience.

Manuscripts with single-subfield framing face redirect within days to the appropriate Nature specialty journal where the deep subfield work is the editorial norm: Nature Energy for energy-only relevance, Nature Catalysis for catalysis-only, Nature Electronics for electronics-only, Nature Photonics for photonics-only, npj specialty journals (npj Quantum Materials, npj 2D Materials, npj Computational Materials, npj Flexible Electronics) for narrower subfields.

The fix is to build the cover letter around cross-subfield implications, cite at least 5 recent Nature Materials papers from different subfields in the introduction (showing engagement with the broad community), discuss transferable design principles in the conclusions, and explicitly name 2-3 materials-research subfields where the advance creates new opportunities beyond the one demonstrated application.

Check whether your Nature Materials manuscript is submission-ready →

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Nature Materials among the top materials journals globally. SciRev author-reported data confirms typical 4-8 week first-decision windows.

If your manuscript is already in the portal, use the Nature Materials Under Consideration status guide to interpret the status window, follow-up threshold, and reviewer-risk preparation while you wait.

• Nature Nanotechnology Under Consideration status