Nature Materials Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Nature Materials editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: Nature Materials author guidelines, 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.

• 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?
• 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.

In our pre-submission review work with materials-research manuscripts targeting Nature Materials, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of Nature Materials desk rejections trace to application over-claiming relative to the materials advance. In our experience, roughly 25% involve incremental performance advances on established materials systems. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from work that's strong in one subfield but lacks cross-subfield relevance.

• Application framing dominates the materials advance. Editors at Nature Materials specifically look for materials-first advances. We observe that papers framed as "we use [material] for [application]" without a clear materials-first contribution are routinely returned with the suggestion that the work fits Nature Communications, a Nature specialty journal, or Advanced Materials better. SciRev community data on Nature Portfolio journals consistently shows application-over-claim as a top desk-rejection cause.

• Incremental advances on established materials systems. Editors look for materials-first novelty with cross-subfield implications. We see many manuscripts reporting modest performance gains on established systems (perovskite solar cells, lithium-ion cathodes, 2D materials heterostructures) without a deeper materials insight that justifies the broad-audience claim. These are routinely declined.

• Single-subfield relevance frames the work too narrowly. Editors at Nature Materials look for cross-subfield breadth. We find that papers with deep impact in one subfield (e.g., only energy storage, only photovoltaics) but unclear relevance outside are routinely redirected to specialty venues. Successful submissions discuss 2-3 application areas the advance enables. A Nature Materials breadth and characterization readiness check can identify whether the package supports a Nature Materials-level claim.

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.