Rejected from Advanced Functional Materials? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

Novel functionality. AFM expects materials that exhibit new or significantly improved functions. A new synthesis route to a known material, without demonstrating new functional behavior, won't clear the bar. The function can be electronic, optical, magnetic, catalytic, biological, or mechanical, but it needs to be clearly demonstrated and not just predicted.

High-quality characterization. AFM is a Wiley flagship journal, and the editors expect publication-ready figures with thorough characterization. TEM/SEM imaging, spectroscopic analysis, and performance data need to be thorough and visually compelling. Blurry images, missing controls, and incomplete datasets trigger desk rejection.

Impact and novelty. The editors assess whether the paper represents a genuine step forward. Incremental improvements (5-10% better than existing materials) without a new mechanistic understanding or design principle aren't enough. AFM wants papers that other researchers will cite because they introduce a new concept, not just a new data point.

Clear narrative. AFM papers need to tell a coherent story from material design to functional demonstration. A paper that reads as a collection of characterization results without a unifying theme won't engage the editors.

• "The novelty is insufficient for AFM." Your material works well, but the advance over existing systems is marginal. AFM sees many papers that demonstrate "slightly better" performance, and the editors are looking for qualitative leaps, not incremental improvements.

• "The functional demonstration isn't convincing." You made an interesting material but the device or application data is preliminary. AFM wants complete functional characterization, including stability testing, reproducibility data, and comparison to benchmarks.

• "Better suited for a more specialized journal." AFM covers all functional materials, but the editors evaluate whether the topic interests a broad materials science audience. Highly specialized papers (e.g., a specific polymer electrolyte composition for one battery chemistry) might be redirected to specialty journals.

• "The manuscript doesn't meet AFM's presentation standards." The Wiley Advanced journals have high visual standards. Poorly designed figures, low-resolution images, or disorganized supplementary information can trigger desk rejection even for technically sound work.

Before choosing your next journal, a Advanced Functional Materials manuscript fit check can tell you whether the issue was scope or something more fundamental to address first.

1. ACS Nano

ACS Nano (IF ~15) is AFM's closest competitor for nanomaterials research. The journal covers synthesis, assembly, characterization, and application of nanoscale materials and devices. If your AFM paper involved nanomaterials of any kind, ACS Nano is the most natural alternative with comparable prestige.

ACS Nano values both fundamental nanoscience and applications. The journal is slightly more tolerant of fundamental studies without full device demonstration, which can be an advantage if AFM rejected your paper for insufficient application data.

Best for: Nanomaterials synthesis, nanodevices, nanoelectronics, nanomedicine, self-assembly, 2D materials, quantum dots.

2. Small

Small (Wiley, IF ~13) is AFM's sister journal within the Wiley Advanced family, focused on nanoscale and microscale science. Submitting to Small after an AFM rejection keeps you within the same publisher, and the editors sometimes suggest transfers between Wiley journals.

Small publishes both full papers and communications, giving you formatting flexibility. If your AFM paper was slightly too long for a communication but felt stretched as a full paper, Small's format options can help.

Best for: Nanoscale phenomena, micro/nanofabrication, nanomedicine, nano-bio interfaces, miniaturized devices.

3. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

ACS AMI (IF ~9) is the most practical alternative for papers where the application is strong but the fundamental novelty didn't meet AFM's bar. ACS AMI publishes over 10,000 articles per year and has a higher acceptance rate than AFM, making it a reliable option for technically sound applied work.

The trade-off is a lower IF, but ACS AMI's massive readership means your paper may actually get more views and downloads than it would at a more selective journal with fewer readers.

Best for: Applied materials research across all fields, device demonstrations, surface and interface science, biomaterials applications.

4. Chemistry of Materials

Chemistry of Materials (ACS, IF ~7) is the best alternative for papers where the materials chemistry is more compelling than the functional demonstration. If AFM rejected your paper because the application data was weak but the synthesis, characterization, and mechanistic understanding were strong, Chemistry of Materials values exactly that emphasis.

The journal focuses on understanding how materials form, how their structure determines properties, and how to design better materials from first principles. It's less concerned with device performance and more concerned with fundamental understanding.

Best for: Materials synthesis, crystal growth, structure-property relationships, phase behavior, defect chemistry, materials design principles.

5. Journal of Materials Chemistry A

JMCA (RSC, IF ~11) focuses on materials for energy and sustainability. If your AFM paper was about energy harvesting, storage, conversion, or catalysis, JMCA is a strong alternative that's actually well-matched in scope and competitive in impact factor.

JMCA values device-level performance data for energy materials. If you have solar cell efficiency curves, battery cycling data, or catalytic activity measurements, these carry significant weight at JMCA.

Best for: Solar cells, batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, thermoelectrics, photocatalysis, electrocatalysis.

6. Nano Letters

Nano Letters (ACS, IF ~10) publishes short communications (4-5 pages) on nanoscience. If your AFM paper can be condensed into a focused, high-impact communication, Nano Letters is a strong venue. The journal values novelty and clarity over exhaustive detail.

Nano Letters is particularly good for papers that report a surprising finding, a new phenomenon, or a proof-of-concept demonstration that doesn't require the full 8-10 page treatment AFM expects.

Best for: Short, high-impact nanoscience reports, new phenomena at the nanoscale, proof-of-concept demonstrations, fundamental nanoscale physics.

7. Materials Horizons

Materials Horizons (RSC, IF ~12) is positioned as a home for conceptual advances in materials science. The journal wants papers that introduce new ideas, new design principles, or new ways of thinking about materials, not just new data points. If your AFM paper had a strong conceptual component that got lost in the detailed characterization, Materials Horizons might value that conceptual contribution more highly.

The journal publishes communications, full papers, and reviews, and it emphasizes visual communication through graphical abstracts and high-quality figures.

Best for: Conceptual advances in materials science, new design strategies, emerging materials classes, cross-disciplinary materials research.

Nanomaterials paper rejected? ACS Nano is the first alternative. Small is the Wiley-family backup. Nano Letters works for short, focused reports.

Energy materials paper rejected? JMCA is the strongest energy-focused alternative. If the IF matters less, ACS Applied Energy Materials is a practical option.

Fundamental materials chemistry rejected? Chemistry of Materials values mechanistic depth over functional demonstration. If your synthesis and characterization are strong, this is the right target.

Applied materials paper rejected? ACS AMI is the most accessible option for applied work. Its large volume means reasonable acceptance rates for technically sound papers.

Conceptually novel paper rejected? Materials Horizons specifically seeks conceptual advances. If your contribution is a new idea rather than a new dataset, try here.

Upgrade your figures. AFM and its competitors are visual journals. Invest time in creating clean, professional figures with consistent formatting, appropriate color schemes, and clear labels. A single compelling schematic in your graphical abstract can influence the editor's first impression.

Strengthen your performance comparison. Create a thorough comparison table or plot that positions your material against the current state of the art. Include all relevant metrics, not just the ones where your material performs best.

Tighten your narrative. Every section should connect to your central thesis. If a characterization technique doesn't directly support your functional claims, move it to supplementary information.

Add stability and reproducibility data. AFM reviewers and editors increasingly expect cycling stability, environmental stability, or batch-to-batch reproducibility data. If your paper lacks this, add it before resubmitting anywhere.

Run your manuscript through a manuscript scope and readiness check to check formatting, figure quality, and structural coherence before your next submission. Materials science manuscripts with extensive supplementary data are prone to inconsistencies between the main text and supporting information, and catching these early prevents reviewer frustration.

Resubmit to the same tier if:

• Reviewers praised the science but identified fixable issues
• The rejection letter mentioned "consider resubmission after revision"
• You can address every concern within 2-3 months
• No competing paper has appeared since your submission

Move to a different journal if:

• The rejection cited scope mismatch, not quality
• Multiple reviewers questioned novelty or significance
• Your timeline needs a decision within 2-3 months
• A specialist journal's readership would value the work more

Reframe before resubmitting anywhere if:

• Reviewers found fundamental methodology concerns
• The narrative needs restructuring, not just polishing
• New experiments or analyses are needed
• The rejection exposed a gap between claims and evidence

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Advanced Functional Materials, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Function without mechanism: performance demonstrated but not explained. Advanced Functional Materials publishes materials with understood function, not just demonstrated function. We see this failure as the most common pattern in AFM desk rejections we review: papers reporting impressive performance in energy storage, sensing, catalysis, or biomedical application where the structural or mechanistic basis for the observed function is not established. In our review of AFM submissions, we find that editors consistently require that the relationship between the material's structure, composition, or architecture and its functional properties be mechanistically explained, not just empirically demonstrated.

Benchmark comparisons against outdated or cherry-picked reference materials. AFM reviewers systematically check whether reported performance metrics represent genuine advances over the current state of the art. We see this pattern in AFM submissions we review compare performance against materials that were leading 3-5 years ago, without comparing against the most recently reported high-performance materials. Editors return these for comprehensive benchmarking against current best-in-class.

Application claims not validated in operationally relevant conditions. Functional materials journals expect that application demonstrations reflect realistic operating conditions, not only optimized lab conditions. We see this pattern in AFM submissions we review: sensors tested with pure analyte solutions rather than complex matrices, energy storage devices cycled at rates far below practical charge-discharge rates, or biomedical materials tested in cell culture without in vivo validation. Editors consistently require that the functional performance be relevant to the target application context.

Scope too narrow for AFM's broad functional materials readership. Advanced Functional Materials serves researchers across energy, electronics, biomedical, optical, and environmental applications. Papers solving a materials challenge relevant only to one highly specialized application without broader relevance to functional materials principles face desk scope concerns. We see this failure regularly in submissions we review for AFM.

SciRev community data for Advanced Functional Materials confirms desk rejections typically arrive within days, with post-review first decisions within 6-8 weeks, consistent with the Wiley editorial cadence for this journal.