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

Advanced Materials places unusual emphasis on visual presentation. The editors want papers with striking images (TEM, SEM, device architectures) and a clear narrative arc from materials design through characterization to application. Papers that present thorough characterization without an application story, or application data without adequate materials understanding, often fail this test. The table of contents graphic matters more here than at most journals.

For papers reporting new materials for specific applications (batteries, solar cells, sensors, catalysts), the editors compare reported performance against the current state of the art. If your material doesn't match or exceed the best published results on at least one meaningful metric, Advanced Materials will reject it. Near-the-state-of-the-art isn't enough. The editors want to see a clear advance.

Advanced Materials occupies the intersection of chemistry, physics, and engineering. Papers that are too chemistry-focused (new synthesis without device application), too physics-focused (theoretical calculations without experimental validation), or too engineering-focused (device optimization without materials insight) may be rejected for scope. The editors want the full chain: synthesis, characterization, and application or performance demonstration.

The most common rejection reason is incremental improvement. Doping a known material with a new element, slightly modifying a synthesis protocol, or testing a known material in a slightly different configuration won't clear the bar. Advanced Materials wants new materials classes, new design principles, or unexpected properties.

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

1. Advanced Functional Materials

AFM is the most natural alternative, published by the same Wiley-VCH team with an overlapping editorial ecosystem. The impact factor (~18) is lower than Advanced Materials, but AFM is still a top-tier materials journal. The key difference is that AFM is slightly more receptive to papers where the application is demonstrated but the material itself isn't radically new. If Advanced Materials wanted a more novel material and your strength is the functional demonstration, AFM may be a better fit. Many editors know what Advanced Materials rejects and can recognize papers that are strong but below that particular threshold.

Best for: Functional materials with demonstrated applications, electronic devices, sensors, biomedical materials.

2. ACS Nano

ACS Nano publishes across nanoscience and nanotechnology, covering nanomaterials, nanodevices, and nano-bio interactions. For papers with a nanoscale focus, ACS Nano's impact factor (~15) and specialized reviewer pool make it a strong alternative. The journal values thorough characterization of nanoscale phenomena, and papers that Advanced Materials rejected for being "too focused on nanoscale properties" may find reviewers at ACS Nano who appreciate that depth. The ACS editorial process is independent of Wiley, so you're getting a fresh evaluation.

Best for: Nanomaterials synthesis, nanoparticle applications, nano-bio interfaces, nanoelectronics.

3. Advanced Energy Materials

For energy-related papers, Advanced Energy Materials (IF ~25) is actually close to Advanced Materials in prestige and may be a better scope match. AEM covers batteries, supercapacitors, solar cells, fuel cells, and electrocatalysis. If Advanced Materials rejected your energy paper for being "too specialized" for a general materials audience, AEM's focused scope means reviewers who understand your contribution in context. AEM is highly selective (~12% acceptance), so this is a lateral move, not a step down.

Best for: Battery materials, solar cell development, electrocatalysis, hydrogen storage, energy conversion.

4. Chemistry of Materials

For papers where the primary contribution is materials synthesis and characterization, Chemistry of Materials (IF ~7) is the ACS's dedicated venue. The journal publishes thorough materials studies with strong emphasis on the synthesis-structure-property relationship. If Advanced Materials wanted more application data and your paper's strength is the materials chemistry, Chemistry of Materials values that foundational work. The acceptance rate (~14%) is more accessible, and reviewers appreciate thorough characterization data.

Best for: Materials synthesis, crystal growth, inorganic materials, electronic and magnetic materials characterization.

5. Small

Small is another Wiley-VCH journal, focused on nanoscale and microscale materials and their applications. The impact factor (~13) and the micro/nano scope make it ideal for papers that Advanced Materials rejected because the materials dimensions are small-scale but the broader materials science impact wasn't sufficient. Small is less demanding about application breadth than Advanced Materials but still expects strong nanoscale science.

Best for: Micro/nanoscale materials, nanofabrication, nanodevices, microfluidic materials.

6. Nano Letters

Nano Letters (ACS) publishes short papers on nanoscience with an emphasis on new physical phenomena at the nanoscale. If your Advanced Materials paper reported unexpected nanoscale properties, Nano Letters may value the physics more than Advanced Materials valued the materials application. The journal favors concise papers with clear physical insights. The impact factor (~10) is moderate for top materials journals, but Nano Letters carries strong prestige in the nanoscience community.

Best for: Novel nanoscale phenomena, quantum effects in nanostructures, single-nanoparticle measurements.

7. Materials Horizons

Materials Horizons is the RSC's concept-driven materials journal, free to publish. The journal specifically seeks papers that introduce new concepts or perspectives in materials science, even if the experimental data is preliminary. If Advanced Materials rejected your paper because the concept was interesting but the performance data wasn't state-of-the-art, Materials Horizons may embrace the conceptual novelty. The journal also publishes Communications and Reviews.

Best for: Concept-driven materials papers, new design strategies, emerging materials classes with preliminary data.

Desk rejected from Advanced Materials? Try Advanced Functional Materials or Small first. The Wiley-VCH editorial ecosystem means these journals understand what Advanced Materials rejects and can assess your paper on its own terms.

Rejected for "insufficient novelty in materials"? If the application data is strong, go to a device-focused or application-focused journal. If the materials synthesis is strong, go to Chemistry of Materials.

Rejected for "too specialized for general materials audience"? Advanced Energy Materials for energy, ACS Nano for nanoscience, or a field-specific journal like Journal of Power Sources (batteries) or Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells (photovoltaics).

Rejected after review with performance concerns? Either improve the performance data or target a journal that values mechanistic understanding over performance records. Materials Horizons and Chemistry of Materials are more interested in understanding than in record-breaking numbers.

Rejected for "the work is more chemistry than materials science"? Submit to JACS, Angewandte Chemie, or Chemical Science. A materials synthesis paper with strong chemistry but weak device application may be better received by chemists than by materials scientists.

Upgrade your figures. Advanced Materials and its alternatives are visual journals. Invest in high-quality TEM/SEM images, clear device schematics, and well-designed performance comparison plots. A paper with mediocre figures will struggle at any top materials journal.

Add a performance comparison table. Include a table comparing your material's key metrics against the 5-10 most recent published alternatives. This table should appear in the main text, not the supporting information. Editors and reviewers want to see at a glance where your material stands.

Strengthen your mechanistic story. If reviewers asked "why does this material perform well?", add characterization that answers the question. DFT calculations, in situ characterization, or systematic composition studies that connect structure to performance will strengthen the paper at any journal.

Reconsider the scope. If Advanced Materials rejected for scope, don't force the same paper into another general materials journal. A focused journal with the right reviewers often leads to a better outcome than another broad-scope attempt.

Materials science moves fast, and your competitors are publishing related work while your paper sits in revision. Before submitting to the next journal, run your manuscript through a manuscript scope and readiness check to verify formatting compliance, figure quality standards, and scope alignment. Making the next submission count is more important than making it fast.

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 Materials, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Incremental property improvement without a conceptual advance in materials understanding. Advanced Materials publishes work that changes how the materials science field thinks about design, synthesis, or function, not work that extends known approaches by measurable increments. We see this failure as the most common pattern in Advanced Materials desk rejections we review: papers reporting a new polymer, nanoparticle system, or composite material with improved tensile strength or conductivity where the advance is quantitative and the underlying design principle was established by prior literature. In our review of Advanced Materials submissions, we find that editors consistently require a new principle or unexpected discovery, not just better numbers.

Performance claims without rigorous benchmarking against state-of-the-art. Advanced Materials editors and reviewers scrutinize performance comparisons carefully. We see this pattern in Advanced Materials submissions we review present record or superior performance claims without systematic head-to-head comparison with the most competitive existing materials under identical testing conditions. Editors return these papers for insufficient benchmarking before the novelty claims can be accepted.

Breadth of significance confined to one narrow materials application. Advanced Materials serves all of materials science and must be broadly relevant. Papers solving a problem that matters only within one narrow application area, or demonstrating a synthesis strategy that applies only to one specific material class, consistently face desk concerns about scope. We see this failure regularly in highly specialized submissions we review: technically excellent work whose significance is confined to specialists in one subfield.

Functional characterization of new materials without understanding of the structure-property relationship. Papers reporting new materials with promising properties but without explaining why those properties emerge from the material's structure face consistent editorial concern. We see this pattern in Advanced Materials submissions we review: characterization-heavy papers that describe what a material does without mechanistically explaining how its structure or composition drives the observed function.

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