Journal Guides3 min readUpdated Apr 20, 2026

Sensors Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to See

Sensors editors screen for sensor relevance and section fit before anything else. A cover letter that names the section and states a clear sensing result moves through triage fastest.

By Senior Researcher, Chemistry
Author contextSenior Researcher, Chemistry. Experience with JACS, Angewandte Chemie, ACS Nano.View profile

Readiness scan

Before you submit to Sensors, pressure-test the manuscript.

Run the Free Readiness Scan to catch the issues most likely to stop the paper before peer review.

Check my manuscriptAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.See sample reportOr sanity-check your Results section in 5 seconds
Journal context

Sensors at a glance

Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.

Full journal profile
Impact factor3.5Clarivate JCR
Acceptance rate~50-60%Overall selectivity
Time to decision~60-80 days medianFirst decision
Open access APC~$2,100 CHFGold OA option

What makes this journal worth targeting

  • IF 3.5 puts Sensors in a visible tier — citations from papers here carry real weight.
  • Scope specificity matters more than impact factor for most manuscript decisions.
  • Acceptance rate of ~~50-60% means fit determines most outcomes.

When to look elsewhere

  • When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope — borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
  • If timeline matters: Sensors takes ~~60-80 days median. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
  • If OA is required: gold OA costs ~$2,100 CHF. Check institutional agreements before submitting.
Working map

How to use this page well

These pages work best when they behave like tools, not essays. Use the quick structure first, then apply it to the exact journal and manuscript situation.

Question
What to do
Use this page for
Getting the structure, tone, and decision logic right before you send anything out.
Most important move
Make the reviewer-facing or editor-facing ask obvious early rather than burying it in prose.
Common mistake
Turning a practical page into a long explanation instead of a working template or checklist.
Next step
Use the page as a tool, then adjust it to the exact manuscript and journal situation.

Quick answer: a strong Sensors cover letter names the target MDPI section, states a clear sensor-science contribution, and shows the submission is complete. The journal covers everything from biosensors to optical sensors to IoT sensing systems, so the editor needs routing clarity fast.

What Sensors Editors Screen For

Criterion
What They Want
Common Mistake
Sensor-science focus
Paper advances sensing technology, not just uses a sensor as a tool
Submitting a paper that uses a commercial sensor to measure something without advancing sensing
Section fit
Named MDPI section for correct routing
Not specifying the target section in a journal with broad sensor scope
Sensing contribution
Clear statement of what is new in the sensing method, device, or system
Vague descriptions that do not identify the sensor-science advance
Submission completeness
All files ready for fast MDPI workflow
Incomplete submissions that delay processing
Scope clarity
Editor can immediately see the sensing dimension of the work
Framing the work in the application domain without highlighting the sensor contribution

What the official sources do and do not tell you

The official Sensors pages describe the MDPI submission workflow and list section scopes, but they do not prescribe a specific cover-letter format.

What the journal model does imply is clear:

  • the manuscript should be recognizably about sensor science or sensing technology
  • the editor needs to know which section the paper targets
  • the letter should reduce friction in a fast editorial workflow

That means section selection and sensor-science focus matter more here than broad novelty claims.

What the editor is really screening for

At triage, the academic editor is usually asking:

  • is this paper about sensors or sensing, or is it a domain-science paper that merely uses a sensor as a measurement tool?
  • does it fit the section the author selected?
  • is the sensing contribution clear, whether a new sensor design, improved detection method, or novel sensing application?
  • does the submission look complete enough to send to reviewers without extra back-and-forth?

A cover letter that answers these questions in the opening paragraph clears triage fastest.

What the MDPI workflow makes important

The official journal pages make the section structure and scope very clear: Sensors covers the science and technology of sensors and their applications across many lanes. In practice, that makes editorial routing unusually important. The better cover letters do not simply say the paper is about an application area. They explain what is new in the sensing method, device, algorithm, or sensing system and why that contribution belongs in a specific section.

That matters because many submissions mention sensors without actually advancing sensing.

In our pre-submission review work

Editors actually separate sensing advances from application-only papers very quickly. We see this pattern when a manuscript uses a sensor in medicine, robotics, agriculture, or environmental monitoring, but the letter never states what changed in the sensing itself.

What actually happens at triage is a section-and-contribution check. In our review work, the stronger Sensors letters name the target section, explain the sensing contribution in one pass, and only then describe the application. The weaker ones read like domain papers with a sensor attached.

This is where a lot of avoidable desk friction starts. If the sensor contribution still sounds secondary after the cover letter does its best work, the editor will usually assume the journal fit is weak.

A practical template you can adapt

Dear Editor,

We submit the manuscript "[TITLE]" for consideration in the
[SECTION NAME] section of Sensors.

This study addresses [specific sensor-science problem]. We show
that [main result], achieving [performance metric or improvement]
in [sensing application or target analyte].

The manuscript fits Sensors because the core contribution is a
sensing [device / method / algorithm / system] rather than a
domain finding that happens to use a sensor. We selected the
[SECTION NAME] section because [one-sentence justification].

The work is original, not under consideration elsewhere, and
approved by all authors.

Sincerely,
[Name]

The critical distinction is between a paper that advances sensing and a paper that merely uses a sensor.

Submit if / Think twice if

Submit if:

  • the sensing method, device, or system is part of the actual advance
  • the section choice is obvious and can be justified in one sentence
  • the paper would still look like sensor science even without the application story

Think twice if:

  • the sensor is just a tool for answering a different domain question
  • the real novelty is elsewhere, such as materials science or signal processing alone
  • the section fit still feels vague after you rewrite the opening paragraph

Readiness check

Run the scan while Sensors's requirements are in front of you.

See how this manuscript scores against Sensors's requirements before you submit.

Check my readinessAnthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.See sample reportOr check whether a cited paper supports your claim

Mistakes that make these letters weak

  • never naming the target section in a multi-section MDPI journal
  • framing the paper around the domain application without clarifying what is new about the sensing itself
  • describing the measurement results without stating what the sensor contribution is
  • using generic IoT or smart-city language instead of stating a specific sensing advance
  • submitting a paper whose real contribution is signal processing or materials science, not sensor science

These mistakes slow triage or trigger desk rejection.

What should drive the submission decision instead

Before polishing the letter further, confirm the journal fit. Sensors is a sensor-science journal, not a general instrumentation or signal-processing journal. If the sensing contribution of your work is not obvious without explanation, the venue may be the real issue. Check the journal's own author guidelines and browse recent papers in your target section to verify alignment.

Practical verdict

The strongest Sensors cover letters are short, section-specific, and sensing-focused. They tell the editor where to route the paper and what the sensor contribution is.

So the useful takeaway is this: name your section, state the sensing result, and keep the letter tight. A Sensors cover letter framing check is the fastest way to pressure-test whether your framing already does that before submission.

Cover letter template for Sensors

Use this structure, adapting the bracketed sections to your specific paper:

Dear Editors of Sensors,

We submit "[Your Title]" for consideration as a [Article Type] in Sensors.

Why this journal: [One sentence explaining why this paper fits Sensors's scope specifically - not generic prestige language.]

What's new: [Two sentences describing the key finding and why it advances the field. Lead with what changed, not what you did.]

Significance: [One sentence on the broader implication for the journal's readership.]

Confirmations: We confirm that this manuscript is original, not under consideration elsewhere, and all authors have approved the submission. [Add any required declarations: conflicts of interest, data availability, ethics approval.]

Sincerely,

[Corresponding Author]

Common cover letter mistakes for Sensors

  • Generic prestige language. "We are submitting to Sensors because of its high impact factor" tells the editor nothing about fit. Name the specific reason.
  • Repeating the abstract. The cover letter should explain why here, not what we did. The editor will read the abstract separately.
  • Missing required declarations. Check Sensors's author guidelines for specific disclosure requirements. Missing these can trigger an immediate desk return.
  • Overselling the findings. Editors are experts. Claims like "major" or "paradigm-shifting" without supporting evidence in the paper undermine credibility.

Before you submit

A Sensors cover letter and submission readiness check is most useful when the paper may fit the journal, but the sensor-science contribution and section framing still need a harder editorial read before submission.

Frequently asked questions

It should name the MDPI section you are targeting and state the sensor-science contribution clearly. The editor needs to see that the paper advances sensing technology, not just uses a sensor as a tool.

Submitting a paper that uses a commercial sensor to measure something in another domain without advancing the sensing method itself. If the sensor is just a tool, the paper belongs elsewhere.

MDPI does not strictly mandate one, but submitting without a cover letter removes your best chance to frame the sensor-science contribution and section fit for the handling editor.

Sensors has an impact factor of approximately 3.9. Acceptance rates are in the 40 to 50 percent range, but desk rejection is common when the sensing contribution is unclear or the section choice is wrong.

References

Sources

  1. 1. Sensors instructions for authors, MDPI.
  2. 2. Sensors section list and scope, MDPI.
  3. 3. MDPI editorial process, MDPI.
  4. 4. MDPI publishing policies, MDPI.

Final step

Submitting to Sensors?

Run the Free Readiness Scan to see score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.

Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.

Internal navigation

Where to go next

Check my manuscript