Sensors Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

Sensors uses the standard MDPI abstract format.

• Word limit: 200 words maximum
• Structure: Single unstructured paragraph
• Citations: Not permitted
• Abbreviations: Define at first use
• Mathematical formulas: Not permitted
• Keywords: 3 to 10 keywords required below the abstract

The 200-word limit is enforced during the editorial check. The editorial assistant will flag abstracts over 200 words and ask you to shorten them, which adds a round-trip to your timeline.

For sensor papers specifically, the abstract needs to answer three questions: what are you sensing, how does your sensor work, and what's the performance (limit of detection, sensitivity, response time, selectivity)? Reviewers expect numbers. Don't write "high sensitivity" when you can write "3.2 nM limit of detection for Hg2+ ions."

Keywords at Sensors drive the Special Issue and editor matching. MDPI publishes many Special Issues, and your paper may be routed to a Special Issue editor based on your keywords. Being specific ("piezoelectric pressure sensor," "SERS substrate," "wearable glucose monitor") rather than generic ("sensor," "detection") helps with routing.

Sensors follows MDPI's standard figure guidelines.

Figure specifications:

Discipline-specific expectations:

Sensor papers have unique figure needs. Circuit diagrams need clear component labels and pin numbers. Photographs of fabricated sensors need scale indicators. Calibration curves should include error bars and the linear range clearly marked. Response and recovery time curves should use consistent time scales.

For wearable and IoT sensor papers, photographs of the device worn or deployed in context add significant value. These application-context images don't need to be high art, but they should be well-lit and in focus, with the sensor clearly visible.

Signal processing figures (FFT spectra, wavelet transforms, noise analysis) should use consistent axis formatting. Log-scale axes need to be clearly labeled. Time-series data should include appropriate averaging windows noted in the caption.

Table formatting:

• Editable format, not images
• Sequential numbering
• Title above, footnotes below
• Superscript lowercase letters for footnotes
• No vertical lines

Performance comparison tables are almost mandatory in sensor papers. A table comparing your sensor's performance (limit of detection, dynamic range, response time, selectivity) to published literature is expected by reviewers. Format these tables carefully because they're the first thing reviewers look at.

Sensors uses the MDPI reference style.

In-text citations: Numbers in square brackets [1], [2,3], [4-7]. Numbered in order of first appearance.

Reference list format:

1. Author, A.B.; Author, C.D. Title of Article. Full Journal Name Year, Volume, Page Range.

Key formatting details:

• Author names: Surname, then initials with periods
• Semicolons between authors
• Full journal names (not abbreviations)
• Volume in bold, issue in parentheses
• DOIs mandatory for all references that have them
• List all authors (no "et al." truncation in the reference list for up to 6 authors)

The full journal name requirement is the most common error. "Sens. Actuators B" needs to be "Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical." "Anal. Chem." needs to be "Analytical Chemistry." Your reference manager handles this if you use the MDPI output style.

Sensor papers often cite conference proceedings, technical standards, and patent documents. For IEEE conference papers, use the full conference name. For standards (ISO, IEEE, IEC), include the full standard number and year. For patents, include the patent number, assignee, and year.

No formal reference cap exists, but Research Articles typically cite 30 to 60 papers.

MDPI handles supplementary material as openly accessible files alongside the article.

What belongs in supplementary material:

• Extended circuit schematics and PCB layouts
• Additional calibration data
• Code and firmware (for sensor systems papers)
• Extended selectivity and interference data
• Video demonstrations of sensor operation
• Raw datasets

Formatting:

• Submit as a single PDF when possible
• Use Fig. S1, Table S1 numbering
• Each item cited in the main text
• Separate files for code, video, or large datasets
• All supplementary material is open access

For sensor systems papers that include custom firmware or signal processing code, MDPI encourages uploading code as supplementary material or depositing it in a repository (GitHub, Zenodo) with a DOI. Code availability is increasingly expected by reviewers, especially for papers that include machine learning or deep learning components.

Data Availability Statement: Mandatory for all Sensors papers. This goes at the end of the manuscript (before references) and states where data supporting the findings can be accessed.

Details specific to Sensors:

Special Issue context. Many Sensors papers are published as part of Special Issues. If you're submitting to a Special Issue, the submission process routes through the guest editor rather than the regular editorial board. Formatting requirements are identical, but the review timeline may differ.

Sensors is online-only. There's no print edition, which means all figures are viewed on screen. RGB color mode is always appropriate. You don't need to worry about CMYK or grayscale fallbacks.

MDPI XML conversion pipeline. MDPI converts manuscripts directly to XML for publication. Any formatting that deviates from the template structure can be lost or corrupted during conversion. This is why the template is mandatory, not just preferred.

Author photos are optional. MDPI offers an option to include author photos in the published article. This is unusual among scientific publishers. The photos appear in the online version. Whether to include them is a personal choice and has no effect on the review process.

Data descriptor papers. Sensors accepts Data Descriptor papers that describe datasets relevant to sensor research. These have specific formatting requirements: they focus on the dataset's collection methodology, quality metrics, and potential reuse rather than analysis conclusions.

Sensors covers both hardware and software. The journal publishes papers on physical sensors, sensor signal processing, sensor networks, and sensor data analytics. The formatting expectations vary somewhat: hardware papers need more detailed fabrication and characterization figures, while software papers need algorithm descriptions and performance benchmarks. Both are held to the same overall formatting standards.

The most common issues at Sensors:

1. Abbreviated journal names in references. MDPI requires full names. Every abbreviated journal name gets flagged.

1. Missing MDPI template. Submissions without the template are returned immediately. Download it before you start writing.

1. Missing data availability statement. Required for all articles. Choose from the MDPI standard templates or write a custom statement.

1. Scheme numbering. If your paper includes chemical reaction schemes or signal processing flowcharts labeled as "Scheme," they must be numbered separately from figures.

1. Manual section numbering. Adding manual numbers on top of the template's automatic numbering produces double numbers (e.g., "2. 2. Methods").

In our pre-submission review work on Sensors-targeted manuscripts, three patterns consistently predict formatting desk-screen failure at Sensors (MDPI). The patterns below are the same ones Vittorio M. N. Passaro and outside reviewers flag at first-pass triage.

Scope-fit ambiguity in the abstract. Sensors editors move fastest on manuscripts whose contribution is obviously aligned with sensor research with quantified performance metrics (sensitivity, selectivity, dynamic range) and demonstrated practical-application validation. The named failure pattern: sensor papers without quantified performance metrics extend revision rounds. Check whether your abstract reads to Sensors's scope

Methods package incomplete for the journal's reviewer pool. Sensors reviewers expect specific methodological detail. Performance claims without state-of-the-art benchmark comparison extend reviewer consultation. Check if your methods package is reviewer-complete

Reference-list and clean-citation failure mode. Editorial team at Sensors (MDPI) screens reference lists for retracted-paper inclusion. Recent retractions in the Sensors corpus we audit include 10.3390/s22087789, 10.3390/s21158156, and 10.3390/s23053425. Citing any of these without a retraction-notice acknowledgment is an automatic desk-screen flag. Check whether your reference list is clean against Crossref + Retraction Watch

Manusights submission-corpus signal for Sensors (MDPI). Of the manuscripts our team screened before submission to Sensors and peer venues in 2025, the editorial-culture mismatch most consistent across the cohort is sensors reviewers expect quantified performance metrics with explicit comparison to existing sensor benchmarks. In our analysis of anonymized Sensors-targeted submissions, Recent retractions in the Sensors corpus include 10.3390/s22087789, 10.3390/s21158156, and 10.3390/s23053425.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Sensors, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

Mandatory MDPI template not used. Sensors requires all submissions to use the current MDPI Word or LaTeX template. Manuscripts formatted outside the MDPI template are returned before peer review. The mdpi LaTeX document class is required for LaTeX submissions. MDPI updates templates periodically; authors using versions from more than a year prior should download the current template from the Sensors instructions page before formatting.

Abstract exceeds 200 words or contains citations or undefined abbreviations. MDPI enforces a 200-word maximum abstract across all journals. The abstract must be unstructured and contain no literature citations, undefined abbreviations, or mathematical notation. A common error is including a citation to establish context in the opening sentence. Exceeding the word limit by any amount triggers a correction request during submission processing.

Performance validation missing or limited to simulation only. Sensors publishes work on sensor design, signal processing, and sensing systems. Reviewers evaluate whether the proposed sensor or method is validated with real measured data, not only simulation results. Manuscripts that present simulation-based performance claims without at least a proof-of-concept experimental validation are routinely asked to include experimental evidence before review. If experimental validation is not yet possible, this should be explicitly justified.

Comparison to state-of-the-art not included in a performance table. Sensors reviewers expect a comparative performance table that situates the proposed sensor or method against existing approaches from the literature on relevant metrics: accuracy, sensitivity, power consumption, response time, cost, or specificity as appropriate. Manuscripts that claim improved performance without a tabulated head-to-head comparison are flagged for this revision. The comparison should include representative recent references, not outdated baselines.

A Sensors formatting and readiness check evaluates manuscript structure, MDPI template compliance, and experimental validation completeness against these desk-rejection patterns before you submit.