SmartMat Submission Guide: What to Prepare Before You Submit
A practical SmartMat submission guide for authors deciding whether their smart-materials manuscript is broad enough, device-relevant enough, and complete enough for editorial screening.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to approach SmartMat
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Confirm the paper is a real smart-materials fit rather than a narrow formulation study |
2. Package | Prepare template, ORCID, support files, and cover letter before upload |
3. Cover letter | Submit only once the performance and design logic are both clear |
Quick answer: This smartmat submission guide starts with the part that matters most: SmartMat is not just checking whether the manuscript is formatted correctly. The public guidelines make the workflow template-led and administratively specific, but the bigger editorial question is whether the paper has a real smart-materials consequence. If the manuscript is mainly composition, characterization, and one local performance result, the submission is usually too thin for the journal.
Run a Smartmat pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit, or work through this guide manually.
From our manuscript review practice
The biggest SmartMat mistake is assuming that characterization and a good property table are enough when the journal is really screening for a functional materials story that reaches beyond one formulation.
SmartMat: Key submission facts
Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
Publisher | Wiley / Higher Education Press |
Journal type | Smart and functional materials journal |
Submission workflow | Template-led online submission |
Required prep item | ORCID ID before submission |
Public templates | Separate research article and review templates |
Preprint policy | Non-profit community preprints allowed for the original submitted version |
Language expectation | American English |
What SmartMat is actually screening for
SmartMat sits in a part of materials publishing where many papers are technically solid. That means the editorial screen is not only about whether the synthesis worked. It is about whether the manuscript tells a meaningful smart-materials story.
Editors are usually asking:
- does the paper show a real functional or device consequence
- is the manuscript broader than one formulation or one local optimization
- does the design logic explain why the material behaves as claimed
- is the submission package complete enough for fast handling
That is why some good materials papers still misfit here. A new composition plus acceptable characterization is often not enough. The paper needs a stronger argument about function, mechanism, or systems relevance.
The public guidelines reinforce that SmartMat expects operational seriousness. Authors are asked to use the journal templates whenever possible, have an ORCID ready, and prepare the manuscript in a defined file order. That is not just admin detail. It is a signal that the journal expects a mature package on entry.
Before you submit
Pressure-test these points before upload:
- does the manuscript show a smart-materials consequence rather than only a material property
- is the device, system, or functional implication visible on first read
- does the paper explain why the design or interface produces the behavior
- are template, ORCID, support files, and title-page details already ready
- would the paper still feel journal-level if the best single metric were removed
If those answers are weak, the paper is usually early or aimed at a broader materials venue instead.
What the official materials make explicit
The public SmartMat guidelines are useful because they show both editorial posture and package discipline.
Official signal | Why it matters |
|---|---|
Authors are asked to use SmartMat research and review templates whenever possible | The journal expects a clean and standardized submission package |
An ORCID ID is required before submission | Admin readiness is part of front-end workflow |
The manuscript file order is specified clearly | The paper should be production-ready enough to move quickly |
Duplicate submission is not permitted and will result in rejection | Editorial trust and disclosure discipline matter |
Original submitted versions may appear on non-profit preprint servers | Preprints are allowed, but with boundaries |
If a manuscript extends a previously rejected submission, authors must explain the changes in the cover letter | The cover letter is expected to do real disclosure work |
The senior scientist on each manuscript should normally hold a permanent position | The journal wants continuity of contact and authorship stability |
Those details are unusually explicit. They tell authors that SmartMat is not treating the submission package casually. If you are still improvising the cover letter, title page, template choice, and support files, you are probably entering the portal too early.
How this guide was built
How this page was researched: sources used include SmartMat's public author guidelines, the journal's research and review templates, the 100 most recent SmartMat papers our team reviewed when this guide was built, and recent manuscripts that came through Manusights pre-submission reviews targeting this journal.
The official sources define the operational requirements: template use, ORCID, file order, title-page details, supporting information, disclosures, preprint boundaries, and online submission. Manusights interpretation is separate. We use anonymized manuscript patterns to explain where materials papers tend to look complete but still underpowered for SmartMat's editorial lane.
What official pages do not answer
Official and generic pages for SmartMat submission guidance usually point to the official author instructions or template files. Those pages rarely explain what editors actually want: the editorial difference between a properly formatted materials paper and a functional smart-materials submission.
That gap matters because the official checklist can be satisfied while the paper still reads like synthesis plus characterization. A SmartMat-ready manuscript needs the device, systems, or functional consequence to be visible in the abstract, first figure, and cover letter.
Source limitations
Source limitations: this is a public-source and Manusights-pattern guide, not an inside view of SmartMat editorial deliberations. We did not rely on confidential reviewer reports or private submission-system data. Where this page gives judgment, it is based on official requirements plus anonymized patterns from Manusights pre-submission work.
Official sources set the requirements, but the remaining question is manuscript fit. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes the SmartMat fit screen before upload, especially around paper is mostly synthesis and characterization, performance claim is stronger than the design logic, and admin package is unfinished. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting SmartMat
The paper is mostly synthesis and characterization
A materials package can be competent and still not deliver enough smart-materials consequence for the journal. Make the functional consequence visible in the abstract, Figure 1, and concluding claim.
The performance claim is stronger than the design logic
Good numbers without a convincing explanation often feel weak on first editorial read. Add the design mechanism, interface logic, stability evidence, or comparison that explains why the performance matters.
The admin package is unfinished
Template drift, ORCID gaps, or unclear cover-letter disclosures make a serious paper look less ready than it is. Finalize template choice, file order, ORCID, title-page declarations, and prior-submission disclosures before upload.
Check whether your SmartMat manuscript passes the the admin package is unfinished screen →
The manuscript argues impact through one metric
A single best value can look fragile if stability, reproducibility, operating conditions, or device context are underdeveloped. Support the headline metric with durability, controls, statistics, and real-use conditions.
Before upload, a materials submission check can tell you whether the main problem is journal fit, mechanism, or package completeness.
Cover letter and portal checklist
Before you enter the submission workflow, make sure the package can answer these questions:
- what is the functional smart-materials advance in one sentence
- why does the manuscript matter beyond one formulation or one property gain
- what template and article type are you using
- are ORCID, file order, and support files already ready
- do you need to disclose a prior rejected version and explain what changed
At this journal, the cover letter should explain the materials consequence and handle any prior-submission disclosure directly. It should not be a generic prestige note.
One practical point from the guidelines is easy to miss: if the manuscript is a revised or extended version of work previously rejected by the journal, the cover letter should explain the prior submission and what changed. That means the cover letter is part of the integrity workflow, not just a sales document.
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Additional pre-submission review patterns for Smartmat
Of the 100 SmartMat papers our team reviewed when this guide was built, the specific failure pattern that mattered most was whether the material's function was visible as a design story rather than a property table.
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting SmartMat, four repeat patterns show up before external review begins.
The manuscript has good data but not enough smart-materials consequence
This is common in papers built around composition tuning rather than design logic.
The device or systems relevance is implied rather than demonstrated
Editors usually notice when the practical case is rhetorical.
The design explanation is thinner than the performance table
That makes the paper feel less durable than the headline metric suggests.
The admin package is treated as cleanup for later
A smart-materials readiness check is useful here because SmartMat's front-end workflow rewards a complete submission object.
Manusights guide-build pattern analysis identifies this as the common SmartMat gap: the manuscript has publishable materials data, but the abstract, Figure 1, supporting information, and cover letter do not yet make the smart-materials consequence easy to believe. Treat that as a function-first submission-package check before upload rather than as a formatting task to clean up later.
Those patterns matter because the journal sits between broad materials publishing and more selective function-first venues. Papers do better when they make the functional and editorial case quickly, not slowly.
SmartMat versus nearby alternatives
Journal | Best fit | Think twice if |
|---|---|---|
SmartMat | Functional or smart materials with clear design and performance consequence | The paper is mainly synthesis and characterization or too narrow in application logic |
Advanced Functional Materials | Strong function-driven materials story with a broader flagship ambition | The manuscript is not yet competitive at that level |
Materials Horizons | Concept-heavy materials advance with strong novelty | The work is more device-ready and function-led than concept-led |
Broad materials journal | Good materials paper with narrower consequence | The smart-materials readership is not the true owner |
The right target depends on whether the manuscript's real strength is broad function, smart-materials design logic, or a narrower materials result. Getting that ownership right is usually the real submission decision.
Submission portal
SmartMat submissions are tracked through Wiley Authors at authors.wiley.com/journal/SMM2, accessible from the SmartMat author guidelines. Manuscripts require either a Microsoft Word or LaTeX document (including a compiled PDF) that contains the text, figures, and tables. Vector graphic images (plots, graphs, line diagrams) should either be embedded in the Word document or saved as PDF, PS, or EPS files; ChemDraw and Photoshop originals are also accepted.
SmartMat is fully Open Access under CC BY: all articles are immediately freely available to read, download, and share. The journal does not charge submission fees or page charges. The Editorial Board includes 28 scholars across 11 countries.
Required artifacts at submission
SmartMat requires these at first submission:
- main manuscript file in Microsoft Word or LaTeX format, including compiled PDF with text, figures, and tables
- vector graphic images embedded in the Word document OR provided as PDF / PS / EPS files (ChemDraw and Photoshop originals also accepted)
- cover letter establishing the smart-materials / functional-materials contribution and the design-logic / performance-claim integration
- author byline with full names, affiliations, and ORCID iDs
- author CRediT contribution statement
- competing-interests declaration
- ethics statement for any human-subjects-in-materials-testing or biosafety-regulated smart-materials work
- data availability statement with deposit references (Zenodo, Figshare, institutional repositories)
- supporting information with extended characterization, device performance metrics, and reproducibility-supporting data
- suggested reviewers with institutional affiliations and email addresses
- $3,300 USD / £2,430 GBP / €2,860 EUR APC for Articles (or $830 USD / £611 GBP / €720 EUR APC for Perspectives) (2026; many institutional Wiley transformative agreements cover the fee; no submission or page charges)
- declaration of generative AI use in the writing process per Wiley policy
- for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript
In our pre-submission review work for SmartMat, the most common artifact-related issue is materials-synthesis submissions where the "smart" or functional-materials framing is asserted in the title but not demonstrated through stimuli-responsive characterization data. SmartMat's editorial culture treats the smart-materials demonstration (response to specific stimuli: electrical, optical, thermal, mechanical, chemical, biological) as a substantive editorial filter; submissions where the responsive characterization is missing or limited to a single stimulus condition face routine major-revision requests on the smart-materials-fit check before scientific critique begins.
Run a SmartMat pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit to verify the package meets the journal's smart-materials-demonstration-with-design-logic bar.
Editorial triage timeline
In our pre-submission review work for SmartMat, manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The editorial triage pattern at Wiley smart-materials journals favors submissions where the cover letter names a specific failure pattern in current functional-materials practice that the manuscript addresses. Editors routinely reject pure-materials-synthesis submissions without smart-materials demonstration and consistently screen for cover letters that demonstrate awareness of the journal's recent editorial culture around design-logic-and-performance integration.
Day 0 to 5: Wiley Authors intake and Wiley editorial-office technical check
The platform performs format and declaration checks (Word or LaTeX with compiled PDF, vector graphic format, ORCID linking, declarations). Editorial staff verify the cover letter and the smart-materials scope fit.
Day 5 to 21: Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor desk-screen
An Associate Editor (matched to stimuli-responsive polymers, electroactive materials, photoresponsive materials, magnetic functional materials, thermally responsive systems, bioinspired smart materials, or smart-materials-for-energy) reviews scope fit and the smart-materials demonstration.
Week 4 to 10: External peer review
Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers selected for both the smart-materials subfield and any device-or-application context relevant to the work.
Week 10 to 16: Decision and revision rounds
First decisions arrive at the 6-10 week median, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 4-8 weeks. Authors may use Wiley's standard appeal procedure to respond to editorial decisions.
Submit If
- the manuscript shows a clear smart-materials or functional-materials consequence
- the design logic and performance claims support each other
- the journal-level audience is broader than one formulation niche
- templates, ORCID, and submission materials are ready before upload
- the cover letter can explain the paper's real functional value quickly
Think Twice If
- Figure 1 and the abstract are mostly synthesis plus characterization, with the function only appearing later.
- The best claim rests on one metric without stability, cycling, reproducibility, operating-condition, or comparison support.
- The device or system relevance appears only in the cover letter rather than in the manuscript evidence.
- Supporting information carries composition, structure, or test-condition details needed to trust the main claim.
- A broader or narrower materials journal is the more honest owner for the manuscript.
Before upload, run a smart-materials first-read check to see whether the manuscript is genuinely ready for this lane.
Frequently asked questions
SmartMat uses a template-led submission workflow. The public guidelines say authors should prepare the manuscript in the required file order, have an ORCID ID ready, and use the journal's research-article or review template whenever possible before submission.
SmartMat is a smart-materials and functional-materials journal. Editors are usually looking for a paper whose materials design changes device, systems, or functional performance in a way that matters beyond one narrow formulation study.
Yes, with limits. The public guidelines say manuscripts previously posted as preprints on non-profit community servers such as ChemRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv may be considered, but only the original submitted version may be posted as a preprint.
Common reasons include a manuscript that is mainly synthesis and characterization without enough functional consequence, a weak device or systems case, and a package that is incomplete on templates, cover-letter disclosures, or admin details.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Same journal, next question
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.