---

name: biomaterials description: Use when targeting Biomaterials or deciding whether a biomaterials manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the dual materials-characterization-plus-biological-evaluation bar, mechanism rigor, house style, the Biomaterials-vs-NBME-vs-functional-materials routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Biomaterials (biomaterials)

Journal positioning

Biomaterials is an Elsevier journal for materials designed for biological and medical application: tissue engineering and regenerative scaffolds, drug and gene delivery, implants and coatings, and biointerfaces. Its defining demand is dual rigor — a submission must combine thorough materials design and characterization with genuine biological evaluation (in vitro and/or in vivo), and the two must be tied together by a mechanism: how the material's properties produce the biological outcome. A strong materials paper carrying only a token cell-viability assay, or a biology study using an off-the-shelf material with no materials advance, is a poor fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Biomaterials Guide for Authors on the Elsevier site.

When to trigger

• The author names Biomaterials for a tissue-engineering, delivery, implant, or biointerface manuscript and wants a fit/framing and dual-rigor check.
• A materials paper must be re-framed to add — and mechanistically connect — meaningful biological evaluation, or a biology paper must show a real materials advance.
• The author is choosing between Biomaterials, nature-biomedical-engineering, and the functional-materials family (advanced-materials, nature-materials).
• The author needs the journal's biological-evaluation bar and its desk-reject heuristics.

Scope & topic fit

• Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: scaffolds, hydrogels, and engineered matrices where material design drives a demonstrated cell/tissue response.
• Drug, gene, and cell delivery: carriers and depots characterized as materials and evaluated for loading, release, targeting, and biological efficacy.
• Implants, devices, and coatings: degradable and load-bearing materials with characterized properties and biological/host response.
• Biointerfaces and surface engineering: surface chemistry/topography linked mechanistically to protein adsorption, cell adhesion, or antifouling behavior.
• Immunomodulatory, antibacterial, and bioactive materials where the biological effect is traced to defined material properties.
• Nano/micro-structured biomaterials when the materials advance and the biological outcome are jointly established, not one without the other.

Method & evidence bar

• The contribution must establish a material-property-to-biological-outcome mechanism, not merely report that a new material is biocompatible.
• Materials characterization must be thorough and appropriate: composition, structure, mechanical and degradation behavior, and release/loading where relevant, with quantitative, reproducible data.
• Biological evaluation must be meaningful and matched to the claim: appropriate cell types, relevant assays beyond a single viability test, and in-vivo validation where the application demands it — with controls, adequate N, and statistics.
• Properties and biological performance must be benchmarked against the correct material/clinical baseline, not a strawman.
• In-vivo work requires proper design (controls, randomization/blinding where applicable, ethics approval) and honest reporting of limitations.
• Reproducibility: material synthesis/processing, characterization protocols, and biological methods reported in enough detail to reproduce both the material and the measured response.

Structure & house style

• Standard research-article structure (introduction, materials/methods, results, discussion); Biomaterials publishes full-length archival articles — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
• The introduction motivates the biomedical problem and the materials-design rationale together; the discussion is where the structure–property–bioresponse mechanism is argued explicitly.
• Figures are load-bearing: materials characterization with quantification, and biological data (imaging, assays, in-vivo outcomes) with controls, error bars, and reported N and statistics.
• Supplementary material carries extended characterization and full biological protocols; main-text figures must support the central mechanism on their own.
• Ethics and biosafety statements must be present where animal or human-derived material is used.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Biomaterials Guide for Authors page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Biomaterials guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
• Re-check article types, length/figure expectations, and the data-availability policy.
• Confirm ethics approval and animal-use (e.g., ARRIVE) reporting and any biosafety requirements for in-vitro/in-vivo work.
• Confirm graphical-abstract and highlights requirements if applicable.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure requirements.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The paper establishes a material-property-to-biological-outcome mechanism, not just "biocompatible."
• Materials characterization is thorough and quantitative (structure, mechanics, degradation, release as relevant).
• Biological evaluation goes beyond a token viability assay, with appropriate cells/models, controls, N, and statistics.
• In-vivo work (where the claim needs it) has proper design and ethics approval.
• Properties and bioresponse are benchmarked against the correct material/clinical baseline.
• Synthesis, characterization, and biological protocols are reported in reproducible detail.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A materials paper with a token cell-viability assay and no biological insight or mechanism.
• A biology study using an off-the-shelf material with no materials design or characterization advance.
• "New biomaterial, it's biocompatible" with no structure–property–bioresponse mechanism.
• Biological data with no controls, inadequate N, missing statistics, or absent ethics approval.
• Performance benchmarked against a strawman rather than the correct material/clinical baseline.
• Application-driven device paper where neither the materials nor the biology is advanced.

Re-routing decision

• Engineering-/device-led biomedical advance with clinical translation focus → nature-biomedical-engineering.
• Conceptual functional-materials advance with the materials science as the core → advanced-materials / nature-materials.
• Specialty biomedical-engineering instrumentation/methods → ieee-transactions-on-biomedical-engineering.
• Broad cross-disciplinary significance → nature-communications / science-advances.
• Predominantly mechanistic biology with material as a tool → a dedicated cell/biology venue.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Biomaterials
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest biomaterials subtopics>
[Mechanism] <the material-property-to-biological-outcome claim in one line>
[Evaluation level] in-vitro / in-vivo / both
[Method/evidence] <do materials characterization + biological evaluation jointly clear the dual-rigor + mechanism bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / ethics & animal reporting / data policy / graphical abstract / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if single-sided or better framed elsewhere, a matched venue>