--- 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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Biomaterials [Topic tags] <2–3 closest biomaterials subtopics> [Mechanism] [Evaluation level] in-vitro / in-vivo / both [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```