NANO LETTERS

I was submitted to Nature Materials and rejected by the editor after one week, then it was transferred to Nano Letters. It was submitted on January 28 and the results were received on February 25, requiring one minor revision and one major revision. Editor Uri Banin gave us forty days for major revision. It was resubmitted on March 26. A large number of experiments were supplemented, and all the questions of the reviewers were answered one by one. The review comments were received on April 16, the first reviewer agreed to publish, and the second reviewer requested us to modify an argument and make minor revisions. It was revised and submitted on April 17, accepted on April 21, proof on April 22, and then was published online. The whole process took three months, we supplemented with a large number of experiments, and the article has indeed been greatly improved. I was a little surprised after reading some of the comments below. For my field of condensed matter physics/nano optics/nano photonics, the quality of articles on the Nano Letter is still very top, which can be regarded as a good choice, following Nature and Science, main Nature-branded journals, PRL/PRX, Light, Nat Commun, and Sci Adv (if you don't care about the publication fee). The physics circles in Europe and the United States also recognize this journal. The drop in impact factor may be due to journals such as ACS Nano diverting some articles related to chemical materials. I hope that Nano Letters can maintain its own characteristics and do it better.

(49) Thank | 327050133

Nano Lett had a higher recognition than that of AM, and its reputation was comparable to JACS and PRL. In recent years, due to the fact that the manuscripts included are more related to physics and the social circle is narrow, Nano Lett’s influence has decreased significantly to a similar level to that of ACS Nano, which is really a pity. I don’t know if ACS or the two editors in chief want to make a change. They changed the editor this year actually. Judging from the editorials published by the new editor, the following changes would be: 1) Only manuscripts as Letters are accepted. The number of words cannot exceed 3000, and figures no more than 5. Otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected, requested to revise and then resubmit, or transferred to ACS Nano. 2) It seems that the associate editor team must make major changes to enhance the regionality and adjust the scope of the paper the journal receives. 3) The editor in chief will check the manuscript firstly and then send it to the associate editor. It means that the editor-in-chief will reject some of the manuscripts. 4) Adding a category as Viewpoint. It is limited to the expert in the field invited and has only one page layout. Generally speaking, I personally feel that Nano Letters is preparing to break the circle and regain the glory. I personally like this journal and hope that it will become better and better. Editorials link for editor in chief: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b05084

(157) Thank | Andrew

I submitted the manuscript on April 15th, 2019, which was sent to the new editor Park Jiwoong, who is in charge of 2D materials in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Park had rejected us a dozen times before. It was the first to be sent for review, which is considered to reopen the door to Nano Letter in the area of two-dimensional materials. May 23rd, 2019 The revision recommendations were received. Two major revisions were required. They affirmed our novelty, but there were many places where the reviewers disagreed or needed improvement. Mr. Park requested a resubmission. The paper was revised according to the comments on June 20th, 2019. 5,000 words were changed, which was considered a satisfying reply to the reviewers. The reviewers’ comments were received on August 11th, 2019. Reviewer 2 did not reply. Perhaps he/she was on summer vacation. Reviewer 1 said that the problem was solved perfectly, but he/she would like to discuss with us whether it would be better to use mechanically stripped materials. I drew a cover and returned the simply revised manuscript with mechanical peeling discussed on August 20th, 2019. We thought it was almost done. On September 1st, 2019, Mr. Park thought the modification was not enough, and we needed to add some data and then modify it. On September 19th, 2019, I made up a lot of experiments with mechanically peeled materials. Fortunately, there were also good phenomena. The comments were responded. On September 24th, today, it is accepted. Then I came here to comment. Ha ha. Mr. Park is serious, but he has a good attitude. Come on, everyone. At present it is still difficult to be accepted by Nano Letter in the domestic, and everyone has to overcome it.

(223) Thank | Q。

This is one of the top publications on nanomaterials. There were two reviewers who offered a lot of insights and information. I revised based on their suggestions. In all, it took about 5 months for publication. The editor of DS, Kohane, is very good. I hope that I can continue to publish good publications in the future, and I hope that you can publish research papers in your favorite journals.

(9) Thank | 942699560@qq.com

The submission was rejected, and the reviewers were not familiar with the direction of the editor..Rejected

(0) Thank | Marilyn

No. 5 just submitted, do not know the result how

(1) Thank | XfZhong

The first submission, the manuscript was assigned to Charles M. Lieber, the editor was very good, gaveAfter the opportunity to submit a trial, after a major overhaul, a minor revision, and finally acceptd, I feel very much the editor can give the opportunity, very happy in this top journal, in general, the efficiency of Nano Letters is not bad, the innovation requirements are high,I hope that the journal impact factor will continue to rise!

(6) Thank | xianzhi

Real-time updateSubmitted on June 02, the Park editor was assigned on the same day.June 20th No news

(0) Thank | Luan Guo

Submitted just one month back news, three reviewers, basically minor repairs, no big problems, editing room park, really good, modified for about four or five days,Return to receive within a week, very smooth

(0) Thank | 757466723@qq.com

The thermal property measurement of the two-dimensional material was submitted to Nano Lett, and both were rejected by the editor.Choosing edits for Yi Cui and Phillip Kim was assigned to Angel Rubio by Alivisatos.After the second submission, it was rejected.I feel that it is not really difficult to send Nano Lett in this circle. In the circle, I don’t know how to ask for water. I will select for him less in the future. The influence factor of 2017 has not dropped recently...

(4) Thank | GGBoulder

The second part of NL is just one year apart. It is also Park for editors. Park people are really good and highly recommended.

(10) Thank | 261048396@qq.com

Very good journal, editor is also very responsible!

(3) Thank | nano

Park This editor is really good, submitted to his hand because he happened to take a vacation, delayedIn two weeks, he specially sent a letter to apologize, saying that the manuscript had been submitted for trial. Two weeks later, the results of the first trial, one minor repair, one direct publication, Park let the revision, we added a little data, and sent it back two days later.

(5) Thank | 261048396@qq.com

A manuscript has been sent to nature materials, nature communications, because there is no experiment to support the editor to send it off, sent to NL, did not expect to accept directly one month, Hongkun Park this editor is good

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Edit is Younan Xia, speedSoon, people are also very good.Received review comments in 2 weeks.The change is basically accepted within one week after the change.After accepting, from hanging to the Internet, the proof, ASAP, the speed is quite fast, basically all done in one day.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

We are doing nano-biological materials, we selectd for NL, and we were transferred to Alivisatos three days later. It’s almost 10 days now. I don’t know if I can submit it for review. Will there be a notice for review???

(5) Thank | Anonymous

My select is 8.11, a week later (8.19) notice is assigned to Lieber, and opinion No. 9.24 comes back, Xiao Xiu, Lieber himself also reviewed, plus a reviewer.After minor repairs, accepted for 2 weeks.After Proof, ASAP was posted online on the Internet every other day.good luck.

(5) Thank | Anonymous

submitted an article about nanooletter, after the trial, the editor will inform the author?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

811 submission, one week later assigned to the editor of liber, until nowNearly 40 days, there is no news, liber this seems to be a bit slow at times.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

ACS The article has a high impact factor, nano letters are obviously the leading journal of nanometers, assigned toEditor of liber, revised back in three weeks, accepted three weeks after the revision.Whether or not interest is critical, of course, you can refer to several editorial articles.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Very lucky, only one reviewer (the other is lieber editor himself), made some small suggestions, and accepted the small work.I heard that Alivisatos is biased against Chinese people?

(0) Thank | Anonymous

3Submission No. 31, assigned to the editor of liber, notified on April 10th.A notice of acceptance was received on June 24.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

recently selectd for a Nano Lett, the first time to select for NL, the selected Lieber, and later assigned to Prof Joachim P. Spatz. Submitted on May 22nd, received comments on June 15th, a reviewer, minor repair.The revised draft was returned on June 16.Just received the mail reception (No. 18), asked to change the red font in the revised draft to black, put the refs on one page, and Supporting Information to re-mark in the page format such as S1.Very efficient, thanks to Prof Joachim P. Spatz. Our group rarely sends NL, so this time it is really lucky.It is not like the relationship between many insect friends in the forum. Our boss is not

(0) Thank | Anonymous

successfully sent to Alivisatos. After 12 days, it was successfully rejected.The speed is still very fast, the result is very bad, 哎

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Because the coverage is lower than JACS and Adv Mater, the influence is relatively small, because the suspicion of nano "irrigation" is often criticized.The influence factor that once relied on pride has lagged behind Adv Mater. Should decision-makers reflect on it?Nano Letters is a high-level journal in micro-nano materials and technology.The same level of journals, including Small in Germany and ACS Nano under ACS, are basically in a three-legged state.The grades of the three journals ACS Nano, Nano letter and Small can be roughly equal.The three have different emphasis, Nano Letter focuses on physical devices, Small biomedical field

(1) Thank | Anonymous