NANO LETTERS

Nano Letters is one of the most influential journals in the field of materials, apart from NS, sub-journals, and AM. I heard it is difficult to get published in this journal, so after being rejected by NE, NC, and Angew, I submitted my work to Nano Letters with the hope of trying.

I submitted it on September 2nd, and after a few days, it was assigned to Associate Editor Ilke Arslan.

On October 14th, I received the reviewer's comments. There were three reviewers, and they all recommended minor revisions and requested some additional experiments.

On October 20th, I submitted the revised manuscript.

On October 22nd, the editor sent an email saying that the plagiarism check did not pass, with a slightly high similarity rate of 30%. I had to reduce the similarity.

On October 23rd, I made the necessary changes to reduce the similarity and resubmitted the manuscript.

On November 4th, the editor sent an email stating that the manuscript was provisionally accepted, but the text format in the figures needed to be modified to Arial font.

On November 5th, I made the revisions.

On November 9th, the manuscript was officially accepted.

On November 10th, I received the proofreading.

On November 11th, it was published online.

Overall, the process was quite fast, although waiting was also quite anxious. I hope Nano Letters continues to improve and increase its impact factor.

2022.05.07 Submitted, delivered to Professor Jiwoong Park at the University of Chicago in a few days;
2022.05.21 Received notification email for review;
2022.06.11 Received review comments, one minor revision and one major revision. The reviewer for the major revision raised several sharp questions. Editor requested major revision;
2022.07.03 Sent back for revision;
2022.08.11 Received pre-acceptance notification, requested format changes;
2022.08.12 Made format changes and sent back for revision. Received formal acceptance email on the same day.
The most difficult part was the long wait of 38 days after sending the revised manuscript, which is not consistent with the usual practice of receiving a response within three weeks. I thought the editor had to find a new reviewer. It was worth the wait.
Sharing an experience:
1. Submission system: https://acsparagonplus.acs.org/. In this system, you can only see "under review" status (I have been checking this status since I submitted, unaware that there is another system).
2. Publishing system: https://publish.acs.org/. In this system, you can see "in peer review" status (I didn't know about it until today when I stumbled upon it on Little Muckworm. Thanks to that senior researcher).
Wishing everyone smooth research!! Let's encourage each other!!