BLUE@SKY 2022-07-27

Submission cycle is 2 months.

BLUE@SKY 2022-07-27

5.21 submitted
5.25 assigned AE
6.3 in peer review
6.17 major revision
7.5 resubmit
7.7 in peer review
7.20 minor revision
7.22 in peer review
7.25 minor revision
7.26 resubmit
7.27 accepted

Translation:
5.21 submitted
5.25 assigned AE (Assigned to Associate Editor)
6.3 in peer review
6.17 major revision
7.5 resubmit
7.7 in peer review
7.20 minor revision
7.22 in peer review
7.25 minor revision
7.26 resubmit
7.27 accepted

EurosLiu 2022-07-21

3.14 Submit
3.17 Under review
3.21 In peer review
4.13 Major revision
5.21 Submit R1
6.8 Revised
6.11 Proof
6.12 Online

Translation:
3.14 Submit
3.17 Under review
3.21 In peer review
4.13 Major revision
5.21 Submit R1
6.8 Revised
6.11 Proof
6.12 Online

alan@hnu 2022-07-03

2022.07.03 Review comments returned 中

alan@hnu 2022-06-11

2022.05.07 Submission; it will be delivered to editor Jiwoong Park in a few days.
2022.05.21 Received an email notification for review submission.
2022.06.11 Received first review comments - 1 major revision and 1 minor revision, editor requested the major revision.

Shuibin Tu 2022-06-06

How does the system show in the hands of the editor?

Shuibin Tu 2022-06-06

May I ask how the system is displayed in the editor's hands?

lingxixs 2022-06-04

May I ask how fast this editor processes the manuscript? How long does it take for review? I have also assigned this editor.

亦南凭 2022-06-02

Phonon heat transport discovered a new resonance phenomenon. Submitted on May 26, 2022, it was shown to the editor-in-chief two days later, and six days later it reached the hands of the associate editor (Prof. Colin Nuckolls). This morning (June 2nd), a rejection letter was received. The reason stated was "we feel that your manuscript does not have the impact needed for Nano Letters." I can only blame myself for not being skilled enough and for failing to capture the interest of the two editors, possibly due to the lack of experimental results. Anyway, my girlfriend consoled me, and I'm feeling better now. I hope to try submitting another paper before graduating with a doctorate.

SU Ann 2022-04-29

May I ask which editor you are? There are unexpectedly five reviewers. Thank you.

xinhhh 2022-04-29

A highly recognized journal, hoping for a high impact factor. Five reviewers.

丁中祥 2022-04-19

May I ask how many reviewers are usually assigned for the first review of Nano Letters? The manuscript has been assigned to Associate Editor Vicki Colvin.

丁中祥 2022-04-19

Did Colvin's associate editor send it to five reviewers for the first review? Is that too many?

xhx-77 2022-01-02

When you reject papers, do you provide comments for the authors on NE, NC, and Angew? Do they have to resubmit to Nano Letters after making revisions?

xiu207 2021-12-29

OP, may I ask if assigning a deputy editor means it will be sent for review? I also can't see any information changes on the ACS website, it keeps showing that a deputy editor has been assigned for further evaluation.

大肖说多谢 2021-12-13

11.03 Submitted to Nano Letters;
12.08 Notification of formatting error, requested to revise and resubmit, resubmitted on the same day;
11.12 Assigned associate editor Dr. Vicki Colvin for review;
12.04 Received reviewer comments, 5 reviewers in total, 3 agreed for acceptance (two in the top 5%, one highly positive), 2 rejected (one gave constructive criticism, another did not understand the paper and all questions raised were already explained in the supporting materials), editor ultimately decided on rejection.
Excluding the comments from the reviewer who did not understand the paper, the other reviewers' comments were quite fair. There were significant issues with some crucial experiments that were not conducted. Currently preparing to either submit to Angew or resubmit to Nano Letters. Overall, although the paper was rejected, I am convinced and determined to continue working hard.

hgh12349 2021-11-11

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.

四方。 2021-04-22

1.26 submitted, then went on winter vacation
Didn't know what was being reviewed, didn't look at it at home
2.18 received reviewer comments, one wanted to reject (didn't directly say it, said they were not knowledgeable and couldn't see the value), one suggested major revisions, the editor's attitude was very positive, gave a month and a half for revisions
3.27 Started conducting experiments after school started on 3.1, wrote over 4000 words for the response, submitted for second review
3.31 Received a request for reduction in similarity, as a first-time submitter, I didn't know and had a particularly high similarity rate, grateful to the editor for not rejecting me outright
————————Went out during Qingming Festival————————
4.6 Third submission
4.19 Was informed of acceptance, needed to modify the format, completed the changes on the same day, fourth submission
4.20 Received the proof
Overall, the efficiency of NL (likely referring to the journal or publication) is still very high. The main issue was that I was inexperienced in submitting, resulting in many revisions.
Finally, I want to express my gratitude to Prof Lynn Loo, who was really patient in pointing out the issues and had a positive attitude!

UEFHAQER迁 2021-03-05

I personally feel that the submission process of Nano Letters is very efficient. I submitted my article at the end of January 2020, which was when the COVID-19 pandemic was starting to spread. However, my article was sent for review in early February. After just two weeks, I received the reviewers' comments, which required a minor revision and two major revisions. After carefully revising, my article was accepted and published in mid to late March, taking a total of two months.

This is my first SCI article, and I am very happy that it was published in Nano Letters. Personally, I believe that as long as there is inspiration and solid experimentation, and one writes diligently to highlight the unique aspects of the work, publishing a good article is not a difficult task. My advisor is not familiar with journal editors, so I am not sure why many people say that this journal is based on connections. Here, I sincerely wish Nano Letters continuous success and improvement.

EricYoung 2021-02-20

It's too real. Two weeks later, we said that although the job is quite good, we feel it's more suitable for a more professional journal. As a result, it wasn't submitted for review. Oh man, it took two weeks to come up with this... No wonder the influence is declining. Even if I submit to ACS Nano without review, they usually inform you within 5 days and sometimes even provide specific reasons. I truly admire them. Nano Letters thinks highly of itself, but it's just swallowing bitter pills.

GZUSS123 2021-01-30

Rechazado después de 14 días.