ACS Nano 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

Before your paper reaches reviewers, an ACS Nano editor evaluates whether the submission fits the journal's scope. This is the first filter.

ACS Nano editors are evaluating:

• does the paper report nanomaterials research with clear functional or mechanistic advance, not just synthesis?
• is the characterization complete (TEM/SEM, XPS or EDS, surface analysis, etc.) for the claims made?
• does the work travel beyond one narrow nanomaterials subfield?
• is the contribution at the impact bar that ACS Nano expects (vs. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Nano Letters, Chemistry of Materials)?

About 40 to 50 percent of submissions are returned in this window. A desk rejection usually means scope fit, characterization completeness, or impact-bar mismatch. The editor may suggest a sister ACS journal.

Editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript, figures, supplementary information with characterization data, table of contents graphic, cover letter, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and ethics statement where applicable.

The handling editor reads the paper, evaluates scope fit and characterization completeness, and decides whether to invite reviewers or return the paper. Most desk rejections happen here.

The editor invites two to three reviewers with nanomaterials, characterization, and topic-matched expertise.

Once reviewers accept, peer review typically takes 4 to 8 weeks. ACS Nano reviewers are asked to evaluate characterization completeness, mechanism evidence, and competitive benchmarking against the state of the art.

After reports return, the editor synthesizes them. The 6-to-10-week median first-decision time captures the full pipeline.

If you have been Under Review for more than 10 weeks with no update, a polite email to eic@acsnano.acs.org is reasonable.

The most common outcome after peer review. ACS Nano rejections usually cite characterization-completeness gaps, missing benchmarking against state-of-the-art, weak mechanism evidence, or scope mismatch (would fit ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces or Chemistry of Materials better). Reviewer reports are valuable regardless of outcome.

ACS Nano revisions are usually substantial and require additional experiments (new characterization, comparison experiments, mechanism studies). Major revisions are typically due within 60 days.

Possible on first round for clean, fully-characterized, high-impact work; more commonly follows one round of revision.

• Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Desk rejection. Editor concluded the paper does not meet ACS Nano's bar or fits a sister ACS journal better.
• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Good sign. Editor decided to proceed to peer review.
• Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer delay. Polite inquiry is appropriate.
• Status changes to "Required Reviews Complete": Reports are in; expect decision within 1 to 2 weeks.

Through our ACS Nano submission readiness check, we have worked with researchers preparing ACS Nano submissions and waiting on decisions.

The waiting itself is informative. If ACS Nano makes no decision within 3 weeks, you have likely cleared the desk screen. The journal desk-rejects 40 to 50 percent within 7 to 14 days; silence at the 3-week mark means your paper is in reviewer recruitment or active peer review.

The most common anxiety: "My paper has been Under Review for 8 weeks. Is that bad?" It is not. ACS Nano's 6-to-10-week median means many papers take 8 to 10 weeks. Characterization-heavy papers routinely extend to 10 to 12 weeks.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting ACS Nano, three failure patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

Characterization gaps reviewers will demand. ACS Nano reviewers verify characterization completeness rigorously. We see papers reporting synthesis and one property measurement without the surface or structural characterization that supports the property claim. The fix is to include at least: morphological characterization (TEM/SEM), structural characterization (XRD/Raman), compositional characterization (XPS/EDS), and the property measurement that the paper centers on.

Benchmarking absent or weak. ACS Nano reviewers look for quantitative comparison to state-of-the-art performance. We see papers reporting impressive results without a benchmarking table that compares to 2 to 3 recent literature systems on the same metric. The fix is to add a benchmarking table to the main text or supplementary information.

Scope better fit for sister ACS journal. ACS Nano publishes high-impact nanomaterials with mechanism depth. We see papers that fit ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (applied materials with device integration), Chemistry of Materials (synthesis-focused), or Nano Letters (letters format with sharp single result) submitted to ACS Nano. The fix is honest scope assessment before submission.