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

The journal's Editors & Editorial Board page lists an Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editors, and Associate Editors who are based at universities and research institutes. In ACS's published process, the Journal Editorial Office pre-screens the manuscript for formatting and other requirements, the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editors, or Development Editors assess it for scope, scientific merit, and significance, and an Associate Editor evaluates it to select appropriate experts for peer review. In our reading, that evaluation also weighs nanoscience significance for the short-format Letters context, characterization adequacy, and subspecialty routing across nanophotonics, nanoelectronics, nanomedicine, and nanomaterials.

ACS does not publish how many manuscripts an Associate Editor handles or how long the initial read takes.

Papers that pass the editorial assessment stage have cleared the steepest filter in short-format nanoscience publishing.

ACS does not publish the status labels or stage durations for Nano Letters, so the stages below follow ACS's published publishing process, and the labels you see in the ACS Publishing Center may differ.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, the editors assess whether the nanoscience significance warrants Nano Letters's selective short-format Letters editorial slots. ACS does not publish the share of submissions rejected before peer review.

A desk rejection can mean the editors concluded that the characterization is single-technique or partial (without the multi-method validation expected for top-tier nanoscience) or that the work would fit better at a sister ACS journal (ACS Nano for full-format nanoscience, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces for applied nanomaterials, ACS Applied Nano Materials for nanomaterials specialty).

The Journal Editorial Office pre-screens the submission for proper formatting and other requirements: a complete manuscript with figures embedded (under 3000 words, no more than 5 figures, abstract limited to 150 words), Supporting Information as separate files, the cover letter, conflict-of-interest and funding information, and ethics documentation where relevant.

An Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript to select appropriate experts for peer review. In our reading, that also means weighing short-format Letters fit (does the work communicate key elements important to the scientific community in the short-format length), characterization adequacy, and subspecialty routing.

ACS's published process has the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editors, or Development Editors assess scope, scientific merit, and significance before an Associate Editor selects reviewers. ACS publishes no duration for this stage, and it may not appear as a separate status.

The Associate Editor selects experts for peer review. ACS says the editors take the authors' recommended reviewers into consideration but may invite other experts. ACS's general process description says manuscripts are reviewed by at least three peers, while noting that each journal does things a little differently, and ACS publishes no reviewer count or recruitment time for Nano Letters. Recruitment can take longer when the manuscript spans several subspecialties.

Peer review at Nano Letters is single anonymous. ACS tells reviewers to judge whether a manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly written, supported by strong graphics and data, and detailed enough to be replicated, and to consider whether it offers novel contributions and fits the journal. ACS publishes no per-reviewer review time or report length for Nano Letters.

After the reviews are in, the editor decides whether the manuscript is published, transferred, or rejected. The journal reports a median of 66.8 days to accept and 4.7 days from acceptance to ASAP publication (median days, data as of 2025).

• Rejection within the first days: Likely an administrative issue or an immediate scope mismatch.

• Rejection within the first weeks: Likely an editorial desk rejection; ACS reports a median of 7.4 days from submission to a first editorial decision for Nano Letters.

• Still in review after 2 weeks: The paper has probably passed the initial screens, although ACS does not publish what each status label means.

• Still in review after 8 weeks: Roughly double the journal's 30.2-day median to a first peer review decision. A polite inquiry that references your manuscript ID is appropriate.

• Status changes to a decision-stage label: Check your email; ACS publishes no timing from that point.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Nano Letters authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 4 weeks puts you close to the journal's reported median of 30.2 days to a first peer review decision.

Delays can come from reviewer recruitment or from a reviewer asking for more time; ACS publishes no breakdown of the causes at Nano Letters.

What you should avoid during the 4-to-6-week window is emailing the editorial office. Associate Editors are working researchers, and an early inquiry adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

• Do not email the editorial office during the first 5 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.

• Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at Nano Letters. ACS has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.

• Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: nanoscience-significance, multi-method characterization validation (anticipating requests for additional characterization techniques), reproducibility.

• If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.

• Read recent Nano Letters papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.

If your Nano Letters paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and Associate Editor cited:

ACS Nano is the natural ACS cascade for full-format nanoscience papers. ACS Nano uses the ACS Publishing Center; editorial contact nano@acs.org.

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is the ACS cascade for applied nanomaterials papers.

ACS Applied Nano Materials is the ACS cascade for nanomaterials specialty papers.

JACS is the broader ACS chemistry flagship. JACS uses the ACS Publishing Center; editorial contact jacs@acs.org.

Nature Nanotechnology is the external Springer Nature cascade for top-tier nanoscience. The Nature Nanotechnology Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nnano.nature.com handles submission; nnano@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

Small is the external Wiley short-format nanoscience cascade.

ACS tells reviewers to judge whether a manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly written, supported by strong graphics and data, detailed enough to be replicated, novel, and a good fit for the journal. The table below maps four review themes (our reading of those criteria) to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission review work across this journal family, we see a specific risk pattern: Nano Letters editors and reviewers specifically look for whether the manuscript has a true Letter-shaped nanoscience advance supported by more evidence than the short format visibly allows. The public ACS guidance gives the word, figure, and abstract limits, but the status anxiety usually comes from a harder question: can reviewers accept the story quickly without asking for a full-article evidence rebuild?

This guide tells you what Nano Letters editors look for during the status window. Manusights has reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Nano Letters or adjacent ACS nanoscience, materials, and chemistry journals; full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI on customer manuscripts.

Multi-method package is not yet reviewer-ready

The strongest Nano Letters submissions make a short central claim and then let the Supporting Information do heavy evidentiary work. We frequently see reviewer risk when a manuscript relies on TEM without enough spectroscopy or diffraction, performance data without surface chemistry controls, or a device result without enough stability and reproducibility detail. During Under Review, build a claim-to-evidence grid: central claim, primary technique, independent evidence, quantitative control, and likely reviewer objection.

If there is an empty column, run a Check whether your Nano Letters evidence package is multi-method enough ->.

Letter format is carrying too much story

Nano Letters is not simply a shorter ACS Nano article. A manuscript can satisfy the formal under 3000 words and 5-figure limit and still feel overstuffed if each figure tries to carry a separate study. We see reviewers reward papers where Figure 1 states the central phenomenon, Figures 2 and 3 prove mechanism or performance, and the remaining figures answer reproducibility or generality.

If the current story needs eight conceptual steps to explain, prepare a revision path that cuts the claim rather than just compressing the prose. For that pass, use a Check if your Nano Letters story is truly Letter-shaped ->.

ACS nanoscience routing is not settled

Nano Letters, ACS Nano, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, JACS, and Journal of Physical Chemistry C can all be plausible for strong nanoscience work, but they reward different promises. Nano Letters wants rapid communication of a broadly important nanoscience result. ACS Nano can absorb a deeper full-format package. ACS AMI wants applied interface utility.

JPC C wants physical chemistry insight. If your response plan cannot separate those routes, run a Check whether your Nano Letters routing plan is defensible ->.

This page was created from ACS's public Nano Letters author guidelines at ACS author guidance, ACS's published publishing-process description (short-format Letters under 3000 words / no more than 5 figures / 150-word abstract, Associate Editor selection of peer-review experts), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Nano Letters-targeted manuscripts.

For the ACS nanoscience landscape beyond Nano Letters, see ACS Nano (full-format nanoscience), ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (applied nanomaterials), ACS Applied Nano Materials (nanomaterials specialty), JACS (broader ACS chemistry), and external nanoscience alternatives (Nature Nanotechnology, Small, Advanced Materials).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is short-format nanoscience (Nano Letters), full-format nanoscience (ACS Nano), applied nanomaterials (ACS AMI), nanomaterials specialty (ACS Applied Nano Materials), broad ACS chemistry (JACS), top-tier Nature Portfolio (Nature Nanotechnology), Wiley short-format (Small), or top-tier materials (Advanced Materials).

Reviewers at Nano Letters are subject experts selected by the Associate Editor, and ACS publishes no reviewer count for the journal. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both nanoscience-significance and multi-method-characterization perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nano Letters short-format-plus-multi-method bar before submission, our Nano Letters pre-submission diagnostic flags the characterization and format weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.