Rejected from Nature Nanotechnology? Where to Submit Next
A post-rejection routing guide for Nature Nanotechnology authors: when to transfer within Nature Portfolio, when to move to Nature Materials, Nature Communications, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Advanced Materials, Small, or a specialist nano journal, and when to fix the manuscript first.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Quick answer: If you were rejected from Nature Nanotechnology, do not choose the next journal by prestige alone. Diagnose whether the decision was about the nanoscale advance, cross-community breadth, characterization rigor, application overclaiming, mechanism, benchmarking, or simply Nature Portfolio priority.
For a broad paper that remains strong but missed the Nature Nanotechnology bar, consider Nature Communications, Advanced Science, or a Nature Portfolio transfer if offered. For materials-first work, consider Nature Materials, Advanced Materials, or Advanced Functional Materials. For specialist nanoscience, consider ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Small, Nanoscale, Nanotechnology, or a narrower device, bio, energy, or characterization journal. Fix first if the rejection questioned the core nanoscale evidence.
Before you move, run a Nature Nanotechnology rejection routing check to separate a venue problem from an evidence problem. If you are still deciding whether the original target was realistic, read the Nature Nanotechnology submission guide, Nature Nanotechnology submission process, and Nature Nanotechnology journal overview.
Method note and current Nature Nanotechnology facts
This page was built from current Nature Nanotechnology submission guidelines, Nature Nanotechnology content-type guidance, Nature Portfolio reporting and availability policies, ACS Nano and Nano Letters author guidance, and Manusights pre-submission reviews of nanoscience manuscripts. Last reviewed: July 16, 2026.
Nature Nanotechnology sends authors through the Nature manuscript-tracking system at https://mts-nnano.nature.com. Its submission-guidelines page tells authors to check aims and scope, content type, policies, publishing options and costs, presubmission enquiries, formatting, double-anonymized peer review, editorial process, appeals, and transfers before upload. The same workflow explicitly names appeals and transfer to another journal as post-decision options.
Concrete mechanics matter after a rejection. Nature Nanotechnology's current gold open-access APC is £9,390 / $12,850 / €10,850. The content-type page lists 3,000 words, 3 to 4 display items, and up to 50 references for Perspectives; 1,000 to 2,000 words and up to 15 references for Comments; and 300 to 800 words, one display item, and up to 10 references for Correspondence. The journal page lists ISSN 1748-3395 online and 1748-3387 print.
The formal Nature Portfolio reporting policy also matters. A condition of publication is that materials, data, code, and protocols must be made available without undue restrictions. For physical-sciences research, Nature Portfolio can require reporting-summary details for specific areas such as solar cells and claims of lasing; for life sciences and related fields, reporting summaries cover experimental and analytical design. If a Nature Nanotechnology rejection mentioned data availability, characterization, code, protocols, or reporting transparency, moving journals does not remove the defect.
First, classify the rejection
Nature Nanotechnology rejections split into two groups: route-now rejections and fix-first rejections. Route-now means the manuscript is probably sound but not the right Nature Nanotechnology article. Fix-first means the next editor will see the same weakness.
Rejection signal | What it usually means | Best next action |
|---|---|---|
"Not sufficiently broad for Nature Nanotechnology" | The result may be strong but too specialist | Route to ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Small, Nanoscale, or a subfield journal |
"Better suited to another Nature Portfolio journal" | The editor sees a different center of gravity | Evaluate the transfer, but confirm scope independently |
"Advance is incremental" | The work improves a known nanoscale system without changing the concept | Reframe or add evidence before aiming at another high-selectivity journal |
"Characterization is insufficient" | Structure, composition, morphology, interface, or property evidence is not complete | Fix characterization before resubmission |
"Application claims are overextended" | Device, energy, sensing, therapy, or environmental promise exceeds the nanoscale evidence | Narrow claims or add functional proof |
"Mechanism is unclear" | Performance is shown but causal nanoscale explanation is thin | Add controls, comparison, time course, or mechanistic analysis |
The fastest successful cascade is a scope or breadth rejection. The slowest is treating a characterization or mechanism rejection as if it were only a journal-fit problem.
Best journals to submit next after a Nature Nanotechnology rejection
Next journal | Best fit after Nature Nanotechnology rejection | Do not choose it if |
|---|---|---|
Nature Communications | Broad multidisciplinary result with strong evidence, but below the Nature Nanotechnology nano-flagship bar | The paper is narrow specialist nano or needs major evidence repair |
Nature Materials | Materials principle, structure-property insight, or materials platform broader than nano alone | The novelty is only nano-specific or device-optimization oriented |
Advanced Materials | Broad materials, nano, bio, energy, or device advance with strong community visibility | The manuscript's claims remain overextended after rejection |
Advanced Functional Materials | Functional material, device, energy, sensing, or biointerface result where performance plus mechanism are both visible | The paper needs Nature-level breadth to make sense |
ACS Nano | Comprehensive nanoscience article across chemistry, materials, biology, medicine, physics, or engineering | The story is too short or too urgent for a full article |
Nano Letters | Concise, timely nanoscience result with a clean central claim | The manuscript needs extensive methods, controls, or context |
Small | Micro/nanoscale science with solid function and characterization below the flagship bar | The contribution is too narrow for the Small readership |
Nanoscale or specialist journal | Field-specific nano result where the immediate community is the right reader | The work still needs broad prestige to justify the claim |
The right move may be broader, adjacent, or narrower. A nanomedicine paper rejected because the biological evidence is incomplete may need a bioengineering or nanomedicine journal after repair. A nanoelectronics paper rejected for narrow significance may fit Nano Letters or IEEE device venues. A van der Waals materials paper rejected because the materials principle is broader than the nano implementation may belong at Nature Materials or Advanced Materials.
What to do in the next 72 hours
Do not start by changing the reference style. Extract the rejection into a routing plan first.
Time window | Action | Output |
|---|---|---|
First 24 hours | Mark each decision-letter sentence as breadth, nanoscale advance, characterization, mechanism, application claim, reporting, or format | One dominant rejection category |
Hours 24 to 48 | Choose transfer-now, manual resubmission, or fix-first | One primary target plus two backups |
Hours 48 to 72 | Rewrite title, abstract, first figure caption, and cover-letter paragraph for the chosen path | A resubmission package that no longer reads like a Nature Nanotechnology reject |
If the rejection was pre-review and mainly about breadth, you can often move quickly. If it questioned characterization, mechanism, controls, benchmarking, data availability, or claim discipline, the 72-hour deliverable should be a repair plan, not a new upload.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Across our Nature Nanotechnology pre-submission reviews, four rejection patterns decide the next move
Across our Nature Nanotechnology pre-submission reviews, the same fork appears repeatedly: either the paper has a real nanoscale advance that was routed to the wrong audience, or the manuscript is using a prestigious nano target to cover an incomplete claim. The next move depends on which of those is true.
Application-led framing with an incremental nano core. The manuscript opens with drug delivery, photodetectors, batteries, sensors, catalysis, quantum devices, water treatment, or biointerfaces, but the nanoscale advance itself is a known structure, synthesis route, or platform with improved performance. Nature Nanotechnology can publish applications, but the nanoscale advance has to carry the paper. If this was the issue, reroute to Advanced Functional Materials, ACS Nano, Small, or a specialist device journal only after the abstract makes the actual nano contribution honest.
Characterization that stops before the claim. We see manuscripts with TEM, AFM, XPS, Raman, XRD, electrical data, or optical spectra that prove the material exists but not the structural, interface, defect, size-distribution, stability, or mechanism claim the paper makes. A Nature Nanotechnology rejection on characterization should not be sent unchanged to ACS Nano or Nano Letters. Those editors may apply a different prestige threshold, but they still need the nanoscale evidence to support the conclusion.
Narrow significance dressed as broad nanotechnology. A result can be excellent for one community and still too narrow for Nature Nanotechnology. A better catalyst for one reaction, a better nanocarrier for one payload, or a better transistor metric in one architecture may be publishable, but not necessarily in the Nature nanotechnology flagship. In this case, the right move is often a specialist journal where the exact audience values the result without forcing a broad-significance argument.
Benchmarking against weak or mismatched baselines. Nature Nanotechnology editors and reviewers notice when performance is compared against old devices, different measurement conditions, different substrate quality, different light intensity, different loading, different particle size, or non-equivalent controls. If benchmarking was weak, fix the table before resubmission. A cleaner benchmark can change the route: from specialist journal if the result is incremental, to ACS Nano or Advanced Materials if the comparison shows a real platform advance.
The practical rule is simple: route quickly after a scope rejection, repair after an evidence rejection.
When to accept a Nature Portfolio transfer
Nature Portfolio transfers can be efficient because files, metadata, and sometimes review context can move with the manuscript. But a transfer offer is not a guarantee that the next journal is the best journal.
Accept or seriously consider the transfer if:
- the editor's suggested journal matches the manuscript's real audience
- the rejection was about breadth or portfolio fit, not evidence quality
- the suggested journal can use the same reviewer context productively
- the title, abstract, and cover letter can be rewritten honestly for that journal
Pause before accepting if:
- the rejection named missing characterization or weak controls
- the transfer journal is convenient but not the right reader
- the application claim still outruns the nanoscale evidence
- the manuscript would be stronger after a week of repair than after an instant transfer
A transfer to Nature Communications can make sense for a broad, complete paper that missed Nature Nanotechnology's field-specific bar. A transfer to a Communications or Scientific Reports title can make sense when soundness and speed matter more than prestige. But if the manuscript's center is specialist nanoscience, an ACS, RSC, Wiley, IOP, IEEE, or society journal may be the better strategic move.
ACS Nano versus Nano Letters after Nature Nanotechnology
The most common non-Nature decision after a Nature Nanotechnology rejection is whether to aim at ACS Nano or Nano Letters.
ACS Nano is usually better when the paper needs a full article structure: comprehensive characterization, mechanism, functional evidence, and a broader nanoscience argument. ACS Nano describes itself as covering nanoscience and nanotechnology at interfaces across chemistry, materials science, biology, medicine, physics, and engineering, which makes it a strong home for complete interdisciplinary nano studies.
Nano Letters is usually better when the result is concise, timely, and strong enough to be communicated rapidly. Its current ACS guidance emphasizes rapid communication and gives concrete limits: fewer than 3,000 words, no more than 5 figures, and an abstract of no more than 150 words. If your Nature Nanotechnology manuscript needs extensive supplementary justification, Nano Letters may force the wrong shape.
Rejection after Nature Nanotechnology | Better ACS route | Why |
|---|---|---|
Comprehensive but below Nature flagship breadth | ACS Nano | Full article can carry mechanism, characterization, and function |
Concise nanoscale result with one clean message | Nano Letters | Letter format rewards speed and focus |
Device or material needs extensive controls | ACS Nano | More room for evidence and explanation |
One sharp method or measurement advance | Nano Letters | Shorter format may make the result more visible |
Application claim needs narrowing | ACS Nano or specialist journal | Avoid forcing a short letter around a complicated repair |
Do not choose Nano Letters only because it sounds close to Nature Nanotechnology. Choose it because the manuscript can survive a short, high-density format.
Reframe the next cover letter by rejection reason
Do not tell the next editor "this was rejected from Nature Nanotechnology" unless the system asks for transfer or prior-review information. Tell the next editor why the revised paper belongs in their journal.
For Nature Communications:
This manuscript reports a broadly relevant nanoscale advance with evidence that will interest researchers beyond the immediate nano subfield, while the revised framing emphasizes the cross-disciplinary consequence rather than a Nature Nanotechnology-specific fit.
For Nature Materials:
This manuscript establishes a materials principle and structure-property relationship whose significance extends beyond a nanoscale implementation, with characterization and functional evidence supporting the central materials claim.
For ACS Nano:
This manuscript presents a comprehensive nanoscience advance with rigorous structural characterization, mechanistic support, and functional validation across the relevant chemistry, materials, and engineering context.
For Nano Letters:
This manuscript reports a concise and timely nanoscale result with a single central advance, clear evidence, and a format suited to rapid communication.
For Small or Nanoscale:
This manuscript provides a well-supported micro/nanoscale contribution for the specialist community most likely to use the result, with claims calibrated to the evidence and audience.
If you cannot write one of those paragraphs truthfully, repair the manuscript before selecting the next venue.
Submit-now versus fix-first matrix
Situation after Nature Nanotechnology rejection | Submit elsewhere now | Fix first |
|---|---|---|
Desk rejection says the work is too specialist | Yes, if a specialist journal fits | Only if the editor also named evidence gaps |
Transfer offer to a plausible Nature Portfolio venue | Maybe | Fix first if scope is not the only issue |
Characterization is incomplete | No | Add structure, composition, interface, stability, or property evidence |
Mechanism is asserted but not tested | No | Add controls, comparison, kinetics, or causal analysis |
Application claim is overextended | No | Narrow the claim or add functional evidence |
Benchmarking is mismatched | No | Rebuild against comparable baselines |
Reporting or availability is weak | No | Fix data, code, materials, protocols, and reporting statements |
Most failed cascades come from moving too fast after a rejection that was actually about evidence.
Before you resubmit
Run this checklist before uploading the next version:
- [ ] The title states the real nanoscale contribution, not only the application.
- [ ] The abstract makes the nanoscale advance visible in the first half.
- [ ] The first figure shows the structure, mechanism, or platform advance clearly.
- [ ] Characterization supports every structural and property claim.
- [ ] Functional results are benchmarked against comparable conditions.
- [ ] The application claim is calibrated to the evidence.
- [ ] Data, code, materials, protocols, and reporting statements satisfy the next journal's policies.
- [ ] The cover letter is rewritten for the new journal, not lightly edited from Nature Nanotechnology.
- [ ] Any Nature Portfolio transfer is evaluated as a fit signal, not an automatic next step.
Before submitting elsewhere, run a Nature Nanotechnology resubmission readiness check to catch the characterization, mechanism, and scope issues that often follow a rejected manuscript to the next journal.
Frequently asked questions
Choose the next journal from the rejection reason. If the work is still broad but not Nature Nanotechnology-level, consider Nature Communications or Advanced Science. If the contribution is materials-first, consider Nature Materials, Advanced Materials, or Advanced Functional Materials. If it is specialist nanoscience with strong characterization, consider ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Small, Nanoscale, or a subfield journal.
Accept only if the transfer journal matches the manuscript's real center. A Nature Portfolio transfer can save time when the paper is sound and the editor is routing for breadth or audience. Pause if the rejection named missing characterization, weak mechanism, narrow significance, or application overclaiming, because the next journal will inherit those defects.
Only after a clean scope or priority rejection. If the editor or reviewers questioned the nanoscale advance, cross-community significance, characterization, controls, benchmarking, or claim discipline, revise before sending the paper elsewhere.
The common pattern we see is an application-led manuscript where the device, therapy, sensor, catalyst, or energy use case is exciting, but the nanoscale advance itself is incremental. Nature Nanotechnology needs the nanoscale result to carry the paper.
ACS Nano is usually better for a comprehensive nanoscience article with characterization, mechanism, and function. Nano Letters is better for a concise, timely result that can be told in a shorter format. If the manuscript needs extensive controls or context, ACS Nano is usually safer than forcing a letter format.
Sources
- Sources used for this routing guide include current Nature, Springer Nature, ACS, and journal pages checked on July 16, 2026.
- 1. Nature Nanotechnology submission guidelines, Nature Portfolio.
- 2. Nature Nanotechnology content types, Nature Portfolio.
- 3. Nature Nanotechnology journal page, Nature Portfolio.
- 4. Nature Nanotechnology reporting standards and availability policies, Nature Portfolio.
- 5. Nature Nanotechnology publishing options, Nature Portfolio.
- 6. Nano Letters author guidelines, ACS Publications.
- 7. ACS Nano author guidelines, ACS Publications.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.