Small Impact Factor

The impact factor tells you that Small papers are cited at a strong rate within nanomaterials and applied physics. The five-year JIF (12.5) being very close to the two-year (12.1) indicates stable citation performance. Papers in Small do not spike dramatically or fade quickly. They accumulate citations at a consistent rate.

The 164,181 total cites figure is substantial, reflecting a journal that has been publishing nanoscience since 2005 and has built a strong presence in the field. Small publishes over 4,000 papers per year, which is high volume for a Q1 journal. That volume means the journal maintains a broad footprint across nanoscience while still carrying a solid JIF.

For nanomaterials authors evaluating their options: 12.1 places Small clearly below ACS Nano (16.0) and Advanced Functional Materials (19.0) but well above Applied Materials & Interfaces (8.2) and most specialty nanomaterials journals. That middle-upper positioning is useful to understand for submission strategy.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Small, three patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes. Editors typically describe these as focus-or-fit issues rather than missing data (SciRev reviewer reports).

Single-result papers that belong in Nano Letters instead. Small expects a comprehensive multi-experiment approach. Papers presenting one striking nano-result, a synthesis, a single device measurement, a single bio-nano observation, are frequently redirected. Nano Letters (IF 9.1) is designed exactly for that format: short, novelty-driven, single-result communications. Small expects the full package: synthesis + characterization + functional demonstration + mechanistic analysis. Submitting a Nano Letters paper to Small is one of the more common and avoidable fit errors in nanomaterials publishing.

Incomplete characterization for the claimed property. Small's editorial standard requires characterization that fully supports the functional or property claims being advanced. Papers claiming exceptional optical, electrical, catalytic, or biological performance without corresponding spectroscopic, structural, and functional characterization are rejected, not revised. This is distinct from the scope-fit problem: the paper may be the right breadth and scope, but if the evidence package is one characterization method short of what the claim requires, the journal will not carry it to review.

Unclear significance beyond the nanoscience specialty. Small's mandate is nanomaterials with broad field relevance, not any nano result, but nano results that the broader materials, biology, device, or fundamental physics community would recognize as advancing the field. Papers where the significance argument terminates within a specific subfield (e.g., "this improves performance for this specific application") without connecting to a broader nanoscience principle are routinely rejected. The editorial bar is not high-profile novelty, but it does require a significance frame that goes beyond the submitting lab's immediate research program.

A Small experimental package breadth and significance framing check can assess whether the breadth of the experimental package meets Small's multi-experiment standard, and whether the significance argument reaches beyond specialty-specific benchmarking.

Last verified: March 2026 against Clarivate JCR 2024 data.

• Small APC and open access costs

The gradual decline from the 2021 peak follows the post-pandemic citation normalization seen across all materials and nanoscience journals. The current 12.1 is slightly below the journal's five-year average but still firmly in Q1. Use this number for planning.

Small editors want nanoscience that advances the field beyond incremental optimization. The editorial scope is broad, covering:

• Nanoparticle synthesis and characterization with novel properties
• Bio-nano interfaces and nanomedicine applications
• Nanodevices and nanoelectronics
• Nanostructured materials with functional consequences
• Micro/nanostructure fabrication and engineering

The bar is above routine materials characterization but below the conceptual novelty that ACS Nano or Advanced Materials demand. Papers should demonstrate a clear advance, not just a new synthesis of a known material class.

What usually fails: purely incremental optimization of known nanomaterial systems, papers where the "nano" component is superficial, and work that is really applied engineering without enough nanoscience content.

Submit if:

• the paper has strong nanomaterials or bio-nano content with a clear advance
• the work sits between ACS Nano's higher selectivity and broader applied materials venues
• Wiley brand and the journal's scope fit your audience
• the nano story is genuine and central to the paper's contribution
• the paper benefits from Small's broad nanoscience readership

Think twice if:

• ACS Nano, Advanced Materials, or Advanced Functional Materials is a realistic higher-impact target
• the work is more applied engineering than nanoscience
• the nano angle is peripheral to the main contribution
• Nano Letters is a better fit for a shorter, more novelty-driven paper
• the paper's audience is really in a specific application area rather than nanoscience broadly

The nanoscience journal landscape is competitive and hierarchical. Small occupies a specific tier:

• Advanced Materials (IF 26.8): broad materials, very high bar
• Advanced Functional Materials (IF 19.0): function-driven materials
• ACS Nano (IF 16.0): comprehensive nanoscience flagship
• Small (IF 12.1): strong nanomaterials with broader scope
• Nano Letters (IF 9.1): short-format, novelty-driven
• Nanoscale (IF ~6): RSC's nanoscience journal, lower tier
• ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (IF 8.2): applied materials, broader scope

Understanding this hierarchy helps you target the right journal. If your paper can compete at ACS Nano, try there. If Small is the honest fit, it is still a strong Q1 publication.

• Whether the nanoscience novelty meets the editorial bar
• How the paper compares to what Small has published recently in your subfield
• Whether the audience is really in nanoscience or in a specific application domain
• How long the review process will take
• Whether a field-specific journal would give better-targeted visibility

Small's 12.1 is useful because it places the journal in the upper-middle part of the nanoscience hierarchy without pretending it belongs in the same editorial lane as ACS Nano or Advanced Functional Materials. The journal's citation profile is stable, and that stability tells authors something important: Small continues to publish papers that a broad nano audience reads and cites, but the bar is about genuine nanoscience progress, not just a prestige race.

That matters because many authors use Small as a fallback label when the real question is whether the paper is actually broad nanoscience or a more application-bound materials story. The journal works best when the nano contribution is central and the readership benefits from its breadth. If the main value is one device benchmark or one application silo, a narrower venue can outperform a higher JIF in practical terms.

Use the trend as a way to sharpen the audience question. Small is strongest when the manuscript still sounds like nanoscience after you strip away the performance claim and ask who will keep citing the paper two years from now.