Small (Wiley) 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

Small operates the Wiley professional editor model. The Wiley professional editor assesses nanomaterial novelty and application significance. The handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates nanomaterial novelty, application significance, characterization rigor, and Small subspecialty routing across nanoparticles, 2D materials, nanowires, biomaterials, nanomedicine, energy nanomaterials, and electronic nanomaterials.

Wiley's Peer Review Policy says the review process for all Small manuscripts is handled by professional in-house editors.

Small editorial culture is decisive: Wiley's Peer Review Policy says manuscripts are rejected at the first stage if they are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, need extensive improvement in the language, or do not fall within the aims and scope, and Wiley does not publish a desk rejection rate. The real timing question is whether the paper is strong enough to avoid a quick fit rejection; speed matters less. Papers that pass the Small Wiley professional editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in Wiley nanoscience publishing.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Small Wiley professional editor evaluates whether the nanomaterial novelty and application significance warrant Small's editorial slots. Wiley does not publish a desk rejection rate.

A desk rejection can mean the Wiley professional editor concluded that the work would fit better at a sister Wiley Advanced Portfolio journal (Small Science for open-access, Small Structures for nanostructures specialty, Nano Select for broader nanoscience, Advanced Materials for top-tier broad materials, Advanced Functional Materials for functional advance) or that the nanomaterial novelty bar is not met.

The Small editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with nanomaterial characterization data (TEM, SEM, XRD, XPS, spectroscopy) plus application performance data, Wiley template formatting (optional for new submissions under Free Format submission), cover letter directed to the editor naming the nanomaterial novelty and application significance, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

The Wiley professional editor reads the paper and evaluates nanomaterial novelty (distinct from existing nanomaterials), application significance (Wiley's aims and scope for Small cover fundamental and applied research at the nano- and microscale), characterization rigor, and Small subspecialty routing.

Small takes part in Wiley's Refer & Transfer program. If your manuscript is not accepted, the editor may recommend a transfer to another suitable Wiley journal. When a manuscript received reviewer reports, the editor usually consults the editor of the recipient journal before offering a transfer, and the manuscript, its files, and any reviewer reports are sent to the receiving journal.

Wiley's Peer Review Policy says manuscripts are typically sent to at least two reviewers, and editors can seek additional reviewers when needed. Potential reviewers are selected based on expertise, reputation, recommendations by the authors or other reviewers, and previous experience. Wiley does not publish how long recruitment takes.

Wiley does not publish a review duration for Small; its 2025 median from submission to first decision is 19 days. Reviewers assess novelty, characterization rigor, application performance, and practical significance. Revisions often request additional application testing or comparison data.

After reports return, the Wiley professional editor synthesizes them. Wiley's 2025 median from acceptance to publication is 11 days, and its median from submission to acceptance is 71 days, including revision rounds. A major revision at Small usually means reviewers want comparison data or one more application test, not another round of characterization.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch.

• Rejection within the first few weeks: Most likely a first-stage editorial rejection (insufficiently original, serious scientific flaws, extensive language improvement needed, or outside the aims and scope).

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Likely signal. The paper has passed the 19-day median to first decision and may have passed the Small Wiley professional editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review well beyond the median: Possible reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry to the editorial office is appropriate.

• Status suggests reports are in: Expect a decision to follow; Wiley does not publish how long the editor takes.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Small authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: it is later than the typical case, but not necessarily a problem. Wiley's 2025 median time from submission to first decision is 19 days and its median to acceptance is 71 days, so 12 weeks (~84 days) without a decision is beyond the median. Reports may still be arriving with the Wiley professional editor preparing for editorial synthesis. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for nanomaterial subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.

If the portal still says Under Review much later, one possible explanation is that an assigned reviewer asked for an extension or dropped out and the editor is waiting for a replacement report.

A single polite inquiry to the editorial office with your manuscript ID is reasonable once you are well past the median. Repeated emails add friction without accelerating the timeline.

If your Small paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and editor cited:

Small Science is the natural Wiley open-access cascade for nanoscience. Wiley supports manuscript-transfer with reviewer reports preserved.

Small Structures is the Wiley cascade for nanostructures specialty papers.

Nano Select is the Wiley broader nanoscience cascade.

Advanced Materials is the broader Wiley Advanced Portfolio cascade. Advanced Materials uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact advmat@wiley.com.

Advanced Functional Materials is the Wiley functional-advance cascade. Advanced Functional Materials uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact advfunctmat@wiley.com.

ACS Nano is the external ACS nanoscience cascade. ACS Nano uses ACS Paragon Plus at ACS journal page; editorial contact nano@acs.org.

Nano Letters is the external ACS short-format nanoscience cascade.

Wiley's reviewer guidelines for Small ask reviewers to rate importance and novelty, assess scholarly presentation, judge whether the methods, data and analysis support the conclusions and can be reproduced, and comment on practical relevance, which the guidelines say is not a prerequisite for publication. The table below maps four of these to actionable preparation.

Across Small manuscripts, the riskiest submissions usually have attractive materials data but an underbuilt argument for why the work belongs in Wiley's high-selectivity nanoscience portfolio.

Across our pre-submission review work on Small, Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional Materials, ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Nature Nanotechnology, and adjacent nanomaterials journals, this is the failure pattern we see most often: the characterization looks substantial, but the paper does not prove the material is distinct enough, useful enough, or benchmarked enough for Small.

Use this page to decide what to improve during the Under Review window rather than reading the Wiley status as a prediction. Full Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI on customer manuscripts.

Nanomaterial novelty is asserted but not separated from prior art

Small reviewers are quick to challenge a manuscript where the material is a modified morphology, dopant, heterostructure, coating, or synthesis route without a clear property-level advance. We often see introductions that list prior materials but do not explain the specific novelty dimension: structure, interface, defect chemistry, transport pathway, biocompatibility, stability, or application-enabling property. The fix is a comparison table tied to the main figure, not a broader novelty claim.

If your abstract could be rewritten as "we synthesized a new variant and it performs better" without losing the core pitch, run a Check whether your Small nanomaterial novelty is distinct enough ->.

Characterization is rich but not claim-matched

Small submissions often include many characterization panels, but reviewers still ask for more because the data do not line up with the claims. TEM, SEM, XRD, XPS, spectroscopy, stability testing, controls, and device metrics should each answer a specific question. The common weakness is a figure sequence that proves the material exists but does not prove the mechanism, application advantage, or stability claim.

Before revision, map every headline claim to one characterization panel, one control, one benchmark, and one reproducibility detail in the methods or Supporting Information. If that mapping is hard, use a Check if your Small characterization package supports the claims ->.

Application performance does not yet justify the journal level

For Small, performance evidence has to do more than show a promising lab result. Reviewers often ask for realistic conditions, repeated devices or samples, benchmark comparisons, stability or durability, real-matrix testing, or a practical explanation of why the result matters. A manuscript can be scientifically interesting and still look better suited to Small Science, Small Structures, Nano Select, ACS Applied Nano Materials, or a specialist materials title if the application case is thin.

If your response plan depends on adding extra testing only after reviewers ask, run a Check whether your Small application-performance case is reviewer-ready ->.

This page was created from Wiley's public Small journal page at Wiley journal page, Wiley publication process documentation (the 2025 journal metrics for acceptance rate and median times, reviewers typically at least two, and the reviewer guidelines on novelty, methods and data, and practical relevance), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Small-targeted manuscripts.

For the Wiley nanoscience landscape beyond Small, see Small Science (open-access), Small Structures (nanostructures specialty), Nano Select (broader nanoscience), Advanced Materials (top-tier broad materials), Advanced Functional Materials (functional advance), and external nanoscience alternatives (ACS Nano, Nano Letters, Nature Nanotechnology).

The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top Wiley nanoscience with application significance (Small), Wiley open-access nanoscience (Small Science), nanostructures specialty (Small Structures), broader nanoscience (Nano Select), top-tier broad materials (Advanced Materials), functional advance (Advanced Functional Materials), top ACS nanoscience (ACS Nano), short-format ACS nanoscience (Nano Letters), or top Nature Portfolio nanotechnology (Nature Nanotechnology).

Wiley's Peer Review Policy says manuscripts are typically sent to at least two reviewers, and Small reviewers are nanomaterial subspecialty experts under the Wiley single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both nanomaterial novelty and application performance accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Small nanoscience-plus-application-significance bar before submission, our Small pre-submission diagnostic flags the nanomaterial novelty and application-performance weaknesses most likely to surface in the Wiley professional editor desk screen.