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.

A handling editor at Small typically handles 60 to 100 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; Small handling editors are Wiley professional editors specializing in nanoscience, supplemented by the Wiley Advanced Portfolio editorial team for cross-portfolio consultation.

Small editorial culture is decisive: selective desk rejection comprises approximately 35 to 45 percent of submissions. The real timing question is not just speed but whether the paper is strong enough to avoid a quick fit rejection. 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. About 35 to 45 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage.

A desk rejection most often means 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 Wiley professional editor reads the paper and evaluates nanomaterial novelty (distinct from existing nanomaterials), application significance (Small's scope is nanomaterials for applications, not pure nanoscience), characterization rigor, and Small subspecialty routing.

In parallel with the Wiley professional editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Wiley Advanced Portfolio editorial team where peer Wiley professional editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Small or at sister Wiley Advanced Portfolio journals. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Small Wiley professional editors typically invite 2 to 3 nanomaterial experts. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical Small peer-review cycle lasts 8 to 16 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 100 to 140 day first-decision window. 2 to 3 nanomaterial experts 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. Publication occurs 2 to 4 weeks after acceptance. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 5 to 10 months for successful papers, including revision rounds.

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

• Rejection within 7 to 21 days: Wiley professional editor selective desk rejection per the 35 to 45 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Small Wiley professional editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 18 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Wiley submission portal is appropriate.

• Status changes to "Decision in Process": Reports are in; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Small authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 12 weeks (~84 days) puts you in the early-to-middle portion of Small's 100 to 140 day first-decision window. 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 at the 18-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the Wiley professional editor granted it. This is normal practice at Small.

What you should NOT do during the 12-to-18-week window is email the editorial office. Small Wiley professional editors are managing 60+ active papers per quarter; an inquiry at 12 weeks adds 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 asks reviewers at Small to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each 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.

Of the 50+ manuscripts our team reviewed for 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 (35 to 45 percent selective desk rejection, 100 to 140 day first decision, 2 to 3 nanomaterial experts assessing novelty/characterization rigor/application performance/practical significance, publication 2 to 4 weeks after acceptance), 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).

Reviewers at Small typically draw from 2 to 3 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.