Small vs Nano Letters: Which Journal for Your Nanomaterials Paper?
Both selective nanoscience journals. Small publishes comprehensive nano work (Wiley). Nano Letters publishes striking single results (ACS). Choose based on article length you need.
Senior Researcher, Chemistry
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for chemistry journals, with deep experience evaluating submissions to JACS, Angewandte Chemie, Chemical Reviews, and ACS-family journals.
Journal fit
See whether this paper looks realistic for Nano Letters.
Run the Free Readiness Scan with Nano Letters as your target journal and see whether this paper looks like a realistic submission.
Nano Letters at a glance
Key metrics to place the journal before deciding whether it fits your manuscript and career goals.
What makes this journal worth targeting
- IF 9.1 puts Nano Letters in a visible tier — citations from papers here carry real weight.
- Scope specificity matters more than impact factor for most manuscript decisions.
- Acceptance rate of ~~15-20% means fit determines most outcomes.
When to look elsewhere
- When your paper sits at the edge of the journal's stated scope — borderline fit rarely improves after submission.
- If timeline matters: Nano Letters takes ~~90-120 days median. A faster-turnaround journal may suit a grant or job deadline better.
- If open access is required by your funder, verify the journal's OA agreements before submitting.
Small vs Nano Letters at a glance
Use the table to see where the journals diverge before you read the longer comparison. The right choice usually comes down to scope, editorial filter, and the kind of paper you actually have.
Question | Small | Nano Letters |
|---|---|---|
Best fit | Small published by Wiley is the premier journal for nanotechnology and nanomaterials. | Nano Letters published by the American Chemical Society is one of the most selective. |
Editors prioritize | Functional nanomaterial or nanodevice with demonstrated application performance | Nanoparticles or nanostructures with exceptional properties or breakthrough. |
Typical article types | Full Paper, Short Communication | Letter |
Closest alternatives | Nano Letters, ACS Nano | ACS Nano, Small |
Quick answer: Small: IF 12.1 (JCR 2024), ~15-25% acceptance. Nano Letters: IF 9.1 (JCR 2024), ~15-20% acceptance. Choose Small if you have a thorough nano study with multiple experiments and perspectives. Choose Nano Letters if you have one striking nano result that stands powerfully alone.
Side-by-side comparison
Metric | Small | Nano Letters |
|---|---|---|
Impact Factor (JCR 2024) | 13.6 | 9.1 |
Acceptance Rate | ~15-25% | ~15-20% |
Time to First Decision | 35-50 days | 30-40 days |
Desk Rejection Rate | 20-30% | 15-25% |
Typical Article Length | 8-12 pages + SI | 4-6 pages + SI |
Publisher | Wiley | ACS |
Scope | Comprehensive nanomaterials, nanodevices, nano-bio | High-impact nano observations, novel nanostructures |
Nanotube Emphasis | Strong broad focus | Strong physics-leaning focus |
Review Timeline Speed | Moderate | Fast |
Readership | Broad nanoscience + materials + engineers | Physics-heavy nanotech specialists |
Citation Pattern | Moderate density, high total | Higher density per article, strong in physics |
The biggest difference
Small is comprehensive. You've synthesized nanoparticles, characterized them across multiple scales and properties, shown they work in an application, and provided mechanistic insight. Your paper tells the complete nano story.
Nano Letters is striking. You've observed something unexpected at the nanoscale, or created a nanostructure with unusual properties, or demonstrated a novel nano phenomenon. The insight is the whole paper.
Small can accommodate the full journey from synthesis to function. Nano Letters demands tighter focus and high impact for its brevity.
Desk rejection triggers
Small desk-rejects when:
- The nanoparticles are a slight modification of known syntheses
- Characterization is adequate but not deep (missing electron microscopy, spectroscopy mapping, etc.)
- The story feels disconnected (good synthesis, good characterization, okay application, but no clear narrative)
- Application is preliminary or lacks practical relevance
- The paper doesn't justify its length (reads like forced padding)
Nano Letters desk-rejects when:
- The single result is interesting but not striking enough for high-impact journal
- Similar nano phenomena already published
- The nano-object isn't sufficiently characterized even in short format
- Claims overreach evidence
- Results are good but feel incremental rather than novel
Who should choose Small
Target Small if:
- You have comprehensively characterized nanoparticles or nanodevices
- Your story spans synthesis, characterization, properties, and application
- You've invested in deep microscopy and spectroscopy
- You want to tell a complete nanomaterial narrative
- Your work is interdisciplinary nano (nano-bio, nano-energy, nano-environmental)
- You want broad nanoscience audience reach
Small gives you pages to explain what you did, why you did it that way, and what it means. Comprehensive nano work belongs here.
Journal fit
Ready to find out which journal fits? Run the scan for Nano Letters first.
Run the scan with Nano Letters as the target. Get a fit signal that makes the comparison concrete.
Who should choose Nano Letters
Target Nano Letters if:
- You have a single striking nano observation
- That observation is compelling enough to carry a short paper
- You want fast publication and tight focus
- Your work is high-impact nanotech (novel nanocrystal, record property, unexpected nano behavior)
- You can tell your story in 4-6 pages without compromising clarity
- Your lab primarily publishes in ACS journals
Nano Letters is the right home for high-impact single observations. Not every paper needs length.
Edge cases
If you're torn between them:
Read the last three issues of each journal. If your paper looks like the Small covers (comprehensive nano materials/devices), choose Small. If it looks like Nano Letters covers (striking single observations), choose Nano Letters.
Can your paper work in either format?
- If yes, submit to Nano Letters first. Faster publication, still excellent journal.
- If no, the answer tells you which one you belong in.
After desk review
If Small desk-rejects you, don't add more experiments. The rejection is usually about focus or fit, not missing data. Tighten the narrative, remove unnecessary sections, and consider Nano Letters.
If Nano Letters desk-rejects you, the feedback will tell you whether to expand to Small's format or try a different journal entirely. If it says "interesting but not striking enough," expanding might help; if it says "scope doesn't fit," move to a specialty journal.
Citation and readership comparisons
Nano Letters papers get cited more frequently in high-impact physics and materials journals, reaching broader visibility in the physics-leaning nanoscience community. Small papers get cited in materials science, chemistry, and engineering contexts, reaching a broader interdisciplinary audience.
Don't choose based on potential citation counts. Both accumulate strong citations. Choose based on where your work actually belongs.
Review timeline reality
Small: Median time to first decision is 100-140 days. This is slower than many researchers expect from a journal at this level. If you need a faster timeline, Nano Letters is generally quicker.
Nano Letters: Editor evaluation takes about 3 weeks. Less than half of submissions are sent to full review. Papers that reach reviewers get decisions relatively quickly. From acceptance to web publication, the median is less than 2 weeks. Total timeline is generally faster than Small.
For both journals: if your paper is desk-rejected, the turnaround is fast (1-3 weeks). The longer timelines apply to papers that enter full review.
The format decision
This is worth emphasizing because it's the practical crux of the choice.
If your paper needs 8-12 pages to tell the story properly, comprehensive synthesis, multi-technique characterization, application demonstration, mechanistic analysis, Small is the right format. Forcing this into 4-6 pages for Nano Letters means cutting content that reviewers at Small would value.
If your paper's impact comes from a single striking observation that does not require extensive setup or characterization to be compelling, a record property, an unexpected phenomenon, a novel nanostructure with immediate significance, Nano Letters is the right format. Padding this to 10 pages for Small dilutes the impact.
If you're genuinely unsure which format your paper needs, write the Nano Letters version first (4-6 pages). If the story feels complete, submit there. If critical content had to be cut, expand to Small's format.
Strategic recommendations
Small for: Comprehensive nano chemistry, nanoparticle synthesis, nanomaterials characterization, nano-engineering applications, interdisciplinary nano-bio work, nano groups at chemistry-heavy institutions.
Nano Letters for: Striking nano observations, record properties, unexpected nanostructure phenomena, novel nanocrystal types, physics-leaning nanotech, speed-critical publications.
Publication costs
Cost | Small | Nano Letters |
|---|---|---|
Subscription publication | $0 | $0 (no page or color charges) |
Gold OA option | ~$5,500 (Wiley hybrid) | ACS AuthorChoice pricing |
Institutional agreements | Wiley transformative agreements | ACS Read & Publish agreements |
Nano Letters is notable for charging no page or color charges at all, even for subscription publication. Small follows standard Wiley hybrid pricing. Check your institution's agreements with both publishers before assuming you'll pay sticker price.
The broader nanoscience journal landscape
For context on where Small and Nano Letters sit relative to alternatives:
Journal | IF (JCR 2024) | Publisher | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
Nature Nanotechnology | 34.9 | Springer Nature | Breakthrough nano with broad significance |
ACS Nano | 16.0 | ACS | Comprehensive nano materials and devices |
Small | 13.6 | Wiley | Comprehensive nano characterization and applications |
Advanced Functional Materials | 19.0 | Wiley | Functional materials with nano components |
Nano Letters | 9.1 | ACS | Striking single nano observations |
Nanoscale | 5.5 | RSC | Solid nano work below Small/Nano Letters bar |
Small Science | ~5 | Wiley | Small's OA sister journal |
If your paper does not fit Small or Nano Letters, ACS Nano (IF 16.0) is the natural step up for comprehensive work, and Nanoscale (IF 5.5) is the natural step down for solid but less striking work.
Bottom line
Both excellent, both selective, different in format and philosophy. Choose Small if your paper needs comprehensive length. Choose Nano Letters if your paper is strongest tight and focused. Both have reasonable acceptance rates. Neither is inherently higher-tier, Small has the higher IF, but Nano Letters carries strong prestige in the physics-leaning nanoscience community.
If you want a quick assessment of whether your nanoscience paper is ready for Small or Nano Letters, a Small vs. Nano Letters scope check checks journal fit, identifies likely reviewer objections, and scores readiness before you submit.
Resources
- Small: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/16136829
- Nano Letters: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/nanolett
- JCR 2024 Impact Factors
- Recent journal covers show typical article types and scope
Frequently asked questions
Small (IF 12.1) has a higher IF than Nano Letters (IF 9.1) as of JCR 2024. However, Nano Letters (ACS) is generally considered more prestigious in the nanoscience community because of its association with ACS and its stricter letter format.
Similar selectivity: Small accepts approximately 15-25%, Nano Letters approximately 15-20%. Small accepts longer, more comprehensive studies. Nano Letters demands one striking result that stands powerfully alone in a short format.
Choose Small (Wiley) if you have a thorough nano study with multiple experiments, characterizations, and perspectives that needs space. Choose Nano Letters (ACS) if you have one striking nano result that communicates powerfully in 4-5 pages.
Small publishes full articles and communications across all nanoscience. Nano Letters is strictly a letters journal for concise, high-impact nano results. Same field, different formats and editorial philosophies.
Both are hybrid journals with open access options. Small APC is approximately 5,500 USD. Nano Letters offers ACS AuthorChoice at similar pricing. Both also publish behind subscription paywalls without APC.
Sources
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how journals compare, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Checklist system / operational asset
Elite Submission Checklist
A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.
Flagship report / decision support
Desk Rejection Report
A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.
Dataset / reference hub
Journal Intelligence Dataset
A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Final step
See whether this paper fits Nano Letters.
Run the Free Readiness Scan with Nano Letters as your target journal and get a manuscript-specific fit signal before you commit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
Compare alternatives
Supporting reads
Conversion step
See whether this paper fits Nano Letters.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.