Is Small a good journal?

Small is a strong target if present nanomaterial showing practical utility. It is a weaker fit if material characterization alone insufficient.

What is the Small JIF?

The JIF is 12.1 (2024 JCR). See the full year-by-year trend and category ranking in our Small JIF analysis.

What is the acceptance rate of Small?

Manusights currently treats ~15-25% as an estimate for Small, not an official journal-published rate. One common reason papers fail is nanoparticle characterization without application demonstration.

How long does Small take to review?

Small typically takes ~100-140 days median, but timing varies by editor, field, and reviewer availability. Expect an editorial screen first, then manuscript preparation, then peer review.

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Publishing in Small: Fit, Timeline & Submission Guide

Q: Is Small peer reviewed?

Yes, Small is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by 2-3 nanomaterial experts assess novelty, characterization rigor, application performance, and practical significance. First decision 100-140 days..

Small structures, big advances: nanotechnology and nanomaterials for applications

Should you submit here?

Submit if present nanomaterial showing practical utility. Be careful if material characterization alone insufficient.

IF 12.1 · ~15-25% accepted · ~100-140 days median

Best fit if

Present nanomaterial showing practical utility

Not ideal if

Material characterization alone insufficient

Also compare

Natureand Advanced Materials

12.1

Impact Factor (2024)

~15-25%

Acceptance Rate

~100-140 days median

Time to First Decision

Submission guide

Small Submission Guide: What Editors Want, What to Fix, and When to Submit

Small is not a generic nanomaterials journal. This guide shows what the journal actually wants, what makes a paper feel incremental, and what to fix before you submit.

Desk rejection

How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Small in 2026

Small editors look for functional nanomaterials with real application evidence, strong benchmarking, and a credible structure-function story.

Review timeline

Small Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect

Small is selective and broad across nanoscience, so the real timing question is not just speed. It is whether the paper is strong enough to avoid a quick fit rejection.

What Small Publishes

Small published by Wiley is the premier journal for nanotechnology and nanomaterials with emphasis on applications. With JIF 12.1 and Q1 ranking in Nanoscience & Nanotechnology and Materials Science, Small emphasizes functional nanomaterials and nanotechnology-enabled applications. The journal publishes research on nanoparticles, nanodevices, and nanoscale phenomena with demonstrated utility. Critically: Small values nanomaterials with functional performance. Pure characterization without application context is less competitive. The journal seeks papers showing how nanomaterials enable practical applications.

Functional nanoparticles: tunable properties, responsive materials, smart nanoparticles
Nanodevices: nanoscale transistors, memory, sensors, optical devices
2D materials: graphene, transition metal dichalcogenides, properties and applications
Nanocomposites: enhanced mechanical, thermal, electrical properties
Biomedical nanoparticles: drug delivery, imaging, therapeutics, diagnostics
Energy nanomaterials: batteries, supercapacitors, photovoltaics, fuel cells
Environmental applications: water treatment, air purification, remediation
Photonics and plasmonics: optical properties, light manipulation, sensing

Editor Insight

“Small publishes nanotechnology with demonstrated applications. We seek nanomaterials enabling improved performance or new capabilities with clear practical value. The best papers combine novel nanoscale structures with functional advantages in real application contexts.”

What Small Editors Look For

Functional nanomaterial or nanodevice with demonstrated application performance

Present nanomaterial showing practical utility. Enhanced drug delivery? Improved battery performance? Novel sensing capability? Demonstrate performance in application context with quantified metrics.

Complete nanomaterial characterization with structure-function correlation

Thoroughly characterize nanostructure and measure functional properties under realistic application conditions. Show how nanoscale structure enables application performance.

Mechanistic understanding of how nanoscale structure enables function

Explain nanoscale effects. How do nanoparticles improve performance? What structural features are critical? Understanding mechanism stronger than empirical observation alone.

Device or system integration demonstrating practical application

Incorporate nanomaterial into working device showing application performance. Integration and system-level testing crucial for Small impact.

Clear advantages over conventional alternatives with cost-benefit analysis

Show nanomaterial performance exceeds or differs from conventional approaches. Address cost and practical feasibility. Economic viability matters for real-world adoption.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past Small's editorial review:

Nanoparticle characterization without application demonstration

Material characterization alone insufficient. Small expects functional demonstration. How do nanoparticles improve performance in real application?

Lab-scale testing without realistic application conditions

Ideal test conditions (pure solvents, controlled temperature) don't prove practical applicability. Test in realistic conditions proving real-world performance.

Marginal performance improvement without clear advantage

Minor improvements over conventional materials weak. Significant performance gains or enabling new function required.

Ignoring cost, manufacturability, or scale-up challenges

Practical adoption requires economic and manufacturing feasibility. Nano-enabled benefits must justify costs and complexity.

Weak comparison with existing solutions

Show quantitatively how nanomaterial outperforms or differs from conventional approaches. Direct comparison essential.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The Free Readiness Scan reads your full manuscript against Small's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from Small Authors

Biomedical nanoparticles with demonstrated in vivo efficacy highly competitive

Nanoparticles showing improved drug delivery, imaging, or therapeutic efficacy in animal models are highly valued.

Energy-related nanoparticles for batteries, supercaps, or solar cells trending

Nanomaterials improving energy storage or generation performance align with sustainability priorities.

2D materials with novel properties and device applications competitive

Graphene, TMDs, and other 2D materials showing unexpected properties or enabling new devices receive strong interest.

Environmental remediation and water treatment applications valued

Nanoparticles for pollutant removal, water purification, or environmental remediation increasingly competitive.

Scalable synthesis and practical manufacturing crucial

Papers demonstrating scale-up potential and practical manufacturing feasibility more competitive than lab-scale only.

The Small Submission Process

Manuscript preparation

Prep

6,000-8,000 words with 6-8 figures. Include nanoparticle/device synthesis, complete characterization, application testing in realistic conditions, performance comparison, mechanistic discussion, and practical feasibility. Supporting: detailed synthesis, characterization spectra, application testing data.

Submission via Wiley system

Day 0

Submit at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/16136829/. Required: manuscript emphasizing application performance and practical significance, figures showing nanostructure and functional performance, cover letter highlighting advantages.

Editorial assessment

1-2 weeks

Editor assesses nanomaterial novelty and application significance. Papers lacking functional demonstration or application context face lower priority. Selective desk rejection ~35-45%.

Peer review

100-140 days

2-3 nanomaterial experts assess novelty, characterization rigor, application performance, and practical significance. First decision 100-140 days.

Revision and publication

Revision: 4-8 weeks

Revisions often request additional application testing or comparison data. Publication 2-4 weeks after acceptance.

Small by the Numbers

2024 Impact Factor	14.9
5-Year Impact Factor	15.4
Acceptance rate	~15-25%
Desk rejection rate	~35-45%
Median first decision	~120 days
Open access option	$4,000 USD
Publisher	Wiley
Founded	2005

Before you submit

Small accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review. The full report is calibrated to Small.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Full Paper

6,000-8,000 words

Nanomaterial with complete application demonstration

Short Communication

3,500-4,500 words

Brief significant nanomaterial discovery

Review

8,000-12,000 words

Nanotechnology topic review (usually invited)

Landmark Small Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

Nanoparticle drug delivery systems (2000s+) - improved therapeutic efficacy
2D materials and heterostructures (2000s+) - graphene and beyond
Nanoscale electronics and memory (2000s+) - miniaturization limits
Energy storage nanoparticles (2010s+) - improved battery performance
Biomedical imaging nanoparticles (2010s+) - enhanced diagnostic capability

Preparing a Small Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in Small and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? See Expert Review Options

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Functional Nanoparticles2D MaterialsBiomedical NanomaterialsEnergy NanomaterialsNanodevicesNanomedicine

More Guides for This Journal

Ready to submit to Small?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what Small editors look for.

Avoid Desk Rejection

Get expert pre-submission review before you submit to Small. 3-7 day turnaround.

Manuscript Rejected?

Expert revision help to strengthen your manuscript and resubmit with confidence.

Reviewer Response Help

Get expert guidance crafting your response to Small reviewers.

Reference library

Compare Small with the broader publishing context

This journal guide is the best starting point for Small. The reference library covers the surrounding questions authors usually ask next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how neighboring journals compare, and what the submission constraints look like across the field.

Open the reference library →

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.