ACS Nano

2020.1.6 the manuscript was submitted; 2020.1.7 deputy editor assigned; 2020.2.23 first review comments received: four reviewers, three required minor revisions, with 15 revision comments and evaluation as top 5%; one rejected the manuscript and suggested resubmission, with an evaluation as top 15%, and 32 review comments were raised. The editor gave us 2 months for revision. 2020.4.22 revision for the first review was returned, with more than 11,000 words for the main text, and more than 13,000 words for the response letter. 2020.4.28 the second review comments were received; no reviewers were found and the format was required to be revised. 2020.5.4 revision for the second review was returned, (I got married on 5.3, so it was almost endless for a week, being busy with the marriage and revising the manuscript at the same time). 2020.5.6 received the mail that requested again to modify the format (editor-in-chief). 2020.5.9 received the mail that requested again to modify the format (associate editor). 2020.5.13 The article was accepted. This is my first SCI article. The boss and the editor requested me to make a total of 20 revisions, and it was finally accepted in May. Hope it will be published in 5.20! Thanks to my boss, my wife and my family. It’s a bit regretful that one sentence in Acknowledgements could not be shown to her on the day of 5.3: In addition, *** wants to thank, in particular, the patience, care and support from Ms. **.

(222) Thank | Mojo

Publication History: Received: 8 December 2019 (sent for review the next day); Revised requested: 27 December 2019 (three reviewers, with included 1 big and 2 small opinions); Revised submitted: 26 January 2020 (sent to the reviewer who required a major revision, and no new reviewer was invited); Prepared to accept: 21 February 2020 (No comments for the reviewer that required a major revision previously, but the editor required us to modify the format); Accept: 26 February 2020; Published online: 26 February 2020. Title: Heterostructured NiS2/ZnIn2S4 Realizing Toroid-Like Li2O2 Deposition in Lithium-Oxygen Batteries with Low-Donor-Number Solvents. The link is: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.9b09646

(14) Thank | Anjun Hu

Submitted to Nano on December 29, 2018, and it was assigned to Prof. Wolfgang Parak, the associate editor. I received the comments of the first review on January 11, 2019. The editor gave two months to make up the experiment and revise the manuscript. There were 4 reviewers. The first reviewer required a major revision and raised 12 questions. The second reviewer rejected the manuscript and questioned the originality of the article. The third reviewer required a minor revision and raised 4 questions. The fourth reviewer required a minor revision and raised 6 questions. I submitted the revised manuscript on March 2, 2019, and I received the reviewers’ comments again on March 20, 2019, the paper was arbitrated, and the manuscript was reviewed for the second time. The editor gave a month to us for revising and resubmitting. All the three reviewers agreed to accept it directly in the first review. So other four reviewers were invited. Three reviewers gave the comments of minor revision and one rejected it. The article was revised and submitted on April 15, 2019 and I received the email of the ready for pre-acceptance of this article on the morning of April 18, 2019. On the morning of April 23, 2019, I received an email requesting to revise the format and at four o'clock in the next day’s afternoon, I submitted the revised one. The article was officially accepted on April 25, 2019. Nano is of high quality and rigorous, which was reviewed by 8 reviewers during the time. I was very excited at the acceptance from our small research team and thanks to the editor of Prof. Wolfgang Parak. Just want to commemorate my first article on Nano. if necessary, you can contact me with my WeChat of t642991874 with the verification information of Nano submission consultation, otherwise the request will not be approved.

(415) Thank | ZhangXingdqwc

I submitted my manuscript at the end of May; it was assigned that day to Editor Wolfgang Parak. Three days later the manuscript was sent out to three reviewers. After one month, the reviews came back asking for minor revision, which were to be returned within two months. After I submitted the revision, the editor sent the manuscript back to the original reviewers and two additional reviewers. This time the review time took several months. One of the original reviewers made a very unreasonable request. The other two reviewers asked for minor revisions. The allowed another two months for revision. In the end the manuscript was accept. It had a total of 5 reviewers, 4 good and 1 bad. I feel that the requirements for this journal are quite high.

(29) Thank | minghai

isThanks to the comments on the website for helping me, I will provide some information to help others.After submitting the manuscript, he returned to the comments in January, six reviewers, two minor repairs, two overhauls, two changes, and the final edit gave six months of overhaul.After three months, I finished the return. After three weeks, I returned to the second round. I only mentioned a small question and a format question. I returned after 3 days and received it after 4 days.

(5) Thank | yuppy

scientific research drawing picture diagram flow chart SCI journal three-dimensional abstract drawingTOC cover drawingPlease add QQ 3188675558

(1) Thank | 科研绘图

After 3 days of submission, an email was sent saying that it had been submitted for review;21 days later, returning to the review comments, a minor repair, a major repair, and editing to the overhaul;After 8 days, I will be repaired, and then I will start to worry, look forward to it, make every day, and brush my mail at any time...After 8 days, I returned to the comments. The overhaul reviewer has read it again and asked for a few important documents.Revised one day later;After 6 days, the editor sent an email saying that paepared to accept, to change some formatting problems;Repaired after 1 day;I sent the mail directly the next day and finally received it!The editor is deputy editor Ali Javey, although he has been rejected several times before...Thank you very much for this time!

(4) Thank | 嘿嘿

3 Submitted around the 10th, received revisions after more than two weeks, a minor repair, a direct receipt.Return after 1 week of modification, and receive it after 3 days.The journal article's new ideas are important, and you have to have your own opinions, not suitable for pure performance articles.

(3) Thank | 鸭子

5 years after the review of the draft, two minor repairs, desperately revised 1 week after returning to submit, received after 3 days, ACS efficiency is good.

(3) Thank | 呦呦呦

Give a reply for 1 week, and it will be included after the modification. The speed is still very fast!

(8) Thank | 277055787@qq.com

has been submitted for review, two reviews, one gave top 5% evaluation, and the other gave a top 15% evaluation after modification.Was rejected by the editor and did not give a chance to modify.The editor suggested a complaint and delayed the case for more than a month, but did not give any reason.Only one editorial department work rule was given, emphasizing that the editor has the right to reject the manuscript, and it is clear that the right to play is unreasonable.Transfer to Avd. Func. Mat.

(9) Thank | tomtjin@126.com

ACSNANO was selectd in December of 14 years. After the select was rejected in October, it was transferred to this journal.The lab is working with smart materials and structural directions. This article focuses on smart graphene aerogel work.The first trial was 1 month, and the three reviewers, 1 good, 1 middle, and 1 bad, edited to force, gave the opportunity to modify.Seriously revised and returned after 1 month, the second trial is a full month, directly acceptd.Nearly half a year before and after, after the first trial, the revision was too hard, adding a lot of experiments and content.I feel that as long as the content is novel, the representation is sufficient, and the results are good, you can try it.

(7) Thank | xuxiang_hit@126.com

I also met the editor of Peter Nordlande, and soon refused it.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Lab is mainly engaged in the research of nanomaterials biological applications, selectd 3The editors are both Wolfgang J. Parak, an editor directly refused, and refused after a trial, because the editor himself is also engaged in this work, so he is more proficient in such articles.The most recent editor gave the trial, the efficiency is very high, 20 days to reply, a total of 3 reviewers, a major repair, 2 minor repairs.The reviewer's attitude is very good, but the problem is very sharp, and all the problems that I want to avoid are dug out.I gave the modification time of 2 months, and after 1 month of repair, I revised the format after 3 days.It is recommended that you do not have a chance to be lucky before submitting a manuscript. The work is more comprehensive and there is still hope.

(6) Thank | Anonymous

has had three ACS Nanos before, but the recent submissions are very unsatisfactory.Both were given to Peter Nordlander, a perverted editor, who rejected the manuscript directly in one day.I chose two or three prefer editors, but the editor gave them this guy.It is recommended that you avoid this editor as much as possible

(1) Thank | Anonymous

10 on the 6th select, and the report on the 22nd, very soon.Two reviewers, one recommended for direct publication, another for overhaul, and very friendly, mainly recommending tests and simulations of interest to him.Both testing and simulation are difficult, and I have worked hard for more than 2 weeks.Returned on November 11, and accepted and hanged online on the 21st.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

10Submission of the 5th, on October 24th, the review comments, minor repair.Accepted on November 2nd, online on the same day.

(1) Thank | Anonymous

Hope to be in it~~~~

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Edit is Jillian Buriak, I am doing the direction of the second and sixth family of nanomaterials, 25 days after the submittedThe review comments, the four reviewers, the opinions were very positive, one directly received, the other three minor repairs, asked some simple questions.After three weeks, I changed the week to return, and notified the reception four days later.ACS nano's review speed is very fast, let's take a look.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

The results were received 36 days after submission; the editor is Schaak.Two reviewers, one directly receiving, one after minor repair, the editor suggested to change the eye-catching topic.The revised draft has been submitted for two days and I hope to have an early result.From submission to acceptance for 48 days, it should be quick for my long draft.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Review speed is fast, 17 days to the result; Editor (Schaak) is very careful, read the full text every time; less than 2h after receiving, has been linked to the Internet (Just accepted), a weekASAP (Top 20 most read); there is a formal volume number after half a month, so I feel that the editor of this journal is very efficient; in the last two years, some influential people in the nano field (Yang Peidong, Xia Younan, etc.)I chose to publish some excellent work in this journal, which shows that the journal has been highly recognized. The journal has received a lot of attention. The article received less than a week. Many teachers and classmates who have met before and after have noticed ourWork; about the submission of the recruitment ratio

(3) Thank | Anonymous

this journal is really difficult to tell the truth, and feel that the last one is basically a positive result, such as when applying for a national fund, this is actually like JACSThe same plays a very important role.Many big cows abroad also value this journal.Our group has selectd many times and sent very few trials.The article does not rule out related households, but the vast majority are very good.In addition to the weekend, updated every day, we are basically paying attention every day.As for some people say that this journal article is general and level, people who want to say these words should not mislead others unless you often send science, nature, or don't say this.Because many foreign big cows also attach great importance to this journal

(6) Thank | Anonymous

has not yet selectd for this journal, but as a reviewer reviewed the journal's article.In general, most of the articles published in this journal can only be said to be very general, obviously lacking the style of traditional ACS, side re-materials and popular research topics to improve their IF; low requirements on the writing and basic theory of the articleSuitable for short articles.Of course, the journal that people read is very good.

(2) Thank | Anonymous

The review period is short, a total of three reviewers, and the comments will be reviewed after 12 days of submission.One of them was negative, and the second reviewer was very professional and made a lot of constructive comments.The third reviewer gave the highest rating (Top 5%) and gave two suggestions.We changed it and returned it, and received it two days later.The overall feeling is that the editor is more nice and the efficiency is super high.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

Submitted after 16 days, the article was sent to another editor (reassigned to hersam) estimated to be scrapped

(0) Thank | Anonymous