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

How are you doing now?

(0) Thank | hzwe

My paper has not been submitted yet. When were you assigned an editor?

(0) Thank | hzwe

Hello, I am also an editor. Do you have any news?

(0) Thank | zxz521zxz

Your question makes me seriously doubt the authenticity of your data, I'm afraid the editor will ask you for the original data.

(0) Thank | 急需正刊

Do ACS Nano require the original data to be provided? If so, in what format?

(0) Thank | zy09

4.22 Status Update in Peer Review

(0) Thank | 空腹可以吃饭吗

The editor is Tsuyoshi Sekitani, and I don't know how fast he handles manuscripts.

(1) Thank | hzwe

Likewise, I am also this editor, and there has been no progress for ten days.

(0) Thank | MUUUCheng

I am also Teacher Ye! Enjoying the festive atmosphere.

(0) Thank | Zzzzqqqyyyy

One system displays "Associate Editor Assigned"; another system displays "Under Review."

(0) Thank | 空腹可以吃饭吗

Excuse me, is there any allocation for Maria Lukatskaya? Is the probability of review high? How is the processing speed? The submission was made on 4.2 and was assigned to her by Prof. Yan Li on 4.9. There has been no further action taken at this time.

(0) Thank | 空腹可以吃饭吗

Could you please advise if it is necessary to upload a marked-up version and responses to the revisions when resubmitting, or should the revisions be included in the Cover letter as with the initial submission?

(0) Thank | 祎祎

Which editor handled it? It feels quite fast.

(0) Thank | 祎祎

The timeline of my first submission is the same as before (the editor is the same, and Teacher Ye is very nice), but the difference is that my submission was rejected. Now I am appealing and resubmitting. Good luck!

(1) Thank | 祎祎

Excuse me, may I ask how long does Rahmi Oklu take to evaluate the manuscripts before submitting them for review recently?

(0) Thank | wenwen0908

How long did it take for this editor to review it, brother? It's been over a week and I still have it in my hands. Last time it was reviewed within a few days.

(0) Thank | Lab worker

Automatically switched editors and accepted.

(0) Thank | 啦啦啦啦123

I submitted it for review on November 29th, 24 years ago, and it was returned for revision on February 27th. There has been no news since then (I have also sent emails during this period), and I am getting anxious.

(0) Thank | Momo127

Submission in late February 2025
Reviewed by the associate editor within two days, first review completed in two weeks with three reviewers providing feedback, minor revisions were made twice and major revisions once, less than 20 issues in total, all easily addressed
Feedback was sent back for review two days later, and the paper was accepted in principle two weeks later
Thanks to Editor Il-Doo Kim for swiftly handling the submission, and thanks to the lenient reviewers
Wishing everyone smooth submission process

(0) Thank | jqxky

Is this editor fast in processing?

(0) Thank | xiyou2019

Brother, I revised it at the end of January, but it took nearly two months to submit for review. It's still in peer review now, the wait is just too difficult.

(0) Thank | Sugar