Nanoscale

7.12, submitted; 07.22, with editor; 08.12, in peer review; 09.01, major revision; 09.11, a revision has been submitted; 09.12, in peer review; 09.15, accepted. It was faster than expected, although it took one month for the article from submission, initial review to sending for review; it took one month before the article was sent to the reviewers. But the efficiency of reviewers was still quite fast. A total of four reviewers were invited, and nearly 30 questions were asked; the editor required major revision, and nearly 20 pages of responses were written. But I didn't expect it would be accepted three days after the submission of major revised manuscript, including a weekend during the period. It took exactly 2 months in total. Thank a lot to the editor and the reviewers, for your efficient work.

(11) Thank | leafarc

By April 11, 2020, real-time impact factor of 2019 is 32648/4874=6.698; the impact factor of 2019 will be officially released in June, the deviation will not be very large. The articles in 2019 should be included almost, and the final impact factor is 6.7–6.8. As I expected before, this impact factor will continue to decline. I do not recommend that you submit to this journal. Other material journals are flourishing. But this journal is slipping. Considering that many people here are stakeholders, it is estimated that many people will step on me. RSC's entire organization is not good at operating. The impact factors of its CC and Nanoscale are dropping every year. The impact factor of top publication Materials Horizons will drop by 1 this year, from 14 to 13 or so.

(55) Thank | penguin

2019.9.16, submitted; 9.17, with editor; 9.22, in peer review; 10.12, major revision; 10.21, revision submitted; 11.01 accepted. It was with editor the next day after submission. It took five or six days to find reviewers. About 20 days after sending for review, major revision was notified. There were two reviewers, one reviewer requested to make major revision and raised 9 questions, which were all small questions rather than doubts. The other reviewer requested to make major revision and raised 5 questions, one of which was a skeptical question. Fortunately, there is no need to supplement experiments. It took 4 days for conception, 5 days for reply, and 2 days for checking. It was with editor for 4 days after resubmission, and then it was sent to the reviewers. A total of 11 days later, email was received; it showed that the manuscript was only sent to the second reviewer for review. I took about 45 days in total, which was very efficient. I wish Nanoscale to be better.

(0) Thank | 洗洗睡吧

The review process took about 4 months. I learned a lot throughout the process. The overall result was good.

(6) Thank | 我要飞翔

8.05 submitted to journal soonWith editor8.06 in peer review9.03 reject and resubmit10.23 a revision Has been submitted11.28 major revision12.07 a revision has been submitted12.12 acceptThe combination of experiment and theoretical calculation, the most important thing in this journal is that innovation and fashion do not require workload.Reviewers are very careful not to be clever.The ACS nano review mantra that was originally submitted was then submitted into this journal. In the past few years, the influence of nanoscale has been continuously improved. With the help of nanomedicine and biological improvement factors, the dean of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has paid attention to it. Unfortunately, it is poorly published from ACS nano.A small step.

(6) Thank | ee

The journal is highly efficient:7.27 submission9.18 minor revision9.26 revision submission9.27 accepted and first publication onlineThe first SCI journal paper is very good luck.The questions raised by the reviewers were very nice. They were received directly after the minor repairs, and the manuscripts were published online the same day.I wish Nanoscale is getting better and better!

(6) Thank | Joshua_L

2018.08.152018.09.12 overhaul2018.09.24 Submitted after modification2018.09.25 receivingHighly efficient journal

(17) Thank | Cr7

Has been submitted for 45 days, still in peer review, once appeared with editor in the middle, then there is only in peer review, will it be sent to arbitration?

(9) Thank | ltlsqiang@163.com

At the time of submission, the co-author's mailbox was mistaken and has been in the Initial assessment state. The editor sent an email to provide an email address that can be contacted. It was sent to the editor yesterday, but still did not receive the email after one day.The state is also changing.I would like to ask everyone how this is going on. In addition, after the manuscript is submitted, it is impossible to modify the co-author's mailbox, and it can only be sent to the editor for revision.

(5) Thank | 3551981574@qq.com

03-Jun-2018: Submission24-Jun-2018: Four reviewers, two minor repairs, one overhaul, and the other tend to reject the manuscript.Edited overhaul15-Jul-2018: Overhaul return18-Jul-2018: AcceptA highly efficient journal

(7) Thank | mhz

Reviewing for one month, high efficiency!

(1) Thank | gw

2018-2-15 submitted2018-2-15 licence to Pub submitted submitted2018-2-16 with editor2018-2-21 in peer review2018-4-11 major revision2018-5-2 submiti revised version2018-5-2 with editor2018-5-3 in peer review2018-5-3 acceptThe efficiency of editing is quite high, a district TOP journal, I wish the influence factor is getting higher and higher

(27) Thank | 你看你看

Submitted at the end of February, submitted for review in mid-March, and reviewed in early June. After the end of June, I informed Xiaoxiu. After the change, I received the report directly after one week.In general, the speed of review is ok, and the time for the journal to reviewers is about one month.My first SCI is generally smooth, but I don't understand it for the first time. If you need it, you can add group 725554986 to discuss and share the submission experience and problems.

(1) Thank | 707145297@qq.com

contributed on May 31;On June 8th, the draft was rejected directly, on the grounds that the content was not new enough;On June 9th we argue, the editor agreed to reconsider;Submitted on June 11;On June 27th, the reviewer replied, a minor repair, and one raised four questions;On July 1st, the reply was submitted for revision and promulgation;I agree to publish on July 6.The article was accepted and accepted for about one month, and the editing efficiency was extremely high. The questions and suggestions of the two reviewers were very professional.

(5) Thank | Siyuan

How much is the immediate impact factor

(0) Thank | 希望越来越好

2018.4.17 contribution; 5.20 minor repair, three reviewers are minor repairs; 5.31 repair; 6.16 reception.The journal has high requirements for innovation.I wish Nanoscale is getting better and better.

(1) Thank | 646261756@qq.com

The latest impact factor is 7.2...

(0) Thank | 24

2018.2.27Submission,3.7with editor,3.12 in peer review,4.18 major revision,5.8 repair,5.23 Accepted.In general, from the time of submission to receiving, the speed is fast, and the online publication is accepted the next day. The efficiency of the editorial department is still very high.The editor for review was Dr Elena Shevchenko, who was responsible and revised the draft for two weeks and returned as soon as possible. The comments from the reviewers were also very pertinent.

(2) Thank | ST

2018.2.27Submission,3.7with editor,3.12 in peer review,4.18 major revision,5.8 repair,5.23 Accepted.In general, from the time of submission to receiving, the speed is fast, and the online publication is accepted the next day. The efficiency of the editorial department is still very high.The editor for review was Dr Elena Shevchenko, who was responsible and revised the draft for two weeks and returned as soon as possible. The comments from the reviewers were also very pertinent.

(3) Thank | ST

This review is too slow.Reviewers and editors are very professional and convinced!

(4) Thank | Kelong Ao

preliminary trial 3 weeks - external trial 4 weeks - overhaul - external trial 2 weeks - minor repair - acceptedThree reviewers, the editor is very responsible, and the efficiency is very high

(2) Thank | aa

Magazine is very good, the editing efficiency is very high, from the submitment to accept more than two months, the reviewer is also very meticulous and serious, the first review refused to re-submit, the second select after the revision, the opinion minor repair,Received after minor repairs.Excited plus thanks...

(1) Thank | 1529405949@qq.com

Magazine is very good, the editing efficiency is very high, from the submitment to accept more than two months, the reviewer is also very meticulous and serious, the first review refused to re-submit, the second select after the revision, the opinion minor repair,Received after minor repairs.Excited plus thanks...

(1) Thank | 1529405949@qq.com

10 The article was rejected. The editorial requirements for innovation are much higher than before, but they can be understood, so the journal is currently ranked in the top three in domestic SCI journals.Later, he is the representative of China's high-quality international journals.Yeah, support it.In addition, the journal is very efficient.This is unmatched by many foreign journals.

(4) Thank | qdw860523

10 daysThe article was rejected

(0) Thank | 121