All original research published in the journal is in the form of Communication articles. These are exceptionally high quality and innovative reports that are of significant broad appeal to the nanoscience community at large. The research presented should provide new insight into the topic and demonstrate a new concept or a new way of thinking (a conceptual advance), rather than primarily reporting technological improvements. However, outstanding articles featuring truly breakthrough developments such as record performance of materials alone may also be published in the journal.
Nanoscale Horizons Communications must include a separate ‘new concepts’ statement. This statement should be a paragraph of no more than 200 words and should address the following questions:
What new concept has been demonstrated?
What differentiates this concept from existing research?
What additional insight does your work and the underlying concept bring to the nanoscience and nanotechnology?
This statement will be seen by editors and reviewers and will help ascertain the significance of the research. The statement should not be a summary of the work reported, as in the article abstract. If the paper is accepted, this statement will also be published. Please note that papers cannot be peer-reviewed without this statement.
Although there is no page limit for a Communication, the recommended length is three printed journal pages. Authors are encouraged to provide a succinct and relevant introduction to the research and to consider the use of the electronic supplementary information for additional material. Please see below for some examples of exemplar 'new concepts' statements.
See examples
Reviews
Reviews are typically commissioned by the Nanoscale Horizons editorial board and editorial office, although suggestions from readers for topics and authors of reviews are very welcome and should be directed to the editor. Nanoscale Horizons Reviews must be very high quality, authoritative, state-of-the-art accounts of the selected research field.
Reviews should be timely and provide insights based on existing literature as well as being of general interest to the journal's wide readership. All Reviews undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure, in the same way as regular research papers.
Authors are encouraged to identify areas in the field where further developments are imminent or of urgent need, and any areas that may be of significance to the community in general. Reviews are typically six to eight printed journal pages in length
Minireviews
Minireviews are highlights or summaries of research in an emerging area of nanoscience or nanotechnology (typically from the last two to three years). They are not intended to be comprehensive overviews, but rather should highlight recent and important developments and provide insights into the emerging area on which they are focused. Minireviews should set the topic in the context of the relevant literature and may include perspectives of the future development of the field
Perspectives of the future development of the field are appropriate. The recommended length of a Nanoscale Horizons Minireview is three printed journal pages.
Focus articles
Nanoscale Horizons Focus articles are educational articles that can take the form of either an editorial or review article. They are designed to address topic areas which are often misunderstood or require greater explanation.
Focus articles are invited by the Nanoscale Horizons editorial board and editorial office. Suggestions from readers for topics and authors of Focus articles are welcome and should be directed to the editor.
Comments
Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in Nanoscale Horizons.
For publication, a Comment should present an alternative analysis of and/or new insight into the previously published material. Any Reply should further the discussion presented in the original article and the Comment. Comments and Replies that contain any form of personal attack are not suitable for publication.
Comments that are acceptable for publication will be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply. The Comment and Reply will both be subject to rigorous peer review in consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board where appropriate. The Comment and Reply will be published together.
Submission and assessment process
On submission to the journal, all manuscripts are initially assessed by a team of professional Publishing Editors who have a wide range of scientific backgrounds. They make an assessment of whether the manuscript may be suitable for the journal, based on the scope and very high significance and broad general interest criteria required for publication. Publishing Editors are supported in this decision making by our academic Scientific Editors who are members of our Editorial Board. Only manuscripts that are successful during these initial assessments will be sent for full peer review. Full details of the initial assessment process can be found with our processes and policies.
The journal follows a single-blind peer review process and articles are typically sent to at least two independent reviewers for evaluation. Professional Publishing Editors are responsible for peer review and associated editorial decisions. The team are guided by our Editorial Board who set the scientific standards and guidelines for the journal. Our Editorial Board are all leading scientists who together have expertise across the breadth of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
