Editorial pubs.acs.org/NanoLett
Nano Letters Editorial Processing Changes
■
T
oday we are announcing changes in how manuscripts are being processed at Nano Letters in order to improve transparency and fairness to authors of manuscripts that are not sent our for peer review based upon editor evaluation of the suitability of the manuscript. First, we remind all authors that a “triage” process is critical to the functioning of Nano Letters as a place where groundbreaking nanoscience is reported in a timely way that serves our community. We receive a very large and growing number of manuscripts for consideration. Our reviewer community needs to know that we value their time and effort highly, and when they receive a manuscript from Nano Letters to peer review, our Editorial team has already determined that the manuscript is potentially suitable for publication. The alternative of sending every manuscript out for peer review would simply overwhelm our reviewers and reduce the quality and speed of the journal. Manuscripts received at Nano Letters are assigned to an Associate Editor based on their area of expertise; until now, that Associate Editor has been responsible for determining which of these should be selected for peer review and which should be declined in the triage phase. As of January 1, 2016, we will be asking a second Associate Editor to provide a second, independent opinion; thus, manuscripts will only be triaged when two Associate Editors agree that this is appropriate. We believe that this second review should help to ensure that every manuscript receives a fair hearing. In the event that the second Associate Editor disagrees with the negative assessment of the first Associate Editor, then the manuscript will be sent out for peer review; the manuscript will be reassigned to this second Associate Editor, who will handle the subsequent peer review process. Our Team of Associate Editors at Nano Letters is comprised of a diverse group of highly accomplished research-active people with a broad range of backgrounds in nanoscience and nanotechnology. They share a common dedication to serving our community. They work hard on the screening process, placing great care on being fair to each and every author, while also bearing in mind their obligation to steward the journal for the benefit of the community and to quickly screen manuscripts. In this way, authors of manuscripts that have been turned down for further review should not be delayed substantially. While this revised process will put extra burden on our dedicated Associate Editor team, we hope that it will provide an additional check to help ensure that we do not miss top content submitted to Nano Letters. The entire editorial team at Nano Letters is deeply committed to the nanoscience community, and it is our goal to serve this community in a way that provides our authors transparent, rapid, and high-quality decisions and a great venue for publication of excellent nanoscience.
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
A. Paul Alivisatos, Co-Editor Charles M. Lieber, Co-Editor
© 2015 American Chemical Society
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Published: December 29, 2015 1
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b05063 Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 1−1
