These must report preliminary research findings that are novel and original, of immediate interest and are likely to have a high impact on the Environmental Science: Nano community. Authors must provide a short paragraph explaining why their work justifies rapid publication as a communication.
Original research papers within the scope of the journal as outlined above are encouraged and welcomed. All papers should give due attention to overcoming limitations and to underlying principles. All contributions will be judged on the following criteria.
- Novelty and insight
- Quality of scientific work and content
- Clarity of objectives and aims of the work
- Appropriateness of length to content of new science
These may be articles providing a personal view of part of one discipline associated with Environmental Science: Nano or a philosophical look at a topic of relevance. Alternatively, Perspectives may be historical articles covering a particular subject area or the development of particular legislation, technologies, methodologies or other subjects within the scope of Environmental Science: Nano.
Critical reviews must be a critical evaluation of the existing state of knowledge on a particular facet of nanomaterials or nanotechnologies as they affect environmental science. They should be timely and provide insights based on existing literature. They should be of general interest to the journal's wide readership.
All Critical 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. Critical reviews should not contain any unpublished original research.
These are shorter, more focused versions of Critical reviews on a well-defined, specific topic area covering approximately the last two-three years. Articles should cover only the most interesting/significant developments in that specific subject area. The article should be highly critical and selective in referencing published work. One or two paragraphs of speculation about possible future developments may also be appropriate in the conclusion section.
The recommended length of Frontier reviews is three-four printed journal pages. Frontier reviews may also cover techniques/technologies that are too new for a Critical review or may address a subset of technologies available for a given area of research within the journal scope.
Tutorial reviews should provide an introduction and overview of an important topic of relevance to the journal readership. The topic should be of relevance to both researchers who are new to the field as well as experts and provide a good introduction to the development of a subject, its current state and indications of future directions the field is expected to take.
Comments and Replies
Comments are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions normally concerning material published in Environmental Science: Nano. Submitted Comments will normally be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply for publication together with the Comment. For publication of a Comment or Reply, they must be judged to be scientifically significant and of interest to the Environmental Science: Nano readership.
Comments should not be a personal attack on an individual or group of individuals and will undergo the usual peer-review process. Comments will not normally exceed a length of one printed journal page. Publication will take place only when all parties have had an opportunity to respond appropriately.
These articles are written by our highlights editor on exciting work of relevance to the Environmental Science: Nano readership. These articles do not undergo peer review.