These contain either a complete study or a preliminary report, but in either case must present an important advance of immediate interest to the Nanoscale Advances readership in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Authors should supply with their submission a justification of why the work merits urgent publication as a Communication. Referees will be asked to judge the work on these grounds. Communications are given high visibility within the journal as they are published at the front of an issue. Communications will not normally exceed the length of four printed journal pages, however, exceptions may be made at the editor's discretion.
Full papers report important field-advancing work that has not been published previously. Full papers based on Communications are encouraged provided that they represent a substantial extension of the original material. There are no restrictions on the length of a paper.
These are normally commissioned by the editorial board, although suggestions from readers for topics and authors of reviews are most welcome.
Interested authors should complete a proposal form and return it to the Editorial Office at email@example.com.
Nanoscale Advances reviews must be high quality, authoritative, state-of-the-art accounts of the selected research field. They should be timely and add to the existing literature, rather than duplicate existing articles, and should be 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. Notes on the preparation of reviews are available from the editor, and will be provided to referees.
All review content should consist of original text and interpretation, avoiding any direct reproduction. If a significant amount of other people's material is to be used, either textual or image-based, permission must be sought by the author in accordance with copyright law and must be made clear in the manuscript.
Nanoscale Advances publishes two types of review.
Review articles report a detailed, balanced and authoritative current account of the selected research field. They should focus on the key developments that have shaped the topic, rather than comprehensive reviews of the literature. Authors are encouraged to summarise important findings instead of re-iterating details already available in the primary work and should provide summary figures instead of multiple figures from original manuscripts, where appropriate.
The purpose of a Review is to bring the reader up to date with research in a particular field. Since the readership of Nanoscale Advances is wide ranging, it is essential that the Review is easily comprehensible to a non-specialist in the field. Authors are encouraged to identify areas in the field where further developments are imminent or of urgent need, and any areas (such as techniques) that may be of significance to the nanoscience and nanotechnology community in general. Please note that Reviews should not contain any original research.
Minireviews are highlights or summaries of research in an emerging area covering approximately the last two-three years. Minireviews are not intended to be comprehensive overviews, rather they are meant to highlight recent and important developments in that specific subject area. Minireviews should not contain any unpublished original research and should set the topic in the context of the relevant literature. A small amount of speculation of possible future developments may also be appropriate in the Conclusions section. The recommended length is 3-8 journal pages.
Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in Nanoscale Advances.
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.