--- name: nature-nanotechnology description: Use when targeting Nature Nanotechnology or deciding whether a nanotechnology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Nature Nanotechnology (nature-nanotechnology) ## Journal positioning Nature Nanotechnology publishes papers that represent a significant conceptual advance in nanoscience and nanotechnology — research that opens a new direction, overturns an established assumption, or demonstrates an entirely new capability at the nanoscale. It is among the most selective venues in the physical sciences; the bar is not incremental performance improvement but a result that the broad nanoscience community will recognize as a milestone. The readership spans physicists, chemists, materials scientists, and biomedical engineers who work at the nanoscale. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Nature Portfolio site. ## When to trigger - The author names Nature Nanotechnology as the target venue for a high-significance nanoscale advance. - A manuscript demonstrates a new physical principle, new functionality, or new nano-bio capability that reshapes how the community thinks about a problem. - The author is choosing between Nature Nanotechnology, ACS Nano, and Nature Materials and needs to assess the significance tier required. - The author needs Nature Nanotechnology's desk-reject heuristics and alternative routing before submitting. ## Scope & topic fit - Nanoscale quantum phenomena: single-electron/photon control, quantum coherence, spin manipulation at the nanoscale with direct measurement and functional relevance. - 2D materials and van der Waals heterostructures when a new physical property or device paradigm is established, not incremental device fabrication. - Molecular machines and functional nanostructures that exhibit emergent behavior not predictable from bulk analogues. - Nano-bio: delivery, sensing, or imaging at the single-cell or single-molecule level, where the nanoscale mechanism is indispensable and the biological or medical significance is clear. - Nanophotonics and nanoplasmonics with new physical phenomena (beyond engineering optimization of known effects). - DNA nanotechnology, programmable self-assembly, or structural nanotechnology when a new architectural or functional principle is demonstrated. ## Method & evidence bar - The conceptual advance must be clearly identifiable: a paper that improves device efficiency by a factor without revealing a new principle will not clear the bar. - Direct nanoscale characterization at the relevant length scale is mandatory; ensemble-averaged measurements that do not isolate the nanoscale mechanism are insufficient. - For functional claims, the demonstration must be compelling and statistically supported; single-device or single-particle demonstrations require rigorous statistical treatment across multiple independently prepared samples. - Theoretical/computational work must be directly coupled to experiment — either as the basis for a surprising experimental prediction that is verified, or as an explanation of an unexpected experimental observation. - Reproducibility: synthesis protocols and device fabrication must be described in sufficient detail for replication; Nature's reporting summary requirements apply. - Claims involving biomedical relevance require appropriate in-vivo or mechanistically validated in-vitro evidence — cell viability alone is insufficient for drug delivery claims. ## Structure & house style - Nature Nanotechnology publishes Articles and Letters (re-check current type options); both are short by disciplinary standards, with a large fraction of the evidence in Extended Data and Supplementary Information. - The main text must be written for the broad nanoscience community, not for specialists: the significance of the advance must be intelligible to a physicist unfamiliar with the specific chemical system, and vice versa. - The introduction should state the conceptual gap in one or two paragraphs, the advance in one sentence, and reserve literature review for Supplementary Information. - Extended Data figures carry essential controls and supporting experiments; SI carries full methods and secondary data. - Nature's reporting summary (Methods) and data/code availability statement are required; re-check current policy for specific deposition requirements. - A "Significance statement" or equivalent plain-language summary may be required; re-check current editorial requirements. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Nanotechnology author instructions" or "Nature Portfolio submission guidelines" and follow the current version. - Re-check article-type definitions, word/figure limits, Extended Data limits, and Supplementary Information scope. - Re-check the Nature reporting summary requirements (statistics, reproducibility, blinding, sample sizes, animal/human research). - Confirm data and code availability statement requirements and any deposition obligations for atomic coordinates, sequence data, or device fabrication files. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure requirements. - Re-check preprint policy and embargo/press-office coordination requirements. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence stating the conceptual advance — what does the nanoscience community now know or can now do that it could not before? - [ ] The advance is framed as a new principle, new phenomenon, or new capability, not as an improved metric. - [ ] The paper is written for the full nanoscience community, not for a sub-specialty audience. - [ ] Direct nanoscale characterization supports every central claim; ensemble measurements are supplementary. - [ ] Extended Data and reporting summary are complete; reproducibility information is in the Methods. - [ ] Significance is genuinely at the Nature-portfolio tier, not a strong ACS Nano paper re-packaged. ## Common desk-reject triggers - Incremental performance improvement in a known system (better efficiency, higher sensitivity) without a new mechanistic or conceptual insight. - Nanoscale application claims without direct nanoscale mechanistic evidence — bulk characterization used to infer nanoscale behavior. - A paper addressed to a narrow specialist audience that would be a milestone within a subfield but does not open a new direction for nanoscience broadly. - Insufficient statistical treatment: a compelling single-device or single-particle result without multi-sample replication. - Overstated biomedical claims: "nanoparticle for cancer treatment" without direct mechanistic in-vivo evidence at the nanoscale. - Writing resembles an ACS Nano or Advanced Materials article (comprehensive characterization, solid work) but lacks the conceptual leap needed for Nature-portfolio tier. ## Re-routing decision - Excellent nanoscience but below the conceptual-advance threshold for Nature Nanotechnology → `acs-nano` (broader significance window) or Nano Letters (ACS; more technical, faster). - Materials advance where nano framing is secondary → `nature-materials` (conceptual) or `advanced-materials` (breadth). - Chemistry-driven nanoscience with sustainability/energy framing → `chem` or `joule`. - Nano-bio advance with clinical translational emphasis → `nature-biomedical-engineering` or `nature-medicine`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Nanotechnology [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```