Nanoscience and nanotechnology: evolving definitions and growing footprint on the scientific landscape.

Despite the accusations of purists that the current liberal usage of “nano”-prefi xed words amounts to “embezzlement” or “political highjacking,” [ 1d ] understanding how researchers use these terms is prerequisite to analyzing the current infl uence of nanoscience and nanotechnology on long-established fi elds in the pure and applied sciences, and indeed the entire global scientifi c landscape. Journal editors have been referred to as the “gatekeepers” of their fi eld because they collectively decide what topics are appropriate for the journals which defi ne it. [ 2 ] Of 200 + journals which focus on nanoscience and nanotechnology, [ 3 ] dozens are now devoted exclusively to these fi elds (hereafter “the key journals”). The terms and concepts contained in this corpus of literature reveal the consensus defi nition of the fi eld in the collective mind of thousands of editors and manuscript reviewers. The traditional defi nition of “materials with at least one dimension between 1 and 100 nm” is based on the size at which many materials exhibit size-dependent characteristics not evident at bulk scales. [ 4 ] This is too simplistic, however, since such characteristics occur well outside that range for some materials. Acknowledging this fact, the scope of coverage statement for the Journal of Nanoparticle Research specifi es a size range “ ... from molecular to approximately 100 nm (or submicron in some situations) ... ” Materials with a diameter > 200 nm were termed “nanofi bers” in 6 of 20 (30%) random articles from the key journals ( Table 1 , Query 1) obtained by a Web of Science (WoS) search for “TS = nanofi ber ∗ ”. The abstract of one states: “The average diameters of PCL/PLA/HA nanofi bers were in the range of