General Information
All manuscripts submitted to Nature Portfolio journals are reviewed by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and reviewers, papers that appear most likely to meet our editorial standards are sent for formal review. Papers that the editors consider to be of insufficient general interest or unsuitable are rejected immediately without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).
Review Process
All submitted manuscripts are potentially reviewed for our readership by independent reviewers, usually ranging from two to three reviewers, but sometimes there can be more if special advice is needed (for example in statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice, among several possibilities: accept the manuscript without editorial revisions, invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is made, reject the manuscript with an indication that further work may justify resubmission, or fully reject the manuscript typically due to insufficient specialist interest or lack of novelty or inadequate conceptual advancement or significant technical/interpretive issues.
Choosing Reviewers
Choosing reviewers is critical in the publishing process, and we rely on several factors in our selection, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our prior experience with the reviewers’ characteristics. For instance, we select reviewers who are prompt and thorough and provide justification for their opinions, whether strongly critical or lenient.
Access to Literature
If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper necessary to evaluate the submitted manuscript, the journal will provide the reviewer with a copy of the paper. In this case, the reviewer should send the publication reference required for the paper to the editor who sent the paper for review. The editor will obtain the paper and cover any necessary fees, then send it to the reviewer.
Writing the Review
The primary goal of the review is to provide the editors with the necessary information to make a decision, but the review should also guide authors on how to enhance their paper so that it can be accepted. The negative review should explain as much as possible to the authors the major weaknesses in their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and know what to generally do to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. Reviewers should be aware that when transferring rejected manuscripts to another Nature Portfolio journal, the reviewers’ comments are also transferred and can be used to determine the suitability for publication in the receiving journal. In cases of transferring manuscripts between Nature Portfolio journals with internal editors, the identities of the reviewers are also transferred.
Timeliness
The Nature Portfolio journals are committed to swift editorial and publication decisions, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to authors and the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, we ask reviewers to respond promptly according to the agreed number of days. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we request them to inform us so that we can notify the authors and find alternatives if necessary.
Confidentiality
We do not disclose the identities of reviewers to authors or other reviewers unless the reviewer voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. To enhance the transparency of the review process, reviewers may sign their reports if they feel comfortable doing so. Before revealing their identities, reviewers should consider the following: (1) reviewer reports, whether signed or unsigned, are later shared with other reviewers and with other Nature Portfolio journals if the manuscript is transferred, and (2) reviewers may be asked to comment on critiques from other reviewers and on subsequent reviews of the manuscript and may find their identified status makes these discussions more challenging.
Review
Certified Peer Review
Some journals under Nature and Communications offer an option for certified peer review. Please visit the journal’s website for more information on the available peer review options. Authors who choose the double-blind peer review option remain anonymous to reviewers throughout the manuscript evaluation process. Authors are responsible for preparing the manuscript anonymously; a checklist is provided to assist in this process. Further information is available in editorial articles, including this announcement from Nature and previous publications related to trials that began in 2013 in Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change.
Transparent Peer Review
Some Nature journals (see the list below) follow a transparent peer review system, where details about the peer review process are published as part of the publication (including reviewer comments to authors and authors’ responses, and in some cases, editorial decision letters). Except for Nature Communications, Communications Earth & Environment, and Communications Psychology, where transparent peer review is applied to all published articles, authors have the opportunity to opt into this system after the peer review process is completed prior to the acceptance of the article. Please refer to the journal’s website for more information on the specific application of this policy. If the manuscript is transferred to us from another Nature Portfolio journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or authors’ responses on the versions of the manuscript that were considered by the original Nature Portfolio journal. The peer review file is published online as an additional peer review file. While we hope that peer review files provide a detailed and useful insight into our peer review process, it is important to note that these files will not contain all the information considered in the editorial decision-making process, such as discussions among editors or any confidential comments made by reviewers or authors to the editors.
Editing Reviewer Reports
As a policy, we do not suppress reviewer reports; any comments intended for authors are conveyed, regardless of what we may perceive regarding the content. In rare cases, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information regarding other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that could cause unnecessary offense; on the other hand, we strongly encourage reviewers to express their opinions about the paper openly. Authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are articulated in strong language.
Theoretical Review System
The theoretical review process is considered a fundamental part of the publication process, which improves the manuscripts published by our journals. The theoretical review system not only provides an independent assessment of the significance and accuracy of the described results but also contributes to enhancing the structure and logic of the manuscripts so that readers can better understand them.
Certified Peer Articles
All contributions submitted to selected Nature Portfolio journals for peer review are typically sent to at least one reviewer, but usually, two or more independent reviewers are chosen by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request the exclusion of two individuals or laboratories. The journal considers these requests sympathetically and usually accommodates them, but the editor’s decision on reviewer selection is final.
Ethics and Safety
Editors of Nature Portfolio journals may seek advice on submitted manuscripts not only from technical reviewers but also regarding any aspects of the manuscript that raise concerns. These issues may include, for example, ethical issues or data access or materials issues. Sometimes, concerns may also relate to the societal implications of publishing a paper, including security threats. In such cases, advice is typically sought simultaneously with the technical review process. As is the case in
Source: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/peer-review
Leave a Reply