This section provides information you need when reviewing a manuscript for Nature. Please read this section before submitting your report.
Publication Standards
Nature receives more submitted articles than it can publish each month. Therefore, we ask reviewers to keep in mind that for a paper to be published in Nature, it must meet several general criteria: the data is technically correct, the paper provides strong evidence for its conclusions, the results are novel (we do not consider abstracts and drafts online to diminish novelty), the manuscript is significant for researchers in its specific field, and the paper will be of interest to a general audience of scientists.
Generally, to be acceptable, a paper must represent a progression in understanding that is likely to influence thinking in the field. There must be some justification for why the work warrants seeing publication in Nature rather than in a more specialized journal.
Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and reviewers, those papers that appear most likely to meet our editorial standards are sent for formal review. Papers that editors deem to be of general interest or not suitable are quickly rejected without external review.
Manuscripts thought to be of potential interest to our readers are sent for formal review, usually to three reviewers. Editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice among several possibilities: acceptance with or without editorial revisions, inviting the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is made, rejection but indicating to the authors that future work may justify re-submission, outright rejection typically due to specialized interest, lack of novelty, or insufficient conceptual advancement or major technical and/or interpretational issues.
Reviewers’ recommendations for a particular course of action are welcomed, but they should keep in mind that other reviewers may have differing opinions, and editors may need to make a decision based on conflicting advice. Therefore, the most helpful reports provide the editors with the information on which to base their decision. Articulating the supporting and opposing arguments for publication can often be as helpful as a direct recommendation in one direction or another.
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or assessing numerical ranking, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments put forward by each reviewer and the authors, and we may also take into consideration other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and when making a decision on how to best serve them, we must balance the demands of each paper against the many other papers under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for additional advice, particularly in cases where reviewers differ from one another, or when authors believe that they may have been misunderstood on points of fact. Therefore, we ask reviewers to be willing to provide subsequent advice upon request. We are well aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to engage in ongoing disputes, so we try to limit consultations to the minimum considered necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to review a paper, we consider this a commitment to review the subsequent revisions as well. However, editors will not send resubmitted manuscripts back to reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious effort to address the reviewers’ criticisms.
We take
serious consideration of the referees’ criticisms, particularly, we are very hesitant to disregard technical critiques. In instances where a single referee opposes publication, we may consult other referees about whether an excessive critical standard is being applied. Sometimes we bring in additional referees to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid this unless there is a specific issue that necessitates the need for additional advice.
Transparent Peer Review
Nature employs a transparent peer review system, where we can publish referee comments for authors and original authors’ responses to the reviews of original research articles. Authors have the opportunity to opt-out of this system once the peer review process is completed prior to the acceptance of the article. If the manuscript is transferred to us from another Nature journal, we will not publish the referee reports or authors’ responses related to the manuscript versions considered by the original Nature journal. The theoretical review file is published online as an additional theoretical review file. While we hope that the theoretical review files provide detailed and helpful insights into our theoretical review process, it is important to note that these files will not include all information considered in the editorial decision-making process, such as discussions among editors, editorial decision correspondence, or any confidential comments provided by referees or authors to the editors.
This policy applies only to original research articles, not to review articles or other content published. For more information, please refer to our FAQ page.
Reviewer Acknowledgment
In recognition of the time and expertise reviewers contribute to the editorial process at Nature, we officially acknowledge their contributions to the external peer review of articles published in the journal. All content that has been peer-reviewed will carry an anonymous statement recognizing this theoretical review, and for reviewers who consent, we will publish their names alongside the published article. We will continue to publish theoretical reviewer reports where authors choose to participate in our transparent theoretical review system. In cases where authors opt to publish theoretical reviewer comments and referees agree to disclose their identities, we will not link the referee’s name to their report unless they choose to sign their comments to the author with their names. For more information, please refer to our FAQ page.
If reviewers wish to have their names mentioned, they will be listed alphabetically at the end of the paper in a statement as follows: Nature thanks [name], [name], and [name] for their contributions to the theoretical review of this work.
Any reviewers who wish to remain anonymous will be acknowledged with a slightly modified statement as follows: Nature thanks [name], [name], and others, the anonymous reviewers, for their contributions to the theoretical review of this work.
If no reviewers agree to have their names mentioned, we will continue to acknowledge their valuable service using the following statement: Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contributions to the theoretical review of this work.
Selecting Referees
The selection of referees is critical in the review process, and our choices are based on several factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our past experience with the characteristics of referees. For example, we avoid using referees who are chronically slow, inaccurate, overly harsh, or excessively lenient.
We typically reach out to potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts for review. Reviewers should keep in mind that these communications contain confidential information that should be treated as such. Confidentiality
We request
Reviewers are expected to treat the peer review process as completely confidential, and not to discuss the manuscript with anyone other than those directly involved in the review. Consultation with lab colleagues is permitted, but please identify them to the editors. Consulting with experts outside of the reviewer’s lab may be acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors.
Timing
Nature is committed to making swift editorial and publication decisions, and we believe that an effective editorial process is a valuable service to both authors and the entire scientific community. Therefore, we ask reviewers to respond promptly (usually within two weeks of receiving the manuscript, although this may be longer or shorter based on prior agreement). If reviewers anticipate a longer delay, we ask them to inform us so that we can notify the authors and find alternative reviewers as necessary. Patience.
Blind Review
We do not disclose the identities of reviewers to authors or other reviewers, unless the reviewers explicitly request to be identified. Before revealing their identities, reviewers should consider the possibility that they may be asked to comment on criticisms from other reviewers; recognized reviewers may find it difficult to be objective in such circumstances. We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor’s knowledge. If reviewers wish to reveal their identities, this should be done through the editor. We condemn any attempt by authors to confront or identify reviewers. Our policy is that we neither confirm nor deny any speculation regarding the identities of reviewers, and we encourage reviewers to consider adopting a similar policy.
Edit of Reviewer Reports
As a matter of policy, we do not withhold reviewer reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are sent to them, regardless of what we may think of the content. In rare cases, we may edit a report to remove abusive language or comments that disclose confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid saying anything that may cause unnecessary offense; on the other side, authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair just because they are expressed in strong language.
Conflicts of Interest
Our regular policy is to avoid reviewers who have been excluded by the authors, for any reason. We also typically try to avoid reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, or who have commented on drafts of the manuscript, or who are directly competing to publish the same discovery, or who we know have a history of conflict with the authors, or who have a financial interest in the outcome. However, it is impossible for editors to know all potential biases, so we ask reviewers to draw our attention to anything that may affect their review and to decline the review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.
We recognize, however, that conflicts of interest are not always clearly defined, and that the circumstances mentioned above do not automatically jeopardize the integrity of the report. In fact, those most qualified to assess a paper are often those closest to the field, and a skeptical stance towards a particular claim does not mean that the reviewer cannot be influenced by new evidence. We try to take these factors into account when weighing reviewer reports.
Reviewers who have reviewed a paper for another journal
May
Reviewers who have reviewed a paper for another journal feel that it is unfair for the authors to have it reviewed again for Nature. We disagree; the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular individual as well-qualified to review a paper does not diminish the validity of his or her opinion.
Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/for-referees/policies-and-processes
Leave a Reply