Replies

• Natalie DeWitt

  16 October 2007 | 17:49

  Every year the editors evaluate the papers that we published the previous year, as part of an evaluation process that we, the editors, undergo by our managers. We are given a list of all the papers we publish and the number of times they have been cited so far. It is only a very rough guide to how well the paper is received, as citations also depend on the scientific field (ie cancer papers will be more highly cited than Drosophila papers because there are simply more cancer researchers and publications) and also the “older” papers will receive more citations than newer ones. But still, it gives us a rough idea, and we can at the same time we can recall whether the reviewers were on board with the decision. In the field of papers that I handle (stem cells), it is not unusual for there to be a lack of consensus among the reviewers. I would say based on my experience that usually we can predict what papers will be highly cited, but there are surprises!

  On Nature Reports Stem Cells, you can find edited versions of reviewer comments for selected papers, which we hope will lead to better understanding of the peer review process. http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0706/070607/full/stemcells.2007.30.html

• Natalie DeWitt

  16 October 2007 | 18:18

  Here is the link to an Inside the Paper feature on Nature Reports Stem Cells:
  http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0706/070607/full/stemcells.2007.30.html

• Corie Lok

  17 October 2007 | 13:16

  Sorry, here’s the link Natalie was trying to post.

• Laurie Dempsey

  17 October 2007 | 23:29

  Natalie is correct in that many times upon initial expert review that we receive mixed reviews from the referees. One referee might love the paper whereas another might hate it. We, the editors, then try to priorize the concerns that are raised by the referees. So there’s some editorial prerogative in making a decision to allow the authors to revise based on mixed reports. Typically, if the authors were asked to revise, we try to go back to the same referees to review the revised manuscript to determine whether it is technically acceptable. Usually at this stage, manuscripts that are published have passed muster by all the referees.

  More pertinent to your question, however, is that one also has to recognize ‘trends’ in certain communities that might also lead to higher citations. At Nature Immunology, I’ve seen at least three ‘hot topics’ that have led to higher citation records. These include Toll-like receptors (TLR), regulatory T cells (Tregs) and of late interleukin 17-producing cells (Th-17 cells). One comment that we often hear from the immunology community is that our journal publishes ‘trendy papers’. (I plead ‘no contest’!) Yet, this should not discourage submission of other types of manuscripts as we look for papers that address questions of ‘broad interest to our community’, contain novel findings and provide a substantial step in new insight beyond previous work.

  Sometimes papers are highly cited for the ‘wrong’ reason, ie if the work does not hold up to the test of time. Authors cite the earlier work, pointly out that it was (in retrospect) blantantly wrong, and then go on to describe why the findings in their manuscript have it ‘right’.

  Other papers might be highly cited for a ‘technique’. Think about how many times the work of E.M. Southern has been cited for DNA hybridization!

  Perhaps a better measure for the ‘success’ of a published work is still the ‘test of time’, especially when newer techniques and approaches validate the conclusions drawn by the authors of the earlier work. Here the peer-review process does contribute to the robustness of the paper as referees often ask authors to provide additional experiments to rule out alternative explanations of the data. I should add peer-review really does greatly improve manuscript quality.

• Maxine Clarke

  18 October 2007 | 08:57

  Thanks, Laurie and Natalie, for those informative answers.