Chances of publication in Nature?
Sangeetha Surianarayanan
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:12 UTC
What are the chances of publication in Nature paper or in any other high impact journal when one solidly disproves the earlier findings in a Nature paper for example?
I would also wish to know how the chances could be augmented. What criterias should one consider for this?
I love to have suggestions & comments from experts in this field.
Thanks in advance!
-
Replies
-
Dear Sangeetha
If you’ve “solidly disproved” an earlier Nature paper, we would first send your paper to the author of the earlier paper for a signed comment, and then send the exchange to independent peer-reviewers (perhaps, but not necessarily, including some or all of the peer-reviewers of the original paper).The editors would then judge how to proceed in the light of the responses. Sometimes the process leads to a published correction of the earlier paper, sometimes to a “Brief Communications Arising” exchange (for example, if the “disproof” is not as “solid” as you thought – which usually turns out to be the case), and sometimes to a publication of the “disproof” paper, if the disproof is of the main message of the earlier paper and is judged to be persuasive. In this last event, it is likely that a correction or even retraction of the first paper would be published in the same issue of the journal.
This is the Nature journals’ policy, I can’t speak for journals published by other organizations.
Best wishes
Maxine. -
By the way, I forgot to answer your second question. If the paper took the field further, by containing a novel conclusion, as well as disputing earlier findings, it would be more likely to be considered as a paper (rather than as a technical exchange with the previous authors, or as the orginal authors being asked for a formal correction).
-
Dear Maxine,
I have recently attempted to publish a manuscript in Nature and Nature Materials. Unfortunately, I was not successful. I am a material scientist and have found a means of processing an alternative type of a particular semiconductor.
(I processed the material at high temperatures (without doping – the first novelty) and provided evidence that the structure was retained at room temperature (the second novelty). This material has been particularly sought in photocatalytic applications adn gas sensors.)
Based on the letter I got back from the editors I assume that the reason I was not successful was because I did not convey the broad interest of the material to the scientific community.
In your expert opinion would I need to (i) experimentally verify the potential of this material in a given semiconductor application, and (ii) include this data in the manuscript, in order to be more successfull in Nature? I have looked through Nature archives but was not able to determine what spin I could use to “sell” a new material to Nature.
As a young career researcher I will really appreciate any ideas and opinions you have.
Best wishes
Maria -
Dear Maria
If a Nature journal declines a manuscript it could be for one of several reasons: broad interest, as you state, is one; novelty is another; another is whether the data and analysis convincingly support a claim. Without wishing here to comment on a specific manuscript, I suggest your best course would be to ask your colleagues and other scientists in your discipline whose work and views you respect, for some feedback and advice as to the significance of your work and how to convey that, or how to increase the robustness of your claim via further experiments or data analysis. You could also look at other papers in your discipline that your journal of choice does publish, and see how those compare with your own.
With best wishes
Maxine.
-
