If you’ve ever wanted a sneaky peek at how journals select papers, the peer-review process at Nature Chemical Biology is decoded in the journal’s December issue (Nature Chem. Biol. 4, 715; 2008), and reported at Peer-to-Peer. The editors decide whether to send a submitted manuscript for external review if it falls within the scope of the journal (that is, contains both biological and chemical components), and if it reports conceptual or methodological advances likely to open new research avenues.
Papers selected for external peer review are sent to several scientists who cover the appropriate chemical and biological expertise, and they are asked to assess the technical merits and scientific advance of the paper. After review, the editors discuss the manuscript in the context of the referees’ reports and decide to accept, decline, or request a revised manuscript.
Most published manuscripts have undergone more than one round of review by the same referees to ensure that all technical concerns have been addressed. See the Peer-to-Peer post for more insight into editorial decision-making.
Nature 456, xiii; 4 December 2008.
-
From the blogosphere by Maxine Clarke
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Decoding peer-review -- 4 December 2008
- Date:
- Thursday, 04 Dec ember 2008 - 11:51 UTC
Last updated: Thursday, 04 Dec 2008 - 11:51 UTC
-
Comments
-
Author’s note: the phrase ‘sneaky peek’ was not in my original, pre-edited text.
I decided to discover how the peer review system of Nature works empirically. I thus submitted samples to the journal, and have found that every manuscript is rejected by the editor, in about a week.
I conclude that Nature does not publish any papers, and thus anything you read between its pages is a figment of your imagination (except for the correspondences).
Well, the Correspondence is the best bit.
Haha Bob, you got a whole week of hope. Mine was crushed within two days if I remember correctly ;)
Truth to be told though, I think it was fairly expected* since the paper dealt with some things one could find described under “Nature does not publish X, Y and Z studies, no matter how interesting”. But you never know…. right?
Maxine< it is always interesting to read about how it is done! And how many papers that get sent in and how people react to the news.
*of course I didn’t imply anything about my work and Nature ‘worthiness’. I just thought it funny at the time. Some day maybe it will happen… maybe… I have heard there is a section called Futures? Or maybe “looking for a job” :)
Unfortunately there are a lot of very good papers that have to be turned away for space reasons – this is true – and I think it is better to know that within days than after months of peer-review. Certainly if a journal can only publish 5-10 per cent of submissions, it would be impossibly impractical to peer-review them all as well as unfair on the authors.
I come from one of those “unfashionable” areas, Asa, you do not often see manuscripts on biophysics of muscle/motor proteins or physiology in Nature.
Incidentally, this particular editorial is in Nature Chemical Biology so I hope you don’t think that Nature would only consider mss in that discipline;-) We do publish chemical biology, biological chemistry, chemistry, physics, astronomy, zoology and all points inbetween in Nature!
Maxine> No, I saw the header and realised it was a chemical biology…
I know that there are niches for papers in Nature, which I agree on. After all, it is how it’s done; you have a target group of readers/research. I was actually simply happy to have the time to send it there at the time, to be able to say to myself “at least I tried” ;)
And I think the key word I was looking for when I wrote my other post was “clinical trials” or “vaccine development for a specific disease” which wouldn’t really be a fit in Nature…
True that Nature does not publish clinical trials – I think there are not even that many of them in Nature Medicine. Vaccine development – I suppose it depends how scientific compared with how clinical. The Nature journals do focus on basic research – but some of the Nature Clinical Practice journals are beginning to publish research as well as review material.
I agree that a [novel approach] on vaccine development for something pandemic, say influenza, HIV, malaria, TB et al. would probably be a fit in some aspects for NAture Medicine if nothing else.
Alas, nothing like that in my personal history :)
Thanks for pointing out the Clinical Practice Journals, haven’t looked at them for a while.
Well, good luck, Asa, I know how tough all this is – from both sides of the river (fence?) – as I have many friends, and even the odd loved one, in similar boats. Our immunology editor at Nature is excellent, Ulla Weiss, so maybe you will be in touch with her sometime as she can provide more detailed advice on your specific area that I can’t.
Thanks a lot for that tip Maxine!
Some Finnish colleagues had theirs crushed over their lunchtime. They’re rather proud of that one.
Bob, I can report to the fair readers of this post that a Finnish lunch is enough to crush all hope out of anybody. A Nature rejection after that would be a positive ray of sunshine.
A legend in his own lunchtime, indeed.
Mind you, I once got something to review from Nature/Science (can’t remember which) and it was a load of
craprubbish. However it was one of those Ripley believe it or not outcomes (neolithic nanotubes would be an approximate description of the claim/content). However, the claims were not backed up by sound analytical practice and the big R was recommended and carried out.It clearly goy past the first hurdle, perhaps the editors thought if the paper were strange but true it would get picked up in the real media?
Thanks, Brian – I am glad that Nature or Science has been demonstrated by this example, at least, not to be interested in publishing unsubstantiated claims if they are glamorous, as some would have it.
PS Brian – you are correct that Nature (and I assume Science but don’t know) is interested in the arresting and unusual, the ground-breaking. Although our editors are from the discipline that they handle at Nature (in most cases), so can often tell if a claim seems unlikely, I think it is fair to say that such claims have a greater chance of being sent to peer-review than a more incremental paper. However, such papers have a higher burden of proof. We published an editorial on just this question once. All such editorials are free access and are archived on our peer-review policy page.
In another, related point, it is also interesting that those who criticise Nature and other “leading” journals most heavily for publishing “glamorous and incorrect claims” (nobody here, but elsewhere there are plenty such) also criticise these journals for “stifling innovation by over-conservative peer review”. With some people, you cannot win!
@Maxine I have also had a paper sent to me for review in which the letter from the editor (Science or Nature)said (to paraphrase) I know they have published some of their earlier work elsewhere but I was particularly struck by the exciting images.
I just realized from Maxine’s note in the first comment that Nature editors get edited! How delightfully democratic.
It has been known, Heather!
Brian – in your scenario, it is possible that the Nature/Science editor might have been thinking of a “conversion” to a Brief Communication (alas no more on Nature) or a Brevia – i.e. a short note, rather than a full paper.