Content types
The entire guide for authors and referees is available in PDF format.
PRIMARY RESEARCH FORMATS
An Article
is a substantial novel research study, with a complex story often involving several techniques or approaches. The main text (excluding abstract, Methods, references and figure legends) is typically no more than 4,000-4,500 words; the Methods section is typically no more than 500-1,000 words. The abstract is typically 140 words (10 lines in print), unreferenced. Articles have up to 10 display items (figures and/or tables). An introduction (without heading) is followed by sections headed Results, Discussion and Methods. The Results and Methods should be divided by topical subheadings; the Discussion does not contain subheadings. If statistical testing was used to analyze the data, the Methods section must contain a subsection on statistical analysis. References are limited to 60.
Articles include received/accepted dates. They may be accompanied by supplementary information. Articles are peer reviewed, and authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
A Technical Report
presents primary research data on a new technique that is likely to be influential. This format is not a review of technology, but its primary report in the literature. It may involve a new biological discovery to prove the usefulness of the technique, but this is not a requirement. Technical Reports have a format broadly similar to that of Articles, though many Technical Reports are shorter than a typical Article. They begin with an unreferenced abstract (typically 140 words) followed by separate sections for introduction, Results, Discussion (with optional subheadings) and Methods. If statistical testing was used to analyze the data, the Methods section must contain a subsection on statistical analysis. Up to 10 display items are allowed. References are limited to 60.
Technical Reports include received/accepted dates. They may be accompanied by supplementary information. Technical Reports are peer reviewed, and authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
A Brief Communication
reports a concise study of high quality and broad interest. This format may not exceed 3 printed pages. Brief Communications begin with a brief unreferenced abstract (3 sentences, no more than 70 words), which will appear on Medline. The main text is typically 1,000-1,500 words, including abstract, references and figure legends, and contains no headings. Brief Communications normally have no more than 2 display items, although this may be flexible at the discretion of the editor, provided the page limit is observed. References are limited to 20. Article titles are omitted from the reference list.
Brief Communications include received/accepted dates. They may be accompanied by supplementary information. Brief Communications are peer reviewed, and authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
A Resource
presents a large data set (such as a comprehensive list of proteins in an organelle or tissue, a genome-wide antibody library, coordinated analysis of cells or reagents by several different laboratories) of broad utility, interest and significance to the community. The main text (excluding abstract, Methods, references and figure legends) is approximately 3,000 words. The abstract is typically 100-150 words, unreferenced. Resources have no more than 6 display items (figures and/or tables). An introduction (without heading) is followed by sections headed Results, Discussion and Methods. The Results and Methods should be divided by topical subheadings; the Discussion does not contain subheadings. If statistical testing was used to analyze the data, the Methods section must contain a subsection on statistical analysis. References are limited to 50.
Resources include received/accepted dates. They may be accompanied by supplementary information. Resources are peer reviewed, and authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
An Analysis
is a new analysis of existing data (typically large genomic, transcriptomic or proteomic data sets from arrays or other high-throughput platforms) or describe new data obtained in a comparative analysis of technologies that lead to novel and arresting conclusions of importance to a broad audience. The main text (excluding abstract, Methods, references and figure legends) is approximately 3,000. The abstract is typically 100-150 words, unreferenced. Analyses have no more than 6 display items (figures and/or tables). An introduction (without heading) is followed by sections headed Results, Discussion and Methods. The Results and Methods should be divided by topical subheadings; the Discussion does not contain subheadings. If statistical testing was used to analyze the data, the Methods section must contain a subsection on statistical analysis. References are limited to 50.
Analyses include received/accepted dates. They may be accompanied by supplementary information. Resources are peer reviewed, and authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
Top of pageOTHER FORMATS
A Correspondence
(formerly Comments) is a flexible format that may include anything of interest to the journal's readers, from policy debates to announcements to 'matters arising' from research papers. A Correspondence may describe primary research data, but only in summary form; this format is not intended for full presentation of data. Correspondence should never be more than one printed page, and usually much less. The number of references should not exceed 10 for either the Correspondence or its Reply, and article titles are omitted from the reference list. Titles for correspondence are supplied by the editors.
Authors must submit a competing financial interests statement, which is printed only if they declare that they have competing interests. In cases where a correspondence is critical of a previous research paper, the authors are normally given the option of publishing a brief reply. Criticism of opinions or other secondary matter does not involve an automatic right of reply.
Refutations are always peer reviewed. Other types of Correspondence may be peer reviewed at the editors' discretion.
News and Views
are by prior arrangement only. They may be linked to articles in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, or they may focus on papers of exceptional significance that are published elsewhere. Unsolicited contributions will not normally be considered, although prospective authors are welcome to make proposals. News and Views are not peer reviewed. Authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
Book Reviews
are by prior arrangement only, although suggestions are welcome. Book reviews are not peer reviewed.
Authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication.
A Review
is an authoritative, balanced and scholarly survey of recent developments in a research field. The requirement for balance need not prevent authors from proposing a specific viewpoint, but if there are controversies in the field, the authors must treat them in an even-handed way. Reviews are normally 3,000-4,000 words, and illustrations are strongly encouraged. References are limited to 100, with exceptions possible in special cases. Citations should be selective and, in the case of particularly important studies (≤ 10% of all the references), we encourage authors to provide short annotations explaining why these are key contributions. The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single laboratory, and particularly not by the authors' own work.
Review authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication. Received/accepted dates are not included. Reviews are always peer reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance.
Commentary
is a very flexible format; Commentaries may be on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues. The main criteria are that they should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. Their length is typically 1-4 pages, although some may be longer. Because the content is variable, the format is also flexible. Commentaries do not normally contain primary research data, although they may present 'sociological' data (funding trends, demographics, bibliographic data, etc.). References are limited to 25, and article titles are omitted from the reference list.
The related format Historical Commentary is a journalistic treatment of the history of a particular discovery or technical development. These pieces may be a personal account by one of the participants or may present strong personal opinions. This format does not necessarily seek scholarly balance, and it should be journalistic and accessible rather than scholarly in style.
Commentary authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication. Commentaries may be peer reviewed at the editors' discretion.
Perspective
is a new format for scholarly reviews and discussions of the primary research literature that are too technical for a Commentary but do not meet the criteria for a Review—either because the scope is too narrow, or because the author is advocating a controversial position or a speculative hypothesis or discussing work primarily from one group. Two reviews advocating opposite sides in a research controversy are normally published as Perspectives. The text should not normally exceed 3000 words. References are limited to 70.
The related format Historical Perspective is a more technical account of a particular scientific development. Like other Perspectives, and in contrast to Historical Commentary, Historical Perspectives are scholarly reviews, including citation of key references, aiming to present a balanced account of the historical events, not merely personal opinions or reminiscences.
Perspective authors must provide a competing financial interests statement before publication. Received/accepted dates are not included. Perspectives are always peer reviewed.
