Correspondence |
Featured
-
-
Editorial |
Ticking all the boxes
Nature Materials is extending editorial policies regarding transparency of reported data in manuscripts from the physical and life sciences.
-
Editorial |
A checklist for photovoltaic research
To aid the reproducibility of published results for photovoltaic devices, from now on we will ask authors of relevant manuscripts to complete a checklist of key technical information that must be reported.
-
Editorial |
Introducing editorial changes
This year we will offer the option of double-blind peer review and introduce a reproducibility checklist for life sciences articles that helps authors adhere to data-reporting standards.
-
Editorial |
Not so transparent
As with the ongoing debate on the degree of wetting transparency of supported graphene, transparency in both pre- and post-publication peer review is a contentious concept.
-
Editorial |
Measuring impact
Citation analyses can condense scholarly output into numbers, but they do not live up to peer review in the evaluation of scientists. Online usage statistics and commenting could soon enable a more refined assessment of scientific impact.
-
Interview |
The best we have
Pavel Exner, the newly elected Vice President of the European Research Council and Scientific Director of the Doppler Institute for Mathematical Physics and Applied Mathematics in Prague, talked to Nature Materials about his role in the European funding institution, the value of peer review in identifying the best scientists, the rise of science metrics and the challenges of running an efficient evaluation system.
- Christian Martin
-
-
Editorial |
Transparency in peer review
Would the publication of anonymous referee reports and editorial decision letters of published papers benefit the scientific debate? Results from a trial seem to suggest this.
