Publishing articles within Nature Materials

Featured

  • Editorial |

    Peer review has long been established as the gold standard for scientific publishing, but changes in the publishing ecosystem should not influence author response to the views of their peers.

  • Editorial |

    A measure of the impact of scientific papers indicates that they are on average becoming less disruptive — this could reflect changes in the scientific community.

  • Why it Matters |

    Zhu-Jun Wang and Zhi Liu discuss how advanced characterization technologies have helped to understand ancient man-made materials and human history.

    • Zhu-Jun Wang
    •  & Zhi Liu

  • Editorial |

    Nature Materials is extending editorial policies regarding transparency of reported data in manuscripts from the physical and life sciences.

  • Editorial |

    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 |

    For authors who have published in this journal, success rates of getting manuscripts peer-reviewed and published do not correlate with submission history or academic seniority.

  • Editorial |

    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 |

    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 |

    The journal impact factor is a good predictor of the quality of journals as measured by citations to primary research articles. It is, however, a poor indicator of citations to specific papers or of the future performance of individual researchers.

  • Editorial |

    As the old 'publish or perish' adage is brought into question, additional research-impact indices, known as altmetrics, are offering new evaluation alternatives. But such metrics may need to adjust to the evolution of science publishing.

  • Editorial |

    Open-access journals are publishing at a pace that is not much faster than some recently launched subscription-based journals. The swiftest and surest route to full open-access publishing is then for funders, institutions and publishers to agree on the conditions for self-archiving in publicly accessible repositories.

  • Editorial |

    The papers we published in 2008 and 2009 received on average 29.9 citations each in 2010. However, nearly 30% of them were cited more than 30 times, contributing to roughly two-thirds of the impact factor.

  • Editorial |

    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 |

    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 |

    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.

Browse broader subjects

Browse narrower subjects

Browse Publishing across other nature.com journals