Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.


Reformatting wastes public funds

Limited public funds for scientific research are being spent on reformatting manuscripts for different journals, without any apparent gain for science or society (see Q. Guo Nature 540, 525; 2016 and J. P. Moore Nature 542, 31; 2017). As a peer reviewer, I am interested in a manuscript's content — not its format. The increasing popularity of preprint servers indicates that format does not bother readers either.

In 2013, for instance, Nature published less than 8% (856 of 10,952) of the research papers submitted (see If it takes authors, say, an hour or more to reformat each rejected article for submission to another journal, this will amount to some 10,000 scientist-hours over just one year.

For many papers that are rejected without review, there will be no need to change the scientific content before resubmission, and so paid time spent on reformatting them is not even scientifically justified.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Budd.

Related links

Related links

Related links in Nature Research

Publishing: Journals, agree on manuscript format

Publishing: Journals, do your own formatting

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budd, J. Reformatting wastes public funds. Nature 543, 40 (2017).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing