Correspondence | Published:


Reformatting wastes public funds

Nature volume 543, page 40 (02 March 2017) | Download Citation

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


  1. Institute of Experimental Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.

    • Julian Budd


  1. Search for Julian Budd in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Budd.

About this article

Publication history



Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

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