A numerical perspective on Nature.

Peer review is commonly accepted as an essential part of scientific publication, and yet there is no ‘correct‘ model for it. Nature's peer-review process has remained unchanged for decades. But the journal is open to alternative approaches and, to that end, has started a web debate and a peer-review trial.

The web debate brings together opinions from key people to explore current systems and viable alternatives. It addresses questions about the ethics, quality and value of peer review, as well as relating scientists' personal experiences (http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate).

The peer-review trial allows authors to post submissions on a preprint server for comment from anyone in the field (blogs.nature.com/nature/peerreview/trial). Editors will note all comments and invite authors to respond.

7,206 referees reviewed a manuscript for Nature last year.

9,571 reviews were done for Nature last year (including multiple rounds).

13 days is the average time it takes Nature referees to complete a review.

83% of submissions to Nature are rejected without peer review.

60% of referees that did reviews for Nature in 2005 work in the United States (and 51% of published authors live there).