The same company publishes both Nature and Nature Neuroscience. The journals share an editorial mission of providing high visibility for important scientific advances, as well as many specific policies, such as competing financial interest statements. Thus it is easy to understand why many authors find it difficult to believe that the journals' editorial processes are independent of one another. What do we mean by editorial independence? Most importantly, we mean that editors at one journal cannot access information about the papers under consideration at the other journal, unless the authors give permission for it to be shared.

The most common reason for authors to give such permission is that when Nature's editors reject a paper, in some cases they may suggest that the authors submit it to Nature Neuroscience. In most cases, these suggestions are based on the Nature editor's best judgment. When submitting such a paper to Nature Neuroscience, the authors must decide whether to continue the Nature review process, or to ask for a fresh start. Authors who want a fresh start are not required to tell us that the paper was submitted to Nature. In that case, we will not read the Nature reviews or know who wrote them (and it therefore remains possible that we will select some of the same referees by chance, in which case our policy is not to exclude them).

Authors who want to continue the Nature review process should provide a point-by-point response to the reviews with the submitted paper. Occasionally such papers are accepted without further review, or after informal consultation with one or more referees—for instance if the Nature referees had no technical concerns but felt the paper was not suitable for Nature's broad audience. Other papers are rejected without further review, particularly if the authors have failed to address technical concerns raised by the Nature referees or if we judge the paper insufficiently novel or interesting for Nature Neuroscience. Often the revised paper is sent back to one or more Nature referees. We may not send the paper back to all the Nature referees, and may also choose to add a new referee at this point. However, we cannot honor requests such as “please do not send the paper back to referee 3,” on the grounds that authors should not be permitted to selectively avoid negative viewpoints on their paper.

A key point is that authors may not change their minds later if the path they chose leads to rejection—either by providing Nature reviews that were not mentioned at the time of submission, or by asking for new referees if we decline the paper based on the Nature reviews or if the Nature referees do not recommend publication of the revised manuscript. Our ability to continue the Nature review process is intended as a service to authors, providing the opportunity to save time that might be lost by starting over at another journal. It is not intended as a guaranteed path to acceptance.