I wasn’t getting enough experience at reviewing articles, so I took an unusual step — and learnt much more than I expected, says Theo van den Broek.
Getting published is a crucial career milestone for scientists, but many academic programmes do not provide formal training on how to do it. This collection offers top tips on how to write and publish better papers, as well as information about the publishing process and advice on peer review.
Nature speaks to old hands and first timers about the work they did to make their reviews sing.
Expressive language can make for better reading, but pruning it from peer reviews might create a kinder research culture, say Rebekah Baglini and Christine Parsons.
Should academic science reconsider the definition of success, asks Yvonne Couch.
Three scientific artists explain how to create impact with attractive visuals.
Jeff C. Clements reckons with a recent set of reviewer comments that used ‘being critical’ as a justification to be mean.
Anita Thapar’s research team faced a barrage of calls and e-mails, some of them hostile, following the publication of their paper on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Here’s what she learnt.
Six experts offer advice on producing a manuscript that will get published and pull in readers.
Papers should be published according to the merit of their scientific contribution, not the polish of their presentation, says Michael White.
Four scientists reveal their key lessons from the publication process.
The Pulitzer prizewinner shares his advice for pleasing readers, editors and yourself.
Excellent science is an essential ingredient of any great research paper, but concise writing and a clear structure are also crucial.
Scientists receive too little peer-review training. Here’s one method for effectively peer-reviewing papers, says Mathew Stiller-Reeve.
Jobs at journals and elsewhere offer candidates a chance to stay close to science outside the lab. Jobs include editorial, marketing and sales roles.
Non-native English speakers face challenges when trying to publish. But there are resources that can provide help.
Publishers, reviewers and other members of the scientific community must fight science’s preference for positive results — for the benefit of all, says Devang Mehta.
Susan D’Agostino explains how serving as a board member can pay big career dividends.
Graduate students and postdocs who produce reviews under a senior colleague’s name receive no credit or acknowledgement for their work, and miss a chance to become acquainted with journal editors.
Prolific authors and journal editors share how to get manuscripts noticed, approved and put in print.
Manuscript-editing services are growing. Can they turn a mediocre paper into a publishable one? And at what cost?
We shed some light on how the Nature Methods editorial team evaluates papers submitted to the journal.
A database assembles thousands of science journals’ editorial policies to boost transparency and accessibility.
Four researchers share the highs and lows of getting published for the first time, and what the experience taught them.
It’s important not to take reviewers' comments personally, even if you feel they have misunderstood the science, Adam Levy discovers.
Your paper has been accepted, reviewed and published. Now you need to get it talked about by journalists, the public, your peers and funders.
Adam Levy delves into the article of the future, examining the rise of lay summaries, the pros and cons of preprint servers, and how peer review is being crowd-sourced and opened up.