Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.
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.
Bioengineer Ram Sasisekharan describes the impact of a four-year investigation by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which ultimately cleared him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.