- General information
- Initial submission
- Peer review
- Decision after review and revision
- Final submission and acceptance
Communications Medicine is a selective open access journal from Nature Portfolio publishing high-quality research, reviews and commentary across all clinical, translational, and public health reserch fields. Research papers published by the journal represent significant advances in preventing, diagnosing, or treating human disease of relevance to a specialized field.
Editorial decisions at Communications Medicine may be made either by in-house editors or Editorial Board Members. Authors may request that a specific editor be considered for handling the review process of their paper. However, the assignment of manuscripts to editors is at the discretion of the chief editor. All manuscripts received with reviewer comments from another Nature Portfolio journal via the manuscript transfer service will be handled only by our in-house editors.
Manuscripts should be submitted via the online submission system. The corresponding author should indicate whether the work described in the manuscript has been discussed with a specific Communications Medicine editor before submission. Copies of any papers containing related work that are under consideration or in-press at other journals should be included with the submission as additional supplementary information.
Manuscripts submitted to Communications Medicine do not need to adhere to our formatting requirements at the point of initial submission; formatting requirements only apply at the time of acceptance.
Each new submission is assigned to a primary editor, who may be either one of our in-house editors or an Editorial Board Member. The primary editor reads the paper, consults with other members of the editorial team, and then evaluates the novelty and potential impact of the work, the appropriateness for the journal's editorial scope, the conceptual or methodological advances described in the paper, and its potential interest to the readership of Communications Medicine. Manuscripts that meet these editorial criteria are sent out to external referees for further assessment.
The novelty of a submitted paper is considered to be compromised if it has significant conceptual overlap with a published paper or one accepted for publication by Communications Medicine. Preprint archives do not compromise novelty.
If a paper was previously reviewed at another Nature Portfolio journal, the authors can use an automated manuscript transfer service to transfer the referees' reports to Communications Medicine via a link sent by the editor who handled the manuscript. Manuscripts received by Communications Medicine via the transfer service that have associated referee comments from the transferring journal are only handled by our in-house editors. The editors at Communications Medicine will take the previous reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases the editors may choose to take advice from additional referees. Alternatively, authors may choose to request a fresh review, in which case they should not use the automated transfer link, and the editors will evaluate the paper without reference to the previous review process. However, this decision must be made at the time of initial submission and cannot be changed later.
If the authors ask the editors to consider the previous reviews, they should include a note explaining the relationship between the submitted manuscript and the previous submission and (assuming it has been revised in light of the referees' criticisms) give a point-by-point response to the referees. In cases where the work was felt to be of high quality, papers can sometimes be accepted without further review, but if there were serious criticisms, the editors will consider them in making the decision. In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to Communications Medicine. More details are available on the manuscript transfer service.
If your paper has been previously submitted to another Nature Portfolio journal, you can use our automated manuscript transfer service to submit the paper to Communications Medicine. Alternatively, you may choose to submit afresh, in which case you should not use the automated transfer link, and your paper will be evaluated without reference to the previous decision process.
Communications Medicine is editorially independent, and our in-house editors and Editorial Board Members make decisions independently from other Nature Portfolio journals. It is for authors alone to decide where to submit their manuscripts. For papers that satisfy the scope of more than one Nature Portfolio journal, the choice of which journal to submit to first lies with the authors.
The corresponding author is notified by e-mail when the editor decides to send a paper for review. At the submission stage authors may indicate a limited number of scientists who should not review the paper. Excluded scientists must be identified by name. Authors may also suggest referees; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. By policy, referees are not identified to the authors, except when they sign their reports to the authors. We support our reviewers signing their reports to authors if reviewers feel comfortable doing so. Referee reports, whether signed or not, are subsequently shared with the other reviewers.
Communications Medicine allows authors to select either single-blind or double-blind peer review at submission. The default is single-blind, in which the peer reviewers have access to author names and affiliations, while authors are not aware of the reviewers’ identities. Authors may opt-in to double-blind peer review, in which peer reviewers will not be aware of the authors’ identities.
If you wish to participate in double-blind peer review, please prepare your manuscript in a way that conceals the identities of all the authors and tick the appropriate box during online submission. We recommend that authors refer to our double-blind peer review guidelines when preparing a double-blind peer review manuscript. Please note that editors do not ensure that the paper is properly anonymised; that is the responsibility of the authors.
Transparent peer review
Communications Medicine uses a transparent peer review system, where we are publishing the reviewer comments to the authors and author rebuttal letters of revised versions of our published research articles. Authors are provided the opportunity to opt out of transparent peer review at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted. If the manuscript was transferred to us from another Nature Portfolio journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or author rebuttals of versions of the manuscript under consideration at the originating Nature Portfolio journal. The peer review file is published online as a supplementary peer review file. Although we hope that the peer review files will provide a detailed and useful view into our peer review process, it is important to note that these files will not contain all the information considered in the editorial decision making process, such as the discussions between editors, editorial decision letters, or any confidential comments made by reviewers or authors to the editors.
We are committed to maintaining the anonymity of our peer reviewers. Reviewer names will only be published in the peer reviewer files if the reviewer comments to the authors are signed by the reviewer, or if reviewers explicitly agree to release their name.
In some cases, the editors may redact information from the reviewer reports if they are deemed to contain confidential data. Authors may request redactions on the basis of protecting specific confidential information. Please note that we cannot incorporate redactions for other reasons.
Peer Review Terminology
Communications Medicine and Springer Nature are participating in a pilot of NISO/STM's Working Group on Peer Review Terminology.
The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and STM, the International Association of Scientific, Technology and Medical Publishers have recognized a need to identify and standardize definitions and terminology in peer review practices in order to help align nomenclature as more publishers use open peer review models.
A peer review terminology that is used across publishers will help make the peer review process for articles and journals more transparent, and will enable the community to better assess and compare peer review practices between different journals.
The following summary describes the peer review process for this journal:
- Reviewer interacts with:
- Identity transparency:
Single anonymized or Double anonymized by author choice
- Reviewer information published:
Review reports author opt in
Reviewer identities reviewer opt in
The full terminology is detailed here.
We would welcome feedback on the Peer Review Terminology Pilot. Please can you take the time to complete this short survey.
Decision after review and revision
In cases where the referees have requested well-defined changes to the manuscript that do not appear to require extensive further experiments, editors may request a revised manuscript that addresses the referees' concerns. The revised version is normally sent back to some or all of the original referees for re-review. The decision letter will specify a deadline (typically two months), and revisions that are returned within this period will retain their original submission date.
In cases where the referees' concerns are more wide-ranging, editors will normally reject the manuscript. If the editors feel the work is of potential interest to the journal, however, they may express interest in seeing a future resubmission. The resubmitted manuscript may be sent back to the original referees or to new referees, at the editors' discretion.
In either case, the revised manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter explaining how the manuscript has been changed, and a separate point-by-point response to referees' comments. Ideally no more than two resubmissions will be considered for each manuscript, following which we will try to reach a final decision on publication.
An invited revision should be submitted via the revision link to the online submission system provided in the decision letter, not as a new manuscript.
Final submission and acceptance
A request for final submission is sent when the paper is nearly ready to publish, possibly requiring some changes to the text, but no revisions to the data or conclusions. These letters are accompanied by detailed comments on the paper's format indicating editorial concerns that must be addressed in the revision. The final submission must comply with our format requirements.
After acceptance, our typesetters may make changes to the manuscript so that the paper conforms to our style. Communications Medicine uses Oxford English spelling.
For the final revision, authors should use the revision link to the online submission system provided in the decision letter to upload a final version of the text with all the requested format changes and electronic files of the final figures at high resolution.
When all remaining editorial issues are resolved, the paper is formally accepted. The received date is the date on which the editors received the original manuscript. The accepted date is when the editor sends the acceptance letter.
Corresponding authors are sent proofs and are welcome to discuss proposed changes with the editors, but Communications Medicine reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures.
In cases where editors did not invite resubmission, authors are strongly advised to submit their paper for publication elsewhere, although it is possible for authors to ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload.
Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake, not merely a borderline call that could have gone either way. Further consideration may be merited if a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome.
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a formal letter of appeal to the journal by contacting email@example.com. Include the manuscript tracking number in the email subject line and appeal letter.
If an appeal merits further consideration, the editors may send the authors' response or the revised paper to one or more referees, or they may ask one referee to comment on the concerns raised by another referee. On occasion, particularly if the editors feel that additional technical expertise is needed to make a decision, they may obtain advice from an additional referee.