Content Types
On this page: How we work | Review | Perspective | Technical Review | Comment
How we work
Our team of in-house editors, art editors, production editors and proofreaders work together with authors to produce authoritative, accessible, high-quality articles; see a visual summary of the editorial process.
While the majority of content (see below for content types) in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment will be commissioned by our editors, we do welcome proposals. Please submit these using our online submission system. Advice on how to pitch can be found on this blog post.
Review
A Review is an authoritative, balanced survey of recent developments in a research field. Although Reviews should be recognized as scholarly by specialists in the field, they should be written to be accessible to non-specialist readers. Reviews should therefore be presented using simple prose, avoiding excessive jargon and technical detail. The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single research institution and particularly not by the authors' own work.
Reviews are approximately 6,000 words long and typically include 5–7 display items (figures, tables and/or boxes). As a guideline, Reviews contain up to 150 references; citations should be selective. Footnotes are not used. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Reviews.
Perspective
A Perspective is an opinionated review of a topic, offering a slightly different perspective, as the name suggests. They may be more forward-looking and/or speculative than Reviews and typically have a narrower scope. Despite being opinionated, they should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new approaches.
Perspectives are typically shorter than Reviews, at approximately 5,000 words long and including 4–6 display items (figures, tables and/or boxes). Further information is available in our guidelines for Perspectives.
Technical Review
A Technical Review surveys state-of-the-art capabilities in a particular area. They provide accessible summaries of techniques, devices and/or materials; comparisons of different methods with an overview of their applicability; comparisons of scientific software codes for specific applications; and guidelines for data analysis of specific datasets.
Technical Reviews are approximately 5,000 words long and can include 5–7 display items and up to 120 references. See our guidelines for writing Technical Reviews for further information.
Comment
Comment articles can focus on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues in the Earth and environmental sciences. Single-author articles are preferred as this is an 'opinion' section of the journal. Comment articles should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. A single display item can be included, but is not a requirement. Comments are typically no longer than 1,300 words and, as a guideline, may have up to 5 references; article titles are omitted from the reference list. Comments may be peer-reviewed at the editor’s discretion. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Comments.
