Early Career Researchers pathways


Reviewer training

If you are interested in building your skills as a peer reviewer, please consult our free online course Focus on Peer Review from Nature Masterclasses for detailed insight into the peer review process.

 

Co-review with Early Career Researchers

Nature Communications encourages invited reviewers to involve an early career researcher (ECR) in the peer review process. The co-reviewers compile a joint review that is submitted by the invited reviewer. An account is created for the ECR to ensure that they receive appropriate credit for their contribution. For more information, please refer to our editorial and details below. 
 

Definitions used herein

Early Career Researcher (ECR): researchers at the doctoral or postdoctoral stage or in transition to an independent research position.

Established referee: the referee invited by the editor to review a manuscript.

Co-reviewers: established referee and ECR who review a manuscript together and compile one joint report.
 

How to participate in co-review 

We encourage invited referees to involve an ECR as co-reviewer in the review process. 

  1. The established referee suggests an ECR to the editor and provides their name and contact information.

  2. The editor invites the suggested ECR as co-reviewer.

  3. The co-reviewers compile one joint report.
     

How to submit a co-review

The established referee and ECR will have separate accounts in our online system:

  • The established referee submits the joint review.

  • The ECR only pastes the following statement without any modification in the ‘Comments to the Authors’ section: 

“I co-reviewed this manuscript with one of the reviewers who provided the listed reports. This is part of the Nature Communications initiative to facilitate training in peer review and to provide appropriate recognition for Early Career Researchers who co-review manuscripts.”
 

Acknowledgment of co-reviewers

Nature Communications’ reviewers can choose to be named in published articles. We ask that the co-reviewers decide together whether they wish to be named in published articles. There are three options for co-reviewers:

  • both, established referee and ECR, choose not to be acknowledged by name

  • both, established referee and ECR, choose to be acknowledged by name

  • only the established referee chooses to be acknowledged by name, while the ECR chooses not to.

We are not in favor of acknowledging the ECR by name only, as this may compromise the anonymity of the established referee. The ECR should only sign their statement if the established referee signs the review.

In any case, the review activity of both co-reviewers can be acknowledged by ORCID or other means if desired.
 

Further information for co-reviewers

  • Co-reviewers are not required to come from the same lab or institution.

  • It is not necessary for the ECR to have previous experience in the peer review process.

  • We suggest that an established referee doesn’t co-review with more than one ECR.

  • If the co-review is written from a first person point of view, it is possible to use  "I" or "we". Please note that use of "we" identifies a co-review.  

  • It is possible for two ECRs to co-review together, if at least one of them has previous review experience.
     

Future engagement with ECRs

  • We hope that the established referee and the ECR can co-review any manuscript revisions.

  • After co-reviewing, we encourage the ECR to fill out a survey in which they can indicate their preference for training opportunities and further collaboration with Nature Communications as reviewer.