Frequently asked questions

How do editors select reviewers?

A number of factors determine our choice of reviewers. Of primary importance is the reviewer’s expertise, as it is essential that we receive expert feedback on all technical aspects of the work under consideration. We seek to expand our peer reviewer pool to ensure that the feedback we receive is as global and diverse as the communities we serve. Therefore we often look for new reviewers to bring important perspectives to the review panel while also seeking input from reviewers with previous experience of the journal’s editorial process; this is to ensure consistency in review across manuscripts. We take author suggestions for reviewers into consideration, but are under no obligation to use them, and we honour a reasonable number of exclusions when the motivation for them is clear.

We strive to provide our authors with fair and constructive reviews. If reviewers do not adhere to these expectations, we will not ask them to review again.

How can I become a peer reviewer?

We are always looking for new peer reviewers to ensure that we maintain diversity in our global reviewer pool. One critical element in making yourself visible to our editors is making sure that your work is easy to find online, so that we can understand your expertise and current interests. An updated laboratory webpage is important, as this provides a showcase for your work. Make sure that you have an ORCID and that you keep your profile up to date. Finally, let the editors know you are interested, either via email or when you meet them at a conference.

Should I agree to review a manuscript if I have co-authored an article with an author of this manuscript?

It depends, and you should talk to the editor. Typically, we do not have past collaborators review each other’s manuscripts, but if it has been a sufficiently long period of time (e.g. 3–5 years) since you worked together or if the co-authorship does not reflect a close association, we may make an exception. You should contact the editor to raise a potential competing interest, and they will advise on the best course of action.

Should I agree to review a manuscript if I am working on a similar project?

Please discuss with the editor before you agree to review if you are unsure whether you could provide an unbiased judgement of the work due to your direct involvement in the same research area.

Should I agree to review a manuscript if I used to be a member of a group involved with this study?

It depends on whether you retain a close relationship to the group, and how far you’ve come in establishing your independent career. While we avoid reviews by close associates, in some instances you may be sufficiently independent from your previous group. Please discuss this with the editor in advance of accepting the invitation.

Should I still review a manuscript if I’ve already reviewed it for another journal?

Having reviewed a manuscript for another journal does not constitute a problem, provided that you feel you can objectively assess the study with the standards of our journal in mind. Please discuss your prior experience with the manuscript with the editor if you have any questions or concerns, without disclosing confidential details such as the journal you reviewed for.

How can I become a better peer reviewer?

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. You can also build your skills by offering to provide informal feedback on your colleagues’ manuscripts.

How can I obtain credit for the reviews that I have submitted?

We offer all reviewers the option of downloading a certificate detailing their peer review experience with us. Reviewers can also add reviews to online profiles such as ORCID or Publons. Additionally, some of the Nature Portfolio journals ask reviewers if they would like their names associated with the published paper, in recognition of the peer reviewers’ contributions. See our Get recognition for your efforts page for details.

How do editors envision peer review changing in the future?

Peer review is an opportunity to improve the quality and validity of a study, therefore the constructive exchange between authors and reviewers, mediated by the editors, is a pillar of this process. Nevertheless, publishing is a dynamic process that changes as scientific research advances. We constantly revise our journal policies to fulfil the evolving needs of the research community and ask our authors to comply with these policies. For instance, as improved transparency of reporting and reproducibility of published results has become a need to facilitate and strengthen scientific research, we started asking our authors to provide raw data.

At Nature Communications, we adopted transparent peer review in 2016 and it is welcomed by many authors. Transparent peer review gives a unique and meaningful insight into the merits and limitations of the papers we published. It also shows the role the peer review process played in enhancing the soundness and impact of the studies. Collectively, the peer review files published alongside papers in a certain field of research offer truthful insight on the state-of-the-art.

Authors can decide to publish the peer review file on a voluntary basis. One year into this scheme, 60% of the researchers who published in Nature Communications decided to publish the reviewers’ reports and their rebuttal letters; this has grown to 70% in 2019. Along the years, more and more peer-reviewed journals across publishers are adopting transparent peer review schemes. Altogether, this indicates that many researchers and editors value open science and transparent peer review.

Do editors actively work to improve diversity (gender, geographic and race) in your reviewer pool?

Yes, we do. In our reviewer pool we have researchers from diverse backgrounds and we actively work to continue improving diversity and inclusion by inviting new reviewers from underrepresented groups as often as we can.

How do editors handle the list of suggested/excluded reviewers the authors send?

Authors can suggest or exclude reviewers. It’s an option; it is not a requirement during submission. The editors have to ensure a fair peer review process and we may or may not contact the suggested reviewers. If we do, we check these suggestions for potential conflicts of interest and biases and verify whether the suggested potential reviewers have the appropriate expertise to assess the manuscript. We don’t invite potential reviewers the authors have excluded. If the list of excluded reviewers is excessive (e.g., more than five excluded reviewers), we contact the authors and ask for a revised list of potential reviewers they want to exclude. In other words, we won’t invite potential reviewers that may not provide meaningful insight and fair comments.

Does Nature Communications give official credit (i.e. on Publons) to a trainee who is co-reviewing?

In recognition of the time and expertise our reviewers provide to the peer review process at Nature Communications, since November 2018, we acknowledge their contribution in our published papers. Our reviewers can choose to be acknowledged anonymously or be named. In Publons, reviewers can state that they reviewed for Nature Communications.

I did a peer review but I never found out the outcome; is that normal or something I should chase?

Different journals have different policies. At Nature Communications, we inform the reviewers of our decision and they will receive an email containing all reviewers’ reports. If you review for a journal that does not have this system in place and you would like to know the outcome, you can reach out to the editor.

If editors invite revisions of a manuscript, do the reviewers see the paper again after the author has addressed their comments?

If we invite the authors to revise their work, we will contact the same reviewers to assess the revised version of the manuscript and provide further comments. This can happen for multiple rounds of revision, in most cases 1 or 2 rounds. It is important to consider this point when accepting to review a manuscript.

I understand why the work needs to have enough novelty to present an advance in a specific field. But in the era of reproducibility crisis, isn't a certain amount of overlap with previous publications essential in proving a concept?

For a selective journal like Nature Communications, we would typically expect the paper to provide some novel insights to the specific field. This does not mean, however, that every angle covered by the paper is entirely novel, and a certain amount of overlap with what was already known about the topic might be absolutely fine. Reproducibility is indeed at the core of the scientific method and has inherent value on its own and we are interested in replication studies where the replication per se is a significant advance for the field. The advance of a particular paper is always a case by case assessment.

Do you weigh the comments made by reviewers based on their background and knowledge?

This depends on the situation. The major focus for editors assessing a review is to look at the rationale provided for the comments. However, sometimes (in particular for multidisciplinary studies) reviewers may comment on aspects of the paper outside their own core expertise. In such cases, editors may weigh the comments of the reviewer with expertise on that particular aspect.

What happens if a reviewer realises they have a knowledge gap for one key part of the paper (but are presumably experienced in other parts), for example an interdisciplinary paper?

In cases of interdisciplinary papers, it is quite common that a reviewer may not have expertise in all parts of the paper. The editors would seek to compile a panel of reviewers that covers all of the different angles of the paper, and communicating the knowledge gap to the editors is enough. The paper under peer review is shared with the reviewers confidentially, and the reviewer should not seek advice from other individuals without contacting the editors first, even if they might have a person in mind who would cover the missing expertise.

What kind of expertise and experience would be useful to gather beforehand as a student or postdoc if one is interested in applying for editorial positions?

Many of the skills necessary for an editorial position overlap with those you are learning when working towards your degree and training to be a researcher: efficiently reading and evaluating studies and familiarising yourself with specific research areas to name a few. It is important to maintain a curiosity towards research in your broader field, not in the centre of your immediate projects, and keep up with the major discoveries on a more general level. Working on communications skills will be useful for interactions with other editors, reviewers and in particular authors. If you are interested in seeking a career as an editor, you may also wish to familiarise yourself with scientific publishing in general, in addition to submitting papers as an authors and (hopefully) acting as a peer reviewer.

How detailed should a peer reviewer report be? Is longer and more detailed always better?

There are many good ways to write a report, and the degree of detail also depends on the paper being reviewed and the personal style of each reviewer. Due to this variability there is no easy rule of thumb for how detailed the report should be, but in general it is important to provide the rationale for the major criticisms especially in the first round of revision. However, a report does not have to be long and address each finding of the paper in minute detail to be a very helpful report.