To submit one of the following content types, please read the formatting details below, then follow the submission guidelines:
- Brief Communication
- Matters Arising – see specialist submission process here.
For more information on these content types, please contact Nature Geoscience:
- News and Views*
- Book Review*
*These content types should not include original (previously unpublished) research findings and may only contain minimal new supporting data. As they are non-primary articles they are not eligible for Open Access and can only be published using the subscription-based publishing route.
An Article is a substantial novel research study of high quality and general interest to the geoscience community.
- Main text – usually no longer than 2,200 words, but can be up to 3,000 words at the editor’s discretion (excluding abstract, Methods, references and figure legends).
- Abstract – up to 200 words, unreferenced. The abstract contains a brief account of the background and rationale of the work, followed by a statement of the main conclusions introduced by the phrase "Here we show" or some equivalent.
- Title – up to 90 characters (including spaces).
- Display items – 4-6 items (figures and/or tables).
- Article should be divided as follows:
- Introduction (without heading)
- Online Methods.
- Results and Discussion material should be divided by 3-4 topical subheadings that are brief, but informative; the online Methods should also be divided by topical subheadings.
- References – as a guideline, we typically recommend up to 50.
- Articles include received/accepted dates.
- Articles may be accompanied by supplementary information.
- Articles are peer reviewed.
A Brief Communication reports a concise study of high quality and broad interest to the geoscience community.
- Brief unreferenced abstract – 3 sentences, up to 70 words.
- Title – up to 10 words (or 90 characters).
- Main text – 1,000-1,500 words, including abstract, references and figure legends; contains no headings.
- Display items – up to 2 items (figures/tables), although this may be flexible at the discretion of the editor, provided the page limit is observed.
- Online Methods section should be included.
- References – as a guideline, we typically recommend up to 20. Article titles are omitted from the reference list.
- Brief Communications include received/accepted dates.
- Brief Communications may be accompanied by supplementary information.
- Brief Communications are peer reviewed.
The Correspondence section provides a forum for comment on issues relevant to the journal’s community. This format may not be used for presentation of research data or analysis.
- Correspondence – between 300-800 words.
- Display items – 1 item.
- References – up to 10 references. Article titles are omitted from the reference list.
- Correspondence may be peer-reviewed at the editors’ discretion.
Note that Correspondence pieces are not technical comments on peer-reviewed research papers; these should be submitted as Matters Arising.
A Review is an authoritative, balanced and scholarly survey of recent developments in a research field. It should be written with a view to informing non-specialist readers and should be presented using simple prose. The requirement for balance need not prevent authors from proposing a specific viewpoint, but if there are controversies in the field, the authors must treat them in an even-handed way.
The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single laboratory, and particularly not by the authors' own work.
- Main text – 3,000-4,000 words.
- Typically include 4-6 display items (figures, tables, boxes). Illustrations are strongly encouraged.
- References – up to 100 (exceptions are possible in special cases).
- Citations – these should be selective. Footnotes are not used.
- Reviews include received/accepted dates.
Reviews are peer reviewed.
A Perspective is a format for scholarly reviews and discussions of the primary research literature that are too technical for a Comment (see below) but do not meet the criteria for a Review—either because the scope is too narrow, or because the author is advocating a controversial position or a speculative hypothesis or discussing work primarily from one group. Two reviews advocating opposite sides in a research controversy are normally published as Perspectives.
- Length – up to 3,000 words.
- Display items – up to 4 (figures, tables, boxes).
- References – up to 50.
- Perspectives include received/accepted dates.
- Perspectives are peer reviewed.
A Comment is a flexible format, focusing on the scientific, commercial, ethical, legal, societal or political issues surrounding research. Comment articles should be topical, readable, provocative and introduce new concepts/points of view, providing a personal perspective on a matter of public or scientific importance. The main criteria are that they should be of immediate interest to a broad geoscience readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style.
- Length – varies, but typically no longer than 1,500 words.
- Display items are not required, but 1-2 items are encouraged.
- Comments do not normally contain primary research data, although they may present 'sociological' data (funding trends, demographics, bibliographic data, etc.).
- References should be used sparingly, usually between 10-25. Article titles are omitted from the reference list.
- Peer review is at the editors' discretion.
Matters Arising are exceptionally interesting and timely scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers published in Nature Geoscience. These comments should ideally be based on contemporary knowledge rather than subsequent scientific developments.
For detailed information on how to submit a Matters Arising, please follow instructions here.
News & Views
News & Views articles inform readers about the latest advances in geoscience, as reported in recently published papers or at scientific meetings. They may be linked to articles in
News & Views are not peer reviewed.
Book Reviews are by prior arrangement only, although suggestions are welcome. Book reviews are not peer reviewed.