Writing your report
Thank you for agreeing to review for Nature Protocols. Your report is vital in helping our editors decide if the manuscript meets the journal’s criteria for publication. Your feedback will be very valuable, and we thank you in advance for your time.
If you are interested, please see our overview of the editorial process.
Criteria for publication
We ask all reviewers (for both informal review of presubmission enquiries and formal peer review of full-version manuscripts) to consider the following questions when writing their report:
- Is this the best method, or likely to be one of best methods, with which to answer some scientific questions?
- Is this a sound method?
- Is it likely other researchers will want to use a protocol on this?
- Would publication of a protocol on this method provide additional information that would be useful for people using and applying the method that is not already available in the scientific literature, for example in the primary research papers published using this method?
- Is the proposed protocol sufficiently different from previously published Nature Protocols to warrant publication? (The editor will let reviewers know of any possibly overlapping protocols.)
- Is the proposed protocol sufficiently different from previously published protocols you are aware of?
- If this method is well established, are the proposed authors’ authorities in this area?
We also ask reviewers of full-version manuscripts who are performing formal peer-review (rather than informal review of a presubmission enquiry) to answer the following additional questions:
- Are the title and abstract/summary appropriate for this protocol?
- Do the applications of the protocol described in the introduction seem reasonable?
- Are there any other potential applications for the protocol the author could discuss?
- Are all the materials and equipment needed listed? Basic materials or equipment that a lab using the type of protocol would have already does not need to be listed, e.g. pipette.
- Do you think the steps listed in the procedure would lead to the described outcome?
- Are the steps listed in the procedure clearly explained?
- Are any important steps missing from the procedure?
- Are appropriate controls suggested?
- Are all the critical steps highlighted?
- Is the time-line realistic?
- Is the troubleshooting guide, if included, thorough? If it is not included would it be a useful inclusion?
- Is there any additional information that it might be useful to include?
- Are the anticipated results reasonable, and if so, are they useful to readers?
- Are any important references missing?
- Are the references included useful?
- Could a competent PhD/graduate student in this discipline successfully implement the protocol with minimum guidance?
- Could the protocol be improved by additional figures or tables, such as diagrams of equipment set up, schematics of protocol stages, etc.
When considering the above questions, it would be helpful if reviewers could supply guidance as to how the protocol could be improved to address any issues highlighted. Please note that we do not expect reviewers to perform the procedure described, as we appreciate this is not practical in the time frame required for prompt publication.
As well as publishing protocols, Nature Protocols also publishes techniques-related Reviews, Perspectives, Correspondences, Matters Arising, Commentaries, and Consensus Statements. The questions for reviewers will be different for these other article types.
Providing constructive feedback
We ask reviewers to approach peer review with a sincere intention to help the authors improve their manuscripts. Nearly all submissions have weaknesses to be addressed: the best and most constructive reports suggest specific improvements; such feedback can be used by authors to improve their manuscript to the point where it might be suitable for acceptance. Even in instances where manuscripts are rejected, your report will help authors interpret the editor’s decision and improve their work prior to submission elsewhere.
You should be direct in your report, but you should also maintain a respectful tone. As a matter of policy, we do not censor the content of reviewer reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters.
Confidential comments to editors
Your comments to the authors should contain all feedback pertaining to the scientific evaluation of the manuscript, as detailed above. Confidential comments to the editor may be the appropriate place to discuss sensitive information or opinions, including any potential ethical issues with the work, or information that cannot be shared with other reviewers, such as any previous interaction with the manuscript at another journal, but should in no way contradict the comments to the authors.
Submitting your report
We strongly prefer that you submit your report using the link we provided in the emails containing the instructions, as opposed to via email. If you experience any issues, please contact our Editorial Assistant for assistance.
