Content Types

On this page: How we work I Review | Perspective | Roadmap | Technical Review | Expert Recommendation | Comment | Correspondence

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 Biodiversity 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 and should avoid using 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 or boxes). As a guideline, Reviews include up to 150 references; citations should be selective. Footnotes are not used. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Reviews.

Reviews are peer reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance. They are edited by the editors in consultation with the author.

Perspective

Perspectives are intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models, theories and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Reviews and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new approaches.

Perspectives are approximately 5,000 words long and may include up to 5 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, Perspectives include approximately 100 references; citations should be selective. Footnotes are not used. Further information is available in our guidelines for Perspectives. Perspectives are peer reviewed and edited by the editors in consultation with the author.

Roadmap

A Roadmap is a forward-looking outline of the scientific and technical challenges and opportunities in a certain field or for a specific big project. Roadmaps provide a sense of direction and set out the necessary steps that probably need to be achieved. They may also list a set of open questions. Roadmaps are authored by panels of experts.

Roadmaps are approximately 6,000–8,000 words long and typically include 7 display items (figures, tables or boxes). As a guideline, they allow up to 100 references. Read our guidelines for writing Roadmap articles here.

Technical Review

A Technical Review surveys the current of state-of-the-art capabilities in a certain area. Technical Reviews provide accessible summaries of the state-of-the-art figures of merit for techniques, devices and/or materials; comparisons of different methods with an overview of their applicability; comparisons of scientific software codes for specific applications; guidelines for data analysis of specific datasets and in particular large data releases from big instruments.

Technical Reviews are approximately 5,000–6,000 words long and typically include 8 display items and 150 references. Read our guidelines for writing Technical Reviews here.

Expert Recommendation

Expert Recommendations are collective opinion pieces, authored by panels of specialists, that present the outcome of an analysis or discussion, and suggest a course of action, best scientific practices or methodological guidelines. Expert Recommendations are typically 1,500–2,000 words long and may include up to 4 display items and 50 references. Read our guidelines for writing Expert Recommendations here. For examples of Expert Recommendations, please check out this Collection.

Comment

Our Comment articles are usually agenda-setting, authoritative, informed and often provocative expert pieces calling for action on topical issues pertaining to scientific research and/or its political, ethical and social ramifications. Comments are generally not peer-reviewed (unless we feel that peer-reviewing is important to improve the content of the article), and we encourage authors to express their opinions. Our Comments are fairly short (~1,200 words long, 2-3 pages in final layout; 10 references; they can have one image). Further information can be found in our guidelines for Comments.

Correspondence

The Correspondence section provides a forum for comment on content published in the journal and might be accompanied by a reply from the authors of the original article. A Correspondence should not exceed 500 words or 10 references. Further information can be found in our guidelines for Correspondence. Correspondence may be peer reviewed at the editor’s discretion.