The policy outlined on this page applies to Nature journals (those with the word "Nature" in their title). NPG publishes many other journals, each of which has separate publication policies described on its website. A current list of these journals, with links to each journal's homepage is available.

The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us using the feedback links in the box at the top right of each page in the authors & referees' website.

Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript.

The peer-review policies of the Nature Reviews journals can be found on their websites.

We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the editor's email. There is an online help guide to assist in using this system, and a helpdesk email account for any technical problems.

Top of page

Nature journals receive many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in a Nature journal, a paper should meet four general criteria:

• Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
• Novel (we do not consider meeting report abstracts and preprints on community servers to compromise novelty).
• Of extreme importance to scientists in the specific field.
• Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature journal rather than the best of the specialist journals.

Top of page

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

• Accept, with or without editorial revisions
• Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
• Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.

Top of page

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. For instance, we avoid using people who are slow, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their views, whether harsh or lenient.

We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Top of page

If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper that is necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy. Under these circumstances, the reviewer should send the publication reference of the paper required to the editor who sent them the paper to review. The editor will obtain the paper, paying any necessary fees, and send it to the reviewer.

Top of page

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. Referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice regarding minor criticisms of the manuscript if it does not meet the criteria for the journal (as outlined in the letter from the editor when asking for the review). Referees should be aware that authors of declined manuscripts may request that referee comments be transferred to another Nature journal where they can be used to determine suitability of publication at the receiving journal.

Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The ideal review should answer the following questions:

• Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
• What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?
• Is the paper likely to be one of the five most significant papers published in the discipline this year?
• How does the paper stand out from others in its field?
• Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
• Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed?
• Are there other experiments or work that would strengthen the paper further?
• How much would further work improve it, and how difficult would this be? Would it take a long time?
• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
• If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
• If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable?

Top of page

We appreciate that reviewers are busy, and we are very grateful if they can answer the questions in the section above. However, if time is available, it is extremely helpful to the editors if reviewers can advise on some of the following points:

• Is the manuscript clearly written?
• If not, how could it be made more clear or accessible to nonspecialists?
• Would readers outside the discipline benefit from a schematic of the main result to accompany publication?
• Could the manuscript be shortened? (Because of pressure on space in our printed pages we aim to publish manuscripts as short as is consistent with a persuasive message.)
• Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modelling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.)
• Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
• Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
• Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?
• Is the statistical analysis of the data sound, and does it conform to the journal's guidelines?
• Are the reagents generally available?
• Are there any special ethical concerns arising from the use of human or other animal subjects?

Top of page

Nature journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

Top of page

We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. However, to increase the transparency of the reviewing process, reviewers may sign their reports, if they feel comfortable doing so. Before revealing their identities, referees should consider the following: (1) Referee reports, whether signed or not, are subsequently shared with the other reviewers and with other Nature journals if the manuscript were to be transferred and (2) Reviewers may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript and identified reviewers may find these discussions more challenging.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor's knowledge. If this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.

We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewer or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities.

Double blind peer review:

All Nature journals offer a double-blind peer review option. Authors who choose this option at submission remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. The authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript accordingly; a checklist is provided to help with this process. More information is available in Editorials, including this Nature announcement and earlier publications related to trials that started in 2013 in Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change.

Top of page

As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers' 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. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper. Authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.

Top of page

It is editors' experience that the peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process, which improves the manuscripts our journals publish. Not only does peer review provide an independent assessment of the importance and technical accuracy of the results described, but the feedback from referees conveyed to authors with the editors' advice frequently results in manuscripts being refined so that their structure and logic is more readily apparent to readers.

Nature journals are appreciative of its peer-reviewers, of whom there are many tens of thousands. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their disciplines of scientific research. We appreciate the time that reviewers devote to assessing the manuscripts we send them, which helps ensure that Nature journals publish only material of the very highest quality. In particular, many submitted manuscripts contain large volumes of additional (supplementary) data and other material, which take time to evaluate. We thank our reviewers for their continued commitment to our publication process.

Much has been written, in Nature journals and elsewhere, on the peer-review system as a whole. Alternative systems have been proposed in outline: for example, signed peer-review, blind peer-review and open peer review. The system has been exhaustively studied, reported on, and assessed -- both positively and negatively.

Nature journals' position on the value of the peer-review system is represented in the following extract from an editorial in Nature Immunology.

Reviewing peer review

The goals of peer review are both lofty and mundane. It is the responsibility of journals to administer an effective review system. Peer review is designed to select technically valid research of significant interest. Referees are expected to identify flaws, suggest improvements and assess novelty. If the manuscript is deemed important enough to be published in a high visibility journal, referees ensure that it is internally consistent, thereby ferreting out spurious conclusions or clumsy frauds.

One problem with manuscript selection is the inherent tension between referees and authors. Referees wish for only the most solid science to be published, yet when they 'switch hats' to that of author, they desire quick publication of their novel ideas and approaches. Authors of papers that blow against the prevailing winds bear a far greater burden of proof than normally expected in publishing their challenge to the current paradigm. Veering too far in one direction or the other leads to complaints either that peer review isn't stringent enough, or that it is stifling the freshest research. It is the job of the editors to try to avoid both extremes.

Journal editors do not expect peer review to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions. A peer reviewer can only evaluate what the authors chose to include in the manuscript. This contrasts with the expectation in the popular press that peer review is a process by which fraudulent data is detected before publication (although that sometimes happens).

We are continually impressed with peer review's positive impact on almost every paper we publish. Even papers that are misunderstood by reviewers are usually rewritten and improved before resubmission. Mistakes are made, but peer review, through conscientious effort on the part of referees, helps to protect the literature, promote good science and select the best. Until a truly viable alternative is provided, we wouldn't have it any other way.

The full text of this editorial is available through Nature Immunology.

In 2006, Nature published a comprehensive web focus on the peer review system. All articles in this focus are open for readers' comments via a link at the end of each article.

Top of page

All contributions submitted to Nature journals that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.

Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Unless otherwise declared as a part of open peer review, the peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees' reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicised without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

Nature Research reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.

Top of page

Nature journal editors may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.

Top of page

Our most recent editorials on peer review

Double-blind peer review is now available at all Nature journals. Nature Biotechnology. Double-blind peer review, March 2015.

Exploring avenues to optimize the peer- review process and improve author experience. Nature Cell Biology. Improving author experience, December 2014.

Reporting on a double-blind peer review trial. Nature Geoscience. Peer-review variations, January 2014. Nature Climate Change. Blind stock-taking, January 2014.

Advice on responding to criticism during and after peer review. Nature Methods. The way you say it, October 2013.

About the peer review process

Exploring avenues to optimize the peer-review process and improve author experience. Nature Cell Biology. Improving author experience, December 2014.

UK Parliament concludes that pre- publication peer review is vital and cannot be dismantled. Nature Cell Biology. UK Parliament comments on peer review, October 2011.

Nature Photonics’ peer review process explained. Nature Photonics. All about review, August 2011.

The role of editors and referees in peer review. Nature. There's a time to be critical, May 2011.

Blogs complement the current system of peer review. Nature Medicine. Perfecting peer review? January 2011.

How can peer review be improved? Nature Immunology. Support for peer review, December 2010.

Seeking to optimize the peer-review system. Nature Neuroscience. Striving for excellence, January 2009.

Nature Chemical Biology’s peer review process explained. Nature Chemical Biology. Decoding decisions, December 2008.

Nature Cell Biology's peer review process, and planned enhancements. Nature Cell Biology. What to publish? March 2008.

Peer-review for strong claims. Nature. Replicator review, November 2007.

Nature Immunology’s peer review process explained in light of a Nature open peer review trial. Nature Immunology. Under review, August 2006.

Nature Methods’s peer review process explained. Nature Methods. A method for peer review, a peer review for methods, May 2006.

Nature Cell Biology’s peer review process explained. Nature Cell Biology. Editorial procedures reviewed, July 2003.

Assessing the efficacy of peer review. Nature Immunology. Reviewing peer-review, April 2003.

Excellence in peer review

Peer review is an essential part of scientific discourse, and referees deserve formal recognition for the service they provide. Nature Methods. In praise of referees, August 2012.

Highlighting the central elements of the ideal referee report. Nature Cell Biology. Reviewing refereeing, February 2011.

What makes the ideal referee report? Nature Chemistry. The perfect peer, October 2011.

Rewards for peer-reviewing, and what constitutes a good report. Nature Cell Biology. Good review, April 2008.

What do we seek in reviewers? And how do we retain the best reviewers? Nature Medicine. Why review? August 2007.

Authors and peer review

Advice on responding to criticism during and after peer review. Nature Methods. The way you say it, October 2013.

Responding to referee comments constructively improves the quality of published papers. Nature Neuroscience. Crafting a revision, August 2011.

Conduct guide for authors responding to referees. Nature Chemistry. Revision notes, November 2010.

When and how should an author appeal a rejection? Nature Immunology. Reviewing appeals, June 2007.

Advice for authors responding to peer review. Nature Neuroscience. Making the most of peer-review, July 2000.

Double blind peer review

2015 announcement of double-blind peer review availability at all Nature journals.

• Nature Biotechnology
• Nature Cell Biology
• Nature Chemical Biology
• Nature Communications
• Nature Genetics
• Nature Immunology
• Nature Materials
• Nature Medicine
• Nature Nanotechnology
• Nature Photonics
• Nature Physics
• Nature Structural and Molecular Biology

Reporting on a double-blind peer review trial. Nature Geoscience. Peer-review variations, January 2014. Nature Climate Change. Blind stock-taking, January 2014.

Announcing a double-blind peer review trial. Nature Geoscience. Double-blind peer review, June 2013. Nature Climate Change. Blind faith, June 2013.

Should there be author anonymity in peer review? Nature. Working double-blind, 7 February 2008.

Open peer review

Would published peer reviews benefit scientific debate? Nature Materials. Transparency in peer review, January 2011.

In a recent trial Nature explored ways to improve the peer review system. Nature Cell Biology. Opening up peer review, January 2007.

A brief discussion of fraud in light of the results of a Nature open peer review trial. Nature. Peer review and fraud, December 2006.

Announcing an open peer review trial. Nature. Peer review on trial, June 2006. Nature Chemical Biology. Reviewing all options, August 2006.

What are some arguments for and against open peer review? Nature Neuroscience. Pros and cons of open peer-review, March 1999.

Top of page