![]() 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. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.Įditorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. ![]() The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. 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. Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission.Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.Accept, with or without editorial revisions.The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities: 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). 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). 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. Formal post-publication commentary on published papers can involve challenges, clarifications or, in some cases, replication of the published work and may, after peer review, be published online as Matters Arising, usually alongside a Reply from the original Nature journal authors.ĭetails of the submission criteria and peer review process for Matters Arising are provided in the Guide to Authors for each individual journal.Īll submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. Nature Portfolio journals recognize the importance of post-publication commentary on published research as necessary to advancing scientific discourse. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature Portfolio journal rather than the best of the specialist journals. ![]() In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field, with strong evidence for their conclusions. There is an online help guide to assist in using this system, and a helpdesk email account for any technical problems. We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the editor's email. The peer-review policies of the Nature Reviews journals can be found on their websites. Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.įor 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. Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors. The following types of contribution to Nature Portfolio journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |