Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature’s research papers
- EDITORIAL
From today, all new submissions to Nature that are published will be accompanied by referees’ reports and author responses — to illuminate the process of producing rigorous science.
You have full access to this article via your institution.
A published research paper is the result of an extensive conversation between authors and reviewers, guided by editors.Credit: Getty
Since 2020, Nature has offered authors the opportunity to have their peer-review file published alongside their paper. Our colleagues at Nature Communications have been doing so since 2016. Until now, Nature authors could opt in to this process of transparent peer review. From 16 June, however, new submissions of manuscripts that are published as research articles in Nature will automatically include a link to the reviewers’ reports and author responses.
It means that, over time, more Nature papers will include a peer-review file. The identity of the reviewers will remain anonymous, unless they choose otherwise — as happens now. But the exchanges between the referees and the authors will be accessible to all. Our aim in doing so is to open up what many see as the ‘black box’ of science, shedding light on how a research paper is made. This serves to increase transparency and (we hope) to build trust in the scientific process.
Research evaluation needs to change with the times
As we have written previously, a published research paper is the result of an extensive conversation between authors and reviewers, guided by editors. These discussions, which can last for months, aim to improve a study’s clarity and the robustness of its conclusions. It is a hugely important process that should receive increased recognition, including acknowledgement of the reviewers involved, if they choose to be named. For early-career researchers, there is great value in seeing inside a process that is key to their career development. Making peer-reviewer reports public also enriches science communication: it’s a chance to add to the ‘story’ of how a result is arrived at, or a conclusion supported, even if it includes only the perspectives of authors and reviewers. The full story of a paper is, of course, more complex, involving many other contributors.
Many people think of science as something fixed and unchanging. But scientific knowledge evolves as new or more-nuanced evidence comes to light. Scientists constantly discuss their results, yet these debates are not contained in research papers and often remain unreported in wider science-communication efforts.
Three-year trial shows support for recognizing peer reviewers
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a brief interlude during which much of the world got to see how research works, almost in real time. It’s easy to forget that, right from the start, we were continuously learning something new about the nature and behaviour of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On television screens, in newspapers and on social media worldwide, scientists were discussing among themselves and with public audiences the nature of the virus, how it infects people and how it spreads. They were debating treatments and prevention methods, constantly adjusting everyone’s knowledge as fresh evidence came to light. And then, it went mostly back to business as usual.
We hope that publishing the peer-reviewer reports of all newly submitted Nature papers shows, in a small way, that this doesn’t need to remain the case. Nature started mandating peer review for all published research articles only in 1973 (M. Baldwin Notes Rec. 69, 337–352; 2015). But the convention in most fields is still to keep the content of these peer-review exchanges confidential. That has meant that the wider research community, and the world, has had few opportunities to learn what is discussed.
Peer review improves papers. The exchanges between authors and referees should be seen as a crucial part of the scientific record, just as they are a key part of doing and disseminating research.
