- \n
- Nature<\/em> is giving authors the option to publish anonymised peer review reports alongside their article.<\/li>\n
- Opening up the peer review process promotes transparency and could benefit the research community and general public.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/iStock-627993994.jpg?resize=591%2C591&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nAlthough an important tool for scientific progress and upholding rigorous standards of proof, peer review reports have typically remained confidential from the wider research community. In a bid to promote transparency in publishing, Nature<\/em><\/a> is piloting<\/a> a trial to give authors the opportunity to publish their discussions with referees.<\/p>\n
In 2016, Nature Communications<\/em><\/a> started offering authors the option to publish peer reviewers’ comments and\u00a0rebuttal letters alongside their articles. Following a positive uptake in 2021 (approximately 70%), the journal has now gone a step further, announcing<\/a> that peer review files will be published for all accepted research articles that were submitted after 1 November 2022. For Nature<\/em>, who began piloting this option in February 2020, almost half (46%) of authors agreed to publish anonymised peer review reports in 2021, and indications in early 2022 suggest that this number is rising.<\/p>\n
\n
Almost half (46%) of authors agreed to publish anonymised peer review reports in Nature<\/em> in 2021.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Nature<\/em> strongly encourages researchers to consider publishing their exchanges with reviewers, citing the following benefits to the scientific research community and general public:<\/p>\n
- \n
- promoting transparency<\/li>\n
- preserving valuable scholarship<\/li>\n
- providing insight into the peer review process to both early-career researchers and those who study peer review systems<\/li>\n
- recognising the contributions of peer reviewers<\/li>\n
- highlighting discussion on valid potential caveats or limitations of studies<\/li>\n
- allowing readers to better critically assess the robustness of the study conclusions<\/li>\n
- enabling authors to raise supportive arguments not suitable for integration within the article itself.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Given the promising results from the Nature\u2019s <\/em>pilot, the journal hopes that more authors will opt to publish their referee reports with a view to improve how science is represented.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
- Opening up the peer review process promotes transparency and could benefit the research community and general public.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Byline_Heather-Davies.png?resize=618%2C75&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n