Paving the way toward better peer review

D espite the growth of postpublication forums such as a Faculty of 1000, scientific blogs and online commenting, editor-mediated peer review remains the primary means by which science is evaluated ahead of publication. The peer review process critically relies on the report that is provided by the reviewers and that the editors consider in detail and discuss prior to making a decision on the paper. In order to improve the quality of the reports in the evaluation of the paper, Nature Communications has made a number of changes to the instructions for reviewers that we hope will assist in the evaluation of the paper and eventually improve the quality of the science that is published. The main goal of the reviewer report is to provide an objective and thorough evaluation of the study, considering both the technical aspects and the potential impact in the context of the published literature. In an attempt to help reviewers in composing their report, we have replaced the previous list of questions with broader questions about the claims of the manuscript, data supporting those claims, the interest of colleagues in the field and whether the paper will influence thinking in the specific field. There are a number of principles that in our view are important to the drafting of a reviewer report, and to the subsequent discussion of a paper in post-discussion forums and conferences. First and foremost, reviewers need to have all the information that they need in order to properly evaluate a paper. In particular, all relevant aspects of a study, including the methods, need to be clearly described. Data should be deposited in repositories where possible and made available to reviewers. To help with this and to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of this published output, Nature journals, including Nature Communications, have introduced mandatory reporting checklists in a number of research areas that detail statistical information, experimental design and reagents, reproducibility of experiments, and compliance with editorial policies. These checklists are passed on to the reviewers to assist them in the evaluation of the methodology, and ensure the robustness of the work. Importantly, these checklists also help editors ensure that all the relevant methodological information appears in the final published paper. Secondly, we are dependent on the advice of our reviewers when making decision on a paper after peer review. Our aim at Nature Communications is to select the papers based on the significance of the science presented, even if they may sometimes appeal only to a specialized community or to a small section of our wide readership. With this in mind we ask that reviewers not only evaluate the technical aspects of the study but also give their opinion on the potential impact of the manuscript in the context of the published literature. While ultimately an editorial decision, our criteria for publication are shaped by reviewer advice and feedback from the scientific community. When composing a report we ask that the reviewer carefully assess if the data presented in the manuscript support the main conclusions of the work and suggest how the authors could improve the manuscript and fill eventual gaps. The reviewer report should aim to assess the science presented within the manuscript and not merely list a series of experiments aimed at expanding the scope of the manuscript. OPEN