- Chinese (Traditional)
- Nature Support
- Solution home
- Author and Peer Reviewer Support
- Peer Review
How to be considered as peer reviewer
Please visit our how to peer review page if you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for any of our publications. This page will provide you with all of the details that you will need in order to be considered as a peer reviewer. Please note: You do not need to be an author in order to peer review for our journals.
Please visit our website Information for BMC Series reviewers .
Please visit our how to peer review page.
Nature journal only
Go to the journal's home page, and click on For Referees .
Nature titled journals
Go to the journal’s homepage, and you will see “For Reviewers”. Click on that link, and you will find detailed instructions on how to become a peer reviewer.
All other Nature branded titles
Go to the journal’s homepage, and you will see “For Authors & Referees”. Click on that link, and you will find detailed instructions on how to become a peer reviewer.
- Submission and peer review query contact instructions
- Peer Reviewer confirmation (certificate)
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
Peer review articles within Nature
Career Column | 13 October 2023
ChatGPT use shows that the grant-application system is broken
The fact that artificial intelligence can do much of the work makes a mockery of the process. It’s time to make it easier for scientists to ask for research funding.
- Juan Manuel Parrilla
News | 12 October 2023
Reproducibility trial: 246 biologists get different results from same data sets
Wide distribution of findings shows how analytical choices drive conclusions.
Career Column | 10 October 2023
Dear journals: stop hoarding our papers
Why single-submission policies need to die (and what to do in the meantime).
- Dritjon Gruda
News Feature | 10 October 2023
How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing
A world of AI-assisted writing and reviewing might transform the nature of the scientific paper.
- Gemma Conroy
News | 08 September 2023
Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers
Manuscripts that don’t disclose AI assistance are slipping past peer reviewers.
News | 25 July 2023
Sharp criticism of controversial ancient-human claims tests eLife ’s revamped peer-review model
High-profile researchers say small-brained Homo naledi exhibited advanced behaviours such as burials, but peer reviewers say there’s no evidence.
- Ewen Callaway
Nature Index | 01 June 2023
Preprint clubs: why it takes a village to do peer review
A group of early-career researchers have harnessed cross-institutional journal clubs to assess and review immunology preprints.
- Felix Clemens Richter
- , Ester Gea-Mallorquí
- & Nicolas Vabret
Career News | 26 May 2023
Anonymizing peer review makes the process more just
Authors from richer, English-speaking countries gain unconscious boost when identified to referees, study finds.
- Natasha Gilbert
Nature Index | 03 May 2023
Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published
Data suggest that these researchers are more willing to publish in journals that participate in such coercion.
- Dalmeet Singh Chawla
News | 29 March 2023
COVID-origins report sparks debate over major genome hub GISAID
GISAID revoked researchers’ access following the report, sparking discussion about findings based on data found in online repositories.
- Smriti Mallapaty
Technology Feature | 15 March 2023
‘Spell-checker for statistics’ reduces errors in the psychology literature
Developed to detect statistical errors, statcheck reduces mistakes in reported P values by up to 4.5-fold.
Nature Index | 24 February 2023
‘Golden tickets’ on the cards for NSF grant reviewers
The agency is considering giving peer reviewers one-time vetoes to push through support for unconventional science.
Editorial | 22 February 2023
Nature welcomes Registered Reports
From this week, Nature will be publishing an additional type of research paper — designed to encourage rigour and replication.
Career Feature | 13 February 2023
Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off
Faced with a deluge of papers, journal editors are struggling to find willing peer reviewers.
- Amber Dance
Correspondence | 31 January 2023
Reviewers: intercept weaponization of genetics
- Mary J. Goldman
World View | 17 January 2023
Preprint review should form part of PhD programmes and postdoc training
Institutions owe it to young researchers to prepare them for careers outside academia. Preprint review is a perfect opportunity.
- Richard Sever
World View | 03 January 2023
Is my study useless? Why researchers need methodological review boards
Making researchers account for their methods before data collection is a long-overdue step.
- Daniël Lakens
Nature Index | 19 December 2022
AI system not yet ready to help peer reviewers assess research quality
Machine-learning tool needs to be more accurate before it can replace or aid human assessment in the UK Research Excellence Framework.
News | 09 December 2022
NIH plans grant-review overhaul to reduce bias
Reviewers would no longer score researchers’ expertise and institutions during grant evaluations for the US biomedical agency.
Nature Index | 07 December 2022
How the pandemic inspired a new generation of creators
The COVID-19 crisis echoed the ‘all-hands-on-deck’ response to the Second World War, but such agility needs to be maintained.
- Chris Woolston
World View | 23 November 2022
To fix peer review, break it into stages
All data should get checked, but not every article needs an expert.
- Olavo B. Amaral
News Q&A | 01 September 2022
The researchers using AI to analyse peer review
Anna Severin explains how her team used machine learning to try to assess the quality of thousands of reviewers’ reports.
- Richard Van Noorden
Correspondence | 26 July 2022
Greek scientists desperate for a national research foundation
- Konstantinos Drosatos
- & Nicholas Ktistakis
World View | 26 July 2022
Stop misusing data when hiring academics
Social-media impact, university rankings and online-aggregator metrics are broken — better ways to assess researchers are needed.
- Cameron Neylon
Correspondence | 07 June 2022
Funding: end ‘publish or perish’ for postdocs
- Thomas Lemberger
- , Bernd Pulverer
- & Fiona M. Watt
News | 06 June 2022
Japan launches preprint server — but will scientists use it?
Jxiv is the latest country-specific online repository to open, but it’s off to a slow start.
Editorial | 03 May 2022
Australia must abolish law that allows politicians to veto research grants
The upcoming Australian election is an opportunity for researchers to press all parties to reinstate the independence of research funding.
News Q&A | 28 April 2022
How language-generation AIs could transform science
Shobita Parthasarathy warns that software designed to summarize, translate and write like humans might exacerbate distrust in science.
News | 10 March 2022
Australian researchers push to end politicians’ power to veto grants
Inquiry into political interference in research will consider stripping ministers of the power to reverse decisions on peer-assessed projects.
- Bianca Nogrady
Editorial | 01 March 2022
Nature is trialling transparent peer review — the early results are encouraging
Last year, nearly half of Nature authors agreed to publish anonymous referee reports. We hope that more will consider doing so this year.
Career Feature | 31 January 2022
Why early-career researchers should step up to the peer-review plate
Science benefits when junior scientists sign up as reviewers. It’s also good for their careers.
News | 21 January 2022
Deltacron: the story of the variant that wasn’t
News of a ‘super variant’ combining Delta and Omicron spread rapidly last week, but researchers say it never existed and the sequences might have resulted from contamination.
- Freda Kreier
News | 25 November 2021
Record number of first-time observers get Hubble telescope time
Since NASA introduced a double-blind review system to reduce bias, more successful proposals are coming from astronomers who haven’t been awarded observation time before.
Career Column | 21 October 2021
How to make your research reproducible
Ensuring that your work is reproducible is not as daunting or complicated as you might think. Experts share their tips.
- Jeffrey M. Perkel
News | 01 October 2021
China’s clampdown on fake-paper factories picks up speed
As part of a misconduct crackdown, Chinese funders are penalizing researchers who commission sham journal articles from ‘paper mills’, but some say the measures still don’t go far enough.
News | 25 August 2021
Preprint ban in grant applications deemed ‘plain ludicrous’
The Australian Research Council’s decision to reject early-career funding applications that mention preprints is hopelessly outdated, say scientists.
- Clare Watson
Career Column | 19 August 2021
Three questions to address rigour and reproducibility concerns in your grant proposal
Addressing weaknesses and limitations in your science will reassure potential funders, say grant-writing coaches Jennifer L. Wilson and Crystal M. Botham.
- Jennifer L. Wilson
- & Crystal M. Botham
News | 05 August 2021
More women than ever are starting careers in science
But a study of the publications of millions of researchers also suggests that women are less likely to continue their academic careers than their male counterparts.
- Katharine Sanderson
Career Column | 12 July 2021
Don’t focus on English at the expense of your science
A language barrier can be a challenge, but there are better ways to spend your resources, says Zhanna Anikina.
- Zhanna Anikina
News | 27 May 2021
Scientific image sleuth faces legal action for criticizing research papers
Researchers say the complaint filed against Elisabeth Bik could have a ‘chilling effect’ on scholarly criticism.
Editorial | 29 April 2021
Good research begins long before papers get written
Publishers are redoubling their commitment to transparency and reproducibility — but they can’t bring about change alone.
Career News | 19 April 2021
Webcast: How to do a great peer review
Mind your language; take your time; practice makes perfect. Three experts share their advice.
- Jack Leeming
Comment | 12 April 2021
Quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis: Majorana fermions
The controversy over Majorana particles is eroding confidence in the field. More accountability and openness are needed — from authors, reviewers and journal editors.
- Sergey Frolov
News Feature | 23 March 2021
The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science
Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A Nature analysis examines the ‘paper mill’ problem — and how editors are trying to cope.
- & Richard Van Noorden
Correspondence | 02 February 2021
Open access pay-for-review option — ethical question
- Silvo Conticello
News | 21 August 2020
China’s research-misconduct rules target ‘paper mills’ that churn out fake studies
Measures to crack down harder on falsified work look good on paper, but critics say that enforcement will continue to be a problem.
News | 14 August 2020
Signs of ‘citation hacking’ flagged in scientific papers
An algorithm developed to spot abnormal patterns of citations aims to find scientists who have manipulated reference lists.
Correspondence | 11 August 2020
Coronavirus: time to re-imagine academic publishing
- & Amy Brand
Coronavirus: full peer review in hours
- William J. Sutherland
- & Katrina A. Lythgoe
Nature Podcast | 24 June 2020
How playing poker can help you make decisions
On this week’s podcast, life lessons from poker, and keeping things civil during peer review.
- Shamini Bundell
- & Nick Howe
Browse broader subjects
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies