peer review nature article

• 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.

BMC journals

Please visit our website Information for BMC Series reviewers .

Springer titles 

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.

Related Articles

• Submission and peer review query contact instructions
• Peer Reviewer confirmation (certificate)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• 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

Quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies