A few volumes ago we reflected on the importance of peer review1. Even though the evaluation of a scientific study by independent experts may come with some limitations, we highlighted how the practice of peer review has become a major enabler of modern science. Peer review, in fact, very often improves the rigour and clarity of a scientific article and represents an important legitimation criterion to distinguish papers from preprints, for instance2.

Credit: fotosipsak/Getty images

We also considered how peer review schemes are evolving, and different initiatives have been explored to enrich and improve such processes. One of these is transparent peer review, which provides the authors of an article with the option of publishing the reviewer reports together with the authors’ rebuttal as supplementary information alongside the main article files. This scheme has been trialled by our sister journal Nature Communications starting from 2016, followed by our flagship publication Nature in 2020. Encouraged by favourable levels of voluntary opt-in over the past years, and considering the overall good reception by the community3, those journals are now applying transparent peer review to all articles they publish, persuaded that the documented interaction between authors and reviewers should be seen as an integral part of the scientific record4.

We are happy to share that as of July 2025, Nature Catalysis will also offer transparent peer review in line with other journals from the Nature Portfolio, and from now, authors submitting a new or a revised manuscript will be asked if they wish to take part in the scheme. In cases where the authors opt-in, reviewers will be informed at the point of invitation that their report will be published alongside the article in case of acceptance. In general, the peer review file will not be edited before publication, unless confidential information or third-party material are contained in the report. Importantly, while the actual exchange with the authors will become visible, the identity of the reviewers is to remain confidential, unless the reviewers choose to identify themselves in the report.

It is worth mentioning that any sort of confidential exchange between the editorial office and the authors or the reviewers won’t be captured in the published reviewer reports. In a similar manner, discussions between the members of the editorial office will not be disclosed. Accordingly, transparent peer review cannot capture the full complexity of the process that leads to the publication of a scientific article. However, we hope that this option will facilitate the dissemination of the wealth of information that is generated during peer review, be it in the form of questions or criticism to the authors, but also advice, which eventually add value to the paper and, to date, has often remained hidden behind the curtain.

“We hope that this option will facilitate the dissemination of the wealth of information that is generated during peer review, be it in the form of questions or criticism to the authors, but also advice”