Enhancing peer review at Nature Neuroscience

Nature Neuroscience has introduced two initiatives to promote the quality, transparency and inclusivity of peer review. One enables the publication of peer review reports and authors’ responses, and the other facilitates the participation of early career researchers.

While collegial vetting of scientific work can be traced as far back as tenth-century Turkey¹, the formal introduction of peer review is commonly attributed to the Royal Society in London, having been suggested by the British polymath William Whewell (who also coined the word ‘scientist’) in the 19th century^2,3. Nature was founded in 1869, but it was not until 1973 that peer review was introduced as we know it today, in response to the expansion of science after the second world war and with the aim of “getting the refereeing system beyond reproach”⁴. This led to its widespread adoption, and it is now a universal method for quality control of scientific work.

Portrait of William Whewell. Lithograph by Eden Upton Eddis, 1812–1901, published by Graf & Soret. Courtesy of the Smithsonian Libraries and Archives.

At Nature Neuroscience, peer review typically involves three experts who provide confidential written comments on the originality, significance, rigor, validity and clarity of a manuscript. Reviewers are invited primarily for their expertise in a relevant research area. They are identified through our database, author suggestions, recommendations from reviewers who cannot participate, and online searches. We avoid current or recent collaborators, former mentors or mentees and those who work at the same institution as the author. We respect authors’ requests to exclude up to five individuals from acting as reviewers. We may avoid inviting those who have not provided constructive feedback in the past, and we endeavour to include voices from across the communities we serve.

Peer review is regarded a crucial tool by researchers⁵ and provides a rich source of context, yet it faces well-founded criticisms of bias, delays and lack of transparency. Indeed, peer review reports have traditionally been visible only to authors, reviewers and editors. For this reason, we have joined other Nature Portfolio journals in introducing a transparent peer review option⁶ for manuscripts selected for peer review after 6 October 2025. This means that — if the authors choose — the reviewer reports, author responses and decision letters will be published alongside the manuscript. Our aim is to improve accountability and fairness, acknowledge reviewers’ contributions and provide educational value for the next generation of scientists.

Making reports and responses visible enables readers to appreciate the level of scrutiny the manuscript has been subjected to and the input of reviewers in shaping the manuscript, and encourages high-quality reviewer feedback. As editors, we often read excellent, highly pertinent comments and believe they deserve a permanent place in the scientific record. In fact, William Whewell observed in 1831 that the reports can be “more interesting than the memoirs themselves”³.

At the same time, we recognise concerns over this transparent approach, such as challenges for anonymity, particularly in smaller subfields, and the risk of reduced candour. We stress that any published review will continue to be anonymous unless the reviewer has explicitly chosen to sign their report. Further, if a reviewer opts to be named in the published article, their name will not be linked to their report if these are published. Direct exchanges with the editor (‘notes to editor’) will always remain confidential. We believe the benefits of transparent peer review outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Early career researchers (ECRs) tend to be particularly supportive of transparent peer review, in part because reading the published exchanges offers valuable lessons on how to write thorough, constructive reports and can spark ideas for their own work. We have also introduced a measure to integrate ECRs into the review process more formally through the ECR co-review initiative. This was pioneered successfully at Nature Communications in 2019 (ref. ⁷) and has since been implemented across the Nature Portfolio. This initiative allows reviewers to co-review a paper with an ECR, typically a graduate student or postdoc in the reviewer’s group, with the aims of encouraging mentorship and providing formal recognition for the co-reviewer. While the ECR does not have to submit a separate report, they will be acknowledged in our system and receive ORCID recognition, which can support career development. In an era of rapidly developing technology, the involvement in peer review of younger researchers, who may work more closely with data and code, could help to strengthen the rigor of published work. As the composition of the neuroscientific community evolves, this initiative should help to ensure broader demographic representation in the reviewer pool that reflects where the field is heading. It should also help to alleviate pressure on more seasoned reviewers, who have many demands on their time. Uptake has been strong so far at Nature: in the first three months, around 17% of manuscripts had an ECR as a recognised co-reviewer⁸. We anticipate a similar pattern at Nature Neuroscience.

Ultimately, we hope that these initiatives will enhance the scientific process by promoting integrity and encouraging a more open and forward-looking peer review culture. We welcome feedback from the community as we endeavour to refine the peer review process. As neuroscience continues to evolve, so too must the systems that support it.