At Nature Metabolism, we know that concurrent discoveries are inevitable in competitive and fast-moving areas of research. In 2021, we announced in an Editorial1 that we welcome the co-submission, within a short timeframe, of independent manuscripts that offer mutually reinforcing insights. We explained how we assess co-submissions and aim to develop the strengths of each manuscript to make them more complementary, rather than push for redundant replication of experiments.

Several years on, this approach continues to resonate with our readers, as reflected in the two pairs of co-submitted manuscripts featured in our April issue.

Manduchi et al.2 and Ofori, Ruhrmann et al.3 independently investigate the islet cell methylome. Both studies describe changes to DNA methylation in human islet cells in the context of age and disease2,3, whereas Ofori, Ruhrmann et al. leverage additional experimental models to link these changes to gene expression and cellular function3.

A similar convergence occurred in work from Radyk et al.4 and Hennequart, Mervant et al.5, who independently report on the role of oxidative stress in the formation of pancreatic premalignant lesions. Read side by side, the studies not only confirm one central finding but also expand its implications by linking mechanistic insights in mouse models4 to disease monitoring approaches in humans5.

Additional examples can be found in recent issues of Nature Metabolism. For example, Santiago-Fernández et al.6 and Ramírez-Pardo et al.7 described how chaperone-mediated autophagy declines with age not only in muscle fibres6 but also in muscle stem cells7. Similarly, Liu et al.8 and Gutgesell, Khalil et al.9 disentangled the divergent neural circuits underlying the weight loss effects of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor (GIPR) antagonism8,9 and agonism9, using complementary pharmacological and genetic loss-of-function approaches.

In some cases, authors co-submit jointly from the outset, whereas in other cases, we receive overlapping manuscripts serendipitously. In both instances, we remain bound by editorial confidentiality but, ideally, with input from one overlapping referee, we can shape such paired submissions into complementary manuscripts. It is worth noting that we also collaborate with our colleagues across the Nature Portfolio to facilitate paired publication across journals.

These examples nicely illustrate the value of co-submissions. Although each manuscript can stand on its own, they present a more compelling case as a pair. Independent confirmation increases confidence in new ideas, whereas complementary experimental approaches or validation in different physiological contexts deepen our mechanistic understanding and increase the relevance and impact of both manuscripts.

Our goal as editors remains to evaluate each manuscript on its own scientific merits while being attentive to the broader scientific landscape. The continued success of co-submissions reflects a shared commitment between authors and editors to ensure that simultaneous advances are recognized fairly and communicated effectively to the metabolism community.