Thread. @nature has a huge amount of content. Confused about what our various categories mean? You’re not alone! Sure we have a guide to authors, but it is, ahem, a bit formal. Here’s a blast through our various categories.
First, content that is not normally submitted by scientists (i.e. we write ourselves, or commission) …
Editorials. Wide ranging but often we discuss a timely issue and tell someone or something what we think they should do. nature.com/articles/d4158…
World View. One person’s take on a timely issue … meaning it’s kind of like an editorial, but written by a commissioned author rather than @nature staff. Some World Views arise from authors suggested by manuscript editors. nature.com/articles/d4158…
News. Our awesome @NatureNews team writes world-class pieces about timely science happenings. Written internally, but you can always send a newsworthy item to a manuscript editor and we can forward to News colleagues, if promising. nature.com/articles/d4158…
News Features. Long-format pieces on a super-interesting/important topic. Written internally or commissioned from freelancers. Pitches are considered, for sure. Most ideas are generated by the News team but can come from manuscript editors. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Research Highlights. Blurbs on exciting non-Nature papers. Selected in-house and written by freelancers. Do you have a great paper coming out and want @nature readers to hear about it? Recommend to a manuscript editor and we’ll consider forwarding to RH. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Book/film/art reviews. Biased, obv, but I think really great coverage of the science-heavy art and literature world. Sometimes editors freelance (#SelfPromtionDisclosure). blogs.nature.com/aviewfromthebr…
News & Views. @NatureNV asks someone to discuss a paper (usually in Nature but not always): why it's amazing, new avenues opened, remaining issues, etc. Written for a general scientific audience. Not original research. Heavily edited. nature.com/articles/d4158…
News & Views Forum. Two viewpoints, two authors. Designed to highlight topics with divergent opinions or approaches, or simply different angles. Definitely not called fight club. Certainly not. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Second, content that is not normally submitted by scientists, but sort of can be, sometimes …
Comments 1/3. Medium-length pieces discussing an issue at the interface of science and policy. Long author lists discouraged. Present a problem; propose a solution; argue the opposing case and crush it, like Conan the Barbarian.
Comments 2/3. Meatier, longer, more-in analytical than World View. Heavily edited by the Comment team. If you don’t like being edited, don’t go for a Comment. Can be lightly peer-reviewed, but usually not.
Comments 3/3. Comments are commissioned (no online submission). But manuscript editors do see Comment-like material submitted as Articles or via email. Most we decline; some we send to Comment. Or we hear your idea at a meeting & suggest to Comment team. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Third, content that is submitted by scientists (or non-scientists for that matter) but usually not peer-reviewed …
Correspondence. Submitted as Word file to correspondence@nature.com by anyone who cares to try. 300-word letters to the editor. No figures, usually maximum two authors, max three references. Not for criticism of Nature papers (see Matters Arising, below). nature.com/articles/44940…
Futures. Sci-fi. Just because. Send your ~ 900 word story directly to futures@nature.com as a Word attachment. No guarantees. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Careers. Ok, much of Careers is commissioned, or might be a survey of issues surrounding scientific careers. But if there’s topic you’re keen to discuss send in a pitch to naturejobs@nature.com. Can include best practices (second #SelfPromotionDisclosure). nature.com/articles/d4158…
Fourth, the peer-reviewed categories submitted by scientists via our online system …
Articles. Original research. Limits: main 3000 words, 6 display items, 50 refs; methods (appendix really) 3000 words (longer possible), unlimited refs; extended data 10 single-page items; supplement strongly discouraged but ok if deemed necessary. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Analysis. Rarely used. Sometimes happens when paper has unusual approach & might not be viewed strictly as original research … but nonetheless highly analytical or provides important analysis. Same formatting as Article. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Reviews. Commissioned and directly submitted. Hopefully not just a synthesis of a field; ideally a new picture of how the world works. About 5000 words, 100 references, 6 figs/tables/boxes. We provide art support. Crayon-drawn figures are fine. Really. nature.com/articles/35911…
Perspectives. Sort of like an opinion-driven Review, but in practice a *very* flexible category. If it isn’t an Article or a Review, it’s probably a Perspective. Don’t worry, just submit and we’ll figure it out! nature.com/articles/natur…
Matters Arising. Criticism of Nature paper. First contact Nature authors & try to clarify. If unresolved, submit. If we feel it's a potentially serious issue we obtain response from Nature author & send to review. Often long, difficult process. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Finally, categories that no longer exist. Brief Communications Arising; now called Matters Arising.
Brief Communications; these were one-page research papers -- ended many years ago. Letters. Rolled into Article.
Brief Communications; these were one-page research papers -- ended many years ago. Letters. Rolled into Article.
One point to emphasize: manuscript editors like me often act as intermediaries between scientists and categories like News, World View, Comment, and Research Highlights, for which there is no direct submission pathway. If you have an idea or pitch, feel free to get in touch!
@threadreaderapp unroll
