« Confidential comments to the editor | Main | How not to mix politics and science »

Bookmark in Connotea

Nature's special peer-review for strong claims

In an Editorial in today's Nature (450, 457-458; 2007), Replicator review, the journal describes its publication of "what we expect to be the final word on whether nuclear transfer can work in a primate — a paper by J. A. Byrne et al. showing not only that it is possible to clone primate embryos by somatic-cell nuclear transfer but also that precious embryonic stem cells can be derived from the embryos. If embryonic stem cells live up to their promise, the technology could be used to derive patient-tailored stem cells."
The Editorial goes on to describe how Nature took the unusual step of soliciting an independent verification of the paper during the process of peer review. "This is the first time that Nature has obtained second-party replication ahead of publication. It should not be seen as reflecting a mistrust of scientists in the cloning field or scepticism about this particular research group. Rather, our actions fulfilled a statement in an Editorial from 2006 that was conceived in the aftermath of the Hwang affair: "Keeping in mind the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Nature may in rare cases demand it."
Nature will continue to evaluate the need for such validation on a case-by-case basis. Meanwhile, researchers should consider maintaining tissue samples, and trying to establish and fulfil requirements that may go beyond the routine, as Byrne et al. did for their cloning paper. In that way, remarkable scientific developments can remain as free as possible from unwarranted speculation and controversy."

Also in this issue of the journal is a News and Views article on the new work, by Ian Wilmut and Jane Taylor (Nature 450, 485-486; 2007); a News story featuring an interview with one of the authors of the paper; and a Nature editors' one-paragraph summary of the work.

A blog discussion of peer-review challenges in stem-cell research and the peer-reviewers' reports for the paper by Byrne et al. can be found at Nature Reports Stem Cells.

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited. Remember this blog is for feedback and discussion of matters concerning scientific authorship or peer-review - not for drawing attention to your research.

If you want to know if a NPG journal would be interested in your research, you will need to contact the journal's editorial office, which can be done via the authors & referees website.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to avoid spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can send your comment by e-mail to 'referees at nature.com'.

please enter code