« NIH responds to critics | Main | Stifling innnovation or filtering for excellence? »

Bookmark in Connotea

Nature Precedings and open review, one year on

Today, 18 June, is the first anniversary of Nature Precedings, where researchers can post their unpublished manuscripts, presentations, posters, white papers, technical papers, supplementary findings and other scientific documents, which can all be "peer-reviewed" online by anyone in the scientific community. (The website was available before June 2007 in 'beta' form.) Santosh Patnaik, a user who periodically tracks Nature Precedings at the Nature Network Nature Precedings forum, estimates that the 500th document will be uploaded some time in the next two weeks.
Because the code for Nature Precedings is freely available, Dr Patnaik has mined some data to chart the growth of the website. His results are presented here, in graphical form. The number of posters and presentations, common when the site first launched, is now barely increasing, whereas the number of manuscript uploads has grown at a steady rate over the past year. The most popular discipline, perhaps unsurprisingly, is bioinformatics, although most other disciplines are also becoming more popular, particularly neurosience, 'evolution and ecology', and chemistry. (For those interested in statistics, Dr Patnaik has also estimated the productivity of Nature Precedings authors.)
One aspect of this type of open peer-review is that discussion is not limited to the English language, even though the language of uploaded documents is in English. The vast majority of comments are, however, in English: here is an example of constructive review in the neuroscience field, Nature Precedings style. There are many other examples: the most active discussions are here, but one can also filter by subject area.

Update: Hilary Spencer and the Nature Precedings team provide a one-year perspective at Nature Network.

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