[JF – Bronwen Dekker, an Assistant Editor for Nature Protocols has asked me to post this.]

Nature Protocols is a new online journal for the presentation of both new and old methods in a step-by-step/recipe format. Packed full of useful information in the form of CRITICAL STEPs, CAUTIONs and TROUBLESHOOTING tables, these protocols should be a valuable resource for bench researchers. There are two submission routes: protocols that have been commissioned, peer-reviewed and edited will be published in the ‘Nature Protocols’ section and non peer-reviewed material can be posted as ‘Network Protocols.’ The content of Nature Protocols will be free until the end of July, but the Network Protocols will always be freely available.

While most of the content at present is geared toward the biological sciences, we think that this will also become a useful resource for synthetic and analytical chemists as it could be a forum where labs can post their methods thus sharing valuable information on how to perform syntheses or analyses of specific classes of compounds. In the moderated commenting facility, other researchers will be able to suggest modifications to the published steps that improve results in their hands. Other functionality includes links to key information, such as articles where the procedure has been used previously and information about relevant reagents and equipment.

Current content includes methods for analyzing proteins using mass spectrometry (for example, for quantifying changes in the abundance of specific proteins by in-gel isotope labeling – Asara et al.), radiolabeling protocols (for example, labeling proteins with indium-111 and yttrium-90 – Cooper et al.), and the synthesis of reagents (for example, the preparation and use of azido ruthenium, a new photoreactive probe for investigating calcium-binding proteins – Israelson et al.).

Bronwen

Bronwen Dekker (Assistant Editor, Nature Protocols)

The final batch of contributions to Nature‘s peer review debate were published last week (while I was away at the Databasing the Brain workshop in Oslo, so excuse my tardiness). It’s another fine set, but I have to single out the contribution from Charles Jennings, a former Nature colleague of mine. Charles is open-minded, analytical and articulate, attributes that every scientist should have, but which many of us fall short of. His opening sentence sets the tone:

Whether there is any such thing as a paper so bad that it cannot be published in any peer reviewed journal is debatable.

This is a very important point: peer review is not one thing but a whole collection of different practices. To some journals it means sending the manuscript for detailed review by three or more independent experts, to others it means an internal editor reading it through for obvious howlers. Charles goes on to argue — quite convincingly, I think — that the primary purpose of peer review is not to ensure that bad papers don’t get published, but that each paper gets published in the journal that it deserves (and, furthermore, that this serves a useful purpose). He then proposes ways in which the various costs and benefits of peer review could be analysed. It’s brilliant stuff so read it.

Meanwhile over at the peer review trial, it’s good to see some really meaty comments coming in. (As I write, this seems to be the best example, but manuscripts are coming and going all the time, so that will change). I’m not knowledgeable enough to say how useful these comments are to the review process, but it’s interesting to see the conversation (perhaps) starting to take off.