No new data no comment at Nature Communications

Of all the modes of post-publication peer review, comments published in the same journal as the original article are the most visible, and because they have survived editorial and reviewer scrutiny, carry at least modicum of credibility. Unfortunately, comments are much rarer than expected given the number of papers our journal club savages. For example, QSR has published just a couple of dozen in the last decade. Part of the reason for the sparsity of comments must be the hurdles placed in the path to publication.

These are the requirement from Science

Technical Comments (up to 1000 words, 2 figures or tables, 15 references, and no Supplementary Materials), are published online and critique the core conclusions and/or methodology of research published in Science within the previous 3 months.  Technical Comments should not present new data or other previously unpublished work nor be based on new findings/concepts that would not have been accessible to the authors when the paper was written.

The word limit is tight and the deadline restrictive (confession: I don’t always read Science papers the day they are published), but otherwise this is reasonable.

How about the requirement from Nature Communications?

Submissions should challenge the main conclusions of the Nature Communications paper and contain new, unpublished data to support the arguments.

•    They should not exceed 1200 words (main text).
•    Contributions should start with a brief paragraph that summarizes the message of the article without specialized terminology, for a non-specialist readership. This paragraph should be used as the abstract for submission purposes.
•    Contributions should have a simple message that requires only one or two small figures or tables. Contributions with more than two figures and/or tables will not be considered.
•    As a guideline, contributions allow up to 15 references.
•    Supplementary Information is permitted at the editor’s discretion.

The requirement for “new, unpublished data” is the most important difference: Science forbids it, Nature Communications demands it.

I’ve helped write a few comments showing that:

  • The method used by Pither and Aarssen (2005) to show that most diatoms taxa are pH generalists had a very high type II error rate which voided their conclusions.
  • That changes of the sedimentation rate in Lake Erhai caused artifacts that Wang et al (2012) misinterpreted as flickering prior to a critical transition.
  • The methods used by Lyons et al (2015) caused a spurious breakpoint in the mid-Holocene.

The common feature of these comments is that none of them contain new unpublished data.

Nature Communications doesn’t require articles to contain new unpublished data. This is good, many of my papers don’t contain new data; new methods and ideas are as important as new data. However, it potentially leads to a bizarre situation that an article presenting a novel but flawed analysis of previously published data extracted from Neotoma or some other database could not be critiqued in a comment unless the authors were able to find some new unpublished data (and describe it in 1200 words).

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

About richard telford

Ecologist with interests in quantitative methods and palaeoenvironments
This entry was posted in Peer reviewed literature and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to No new data no comment at Nature Communications

  1. Good post.

    I am setting up an open post-publication review system that is independent from journals. One of its benefits would be that it would be much easier to publish a comment. I hope this will improve the publishing system and I feel that the open reviews are very helpful.

    An example journal for my field can be found here:
    https://homogenisation.grassroots.is

    • Jim Bouldin says:

      You deserve some recognition for this Victor, great idea and effort.

    • Marco says:

      Don’t we already have that in PubPeer? Maybe too broad, as it covers everything, and little quality control of the PPR.

      The big issue is also whether you can get journals to actually *link* to these post-publication reviews, right along with the paper when you find it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s