About Nature Genetics:

Nature Genetics is an international monthly journal publishing the highest quality research in genetics, with particular emphasis on genetic mechanism through studies on human traits and model organisms (including mouse, yeast, C. elegans , Drosophila and zebrafish). The journal was founded in 1992 as a sister journal to Nature in recognition of the rapidly expanding importance of genetic research to the scientific community and the general public.

Nature Genetics publishes approximately 20 original research articles each month, in addition to editorials, News and Views, commentary and progress articles. Recognizing the impact of technology on the field, the journal also features New Technology articles. Our aim is to publish results of exceptional significance, originality and relevance not just to geneticists but to the sientific community at large. In less than seven years, Nature Genetics has achieved an 'impact factor' of 38.9, placing the journal first on the list of most frequently cited research journals.

Criteria for publication:

Nature Genetics receives many more submissions than it can publish each month. Therefore, we ask referees to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in Nature Genetics, a paper should meet four general criteria:

• Provides strong evidence for its conclusions
• Novel (We do not consider abstracts and www preprints to compromise novelty)
• Important to scientists in the specific field
• Interesting to researchers in other areas of Genetics

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be some reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in Nature Genetics rather than a more specialist journal.

The review process:

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save authors and referees time, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from experts in the field).

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, selecting among several possibilities:

• Accept, with or without editorial revisions
• Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
• Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

Referees are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that other referees may have different views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often as helpful as a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each referee and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We frequently go back to referees for further advice, particularly in cases where referees disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that referees should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are aware, however, that referees are normally reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, and try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.

We take referees' criticisms seriously, and in particular, we are reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one referee alone opposes publication, we may consult with the other referees as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional referees to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue on which we feel a need for further advice.

Selecting referees:

Referee selection is critical to the review process. We base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a referee's characteristics. For instance, we avoid using referees who are chronically slow, sloppy, too harsh or too lenient.

We normally check with potential referees before sending them manuscripts to review. Referees should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Writing the review:

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information that we need to reach a decision. It should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed advice to authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for Nature Genetics.

Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The ideal review should answer the following questions:

• What are the major claims of the paper and how significant are they?
• Are the claims novel? If not, please identify the major papers that compromise novelty.
• Who will be interested and why?
• Does the paper stand out in some way from others in its field?
• Do the experimental data support the claims? If not, what further evidence is needed?
• Are there other experiments that would strengthen the paper further? How much would they improve it, and how difficult are they likely to be?
• Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
• If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future?

Other questions for referees to consider:

For manuscript that may merit further consideration, it is also helpful if referees can advise on the following points:

• Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more clear or accessible to nonspecialists? (It is unnecessary to provide detailed comments on grammar, spelling, etc.; these points will be handled by our copy editor in the event of acceptance.)
• Could the manuscript be shortened (given the pressure on space in our pages)?
• Have the authors done themselves justice without overselling their claims?
• Have they been fair in their treatment of previous literature?
• Have they provided sufficient methodological detail that the experiments could be reproduced?

Confidentiality:

We ask referees to treat the review process as strictly confidential, and not to discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with colleagues, but please identify them to the editors. Consulting with experts from outside the referee's own lab is normally acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors.

Timing:

Nature Genetics is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask referees to respond promptly (normally within ten days of receiving a manuscript, although this may be either longer or shorter by prior arrangement). If referees anticipate a longer delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative refereees.

Anonymity:

We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other referees, except when referees specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that referees should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. Before revealing their identities, referees should consider the possibility that they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other referees; identified referees may find it more difficult to be objective in such circumstances.

We ask referees not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities, this should be done via the editor.

We deplore any attempt by authors to confront referees or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about referees' identities, and we encourage referees to consider adopting a similar policy.

Editing referees' reports:

As a matter of policy, we do not suppress referees' reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask referees to avoid saying anything that may cause needless offense; conversely, authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.

Conflicts of interest:

Our policy is to avoid referees whom the authors have excluded, for whatever reason. We also usually try to avoid referees who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, who have commented on drafts of the manuscript, who are in direct competition to publish the same finding, who we know to have a history of dispute with the authors, or who have a financial interest in the outcome. It is not possible for the editors to know of all possible biases, however, so we ask referees to draw our attention to anything that might affect their review, and to decline to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.

We recognize, however, that conflict of interest is not always clear-cut, and the above circumstances need not automatically undermine the validity of a report. Indeed, the people best qualified to evaluate a paper are often those closest to the field, and a skeptical attitude toward a particular claim does not mean that a referee cannot be persuaded by new evidence. We try to take these factors into account when weighing referees' reports.

Referees who have reviewed a paper for another journal might feel that it is unfair to the authors for them to re-review it for Nature Genetics. We would disagree; the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as well qualified to review a paper does not, in our view, decrease the validity of his or her opinion.

Feedback to referees:

When we ask referees to re-review a manuscript that has been revised in response to their criticisms, we normally send them copies of the other referees' comments. We do not routinely inform referees of our final decisions or send copies of the other referees' reports on the final version of the manuscript, but we are happy to do so on request.

We normally inform referees when a paper is accepted despite their negative recommendation. Referees who are overruled should realize that this does not imply any lack of confidence in their judgment; it is not uncommon for experts to disagree, and in the absence of a consensus, the editors must still reach a decision one way or the other.

Policy for papers previously submitted to Nature:

In cases where a paper has been previously reviewed at Nature, authors can request that Nature release its referee's reports to us. This allows us to make an expedited decision, and we may be able to accept the paper without further review, based on the recommendations of the Nature referees. (For instance, a paper that is judged not appropriate for the broad multidisciplinary readership of Nature may nevertheless be of high quality and great interest to the Genetics community.) If the manuscript has been revised in response to the concerns of the Nature referees, we might decide to send the manuscript back to them. If an author disagrees with the criticisms of the Nature referees and feels that one referee is being unreasonable, we may consult additional or alternate reviewers at our discretion. However, we will consider the advice of the Nature referees seriously, and may ask other referees to comment on any technical or conceptual issues raised.