Nature of science journals aims to highlight the complexities of academic publishing.

In an editorial released on Monday, the journal revealed it will include a peer review file with the papers it plans to publish. This will grant reviewers insight into the behind-the-scenes process where authors respond to revisions.

Publishing peer review files has been an option in Nature since 2020, but as of Monday, it has become a standard practice.

“Our goal is to demystify what many refer to as the ‘black box’ of science and clarify how research papers are developed. This aims to enhance transparency and foster trust in the scientific process. We believe that publishing peer reviewer reports enriches scientific communication and contextualizes how results and conclusions are reached.”

Opening the peer review process is becoming increasingly common among scientific journals, but Nature stands out as one of the largest and most influential in adopting this practice.

Peer review occurs once scientific research is submitted to a reputable journal, where field experts evaluate the work for issues such as flawed inferences, poor research practices, and data errors. These external experts provide feedback to journal editors and authors, known as the Judge Report.

“Peer review enhances the quality of the paper,” the editorial states. “The dialogue between authors and reviewers should be regarded as a significant component of the scientific record, crucial to research andits dissemination.”

Nature’s updated process automatically publishes judge reports and author responses. Journal practices evolve particularly when public trust in science wanes; a Pew Research Center poll indicates that trust in scientists fell approximately 10 percentage points from 2019 to 2024, with only 45% of Americans considering scientists to be effective communicators.

Michael Eisen, a former editor of the scientific journal Elife and a proponent of reforming the scientific publishing process, believes Nature’s decision marks a significant step towards greater transparency in the field.

“It’s valuable for the public to witness the process,” Eisen stated. “Much of the criticism stems from misunderstanding, which often arises from a lack of transparency surrounding scientific processes.”

Eisen suggests this move could help skeptics recognize the rigorous scrutiny applied to critical topics.

“For instance, if people observe the thorough examination vaccine-related studies undergo, it can help them better understand and assess the context of scientific findings,” Eisen noted.

At the same time, this transparency may help to mitigate the sensationalism often associated with striking findings.

“It may help dispel the notion that once a paper is published, it is infallible and that all questions have been resolved,” Eisen added.

He also mentioned that Nature could publish reviewer comments on manuscripts that were ultimately rejected.

“The truly transformative step would be to disclose reviews for all submitted papers,” Eisen remarked. “While it’s insightful to understand the questions raised in reviews of accepted papers, it is equally important to see why certain papers were rejected by the journal.”