Editing Nature (journal) (section)

==Publication in ''Nature''==
[[File:Nature citations per article, 2013-2015.jpg|thumb|Skewed curve of citations per article in 2015 to ''Nature'' articles from 2013 to 2014]]
According to ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', another academic journal, being published in ''Nature'' has been known to carry a certain level of prestige in academia.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Callier |first1=Viviane |title=Yes, it is getting harder to publish in prestigious journals if you haven't already |journal=Science |date=10 December 2018 |doi=10.1126/science.caredit.aaw3380 |s2cid=165486966 }}</ref> In particular, empirical papers are often highly cited, which can lead to promotions, grant funding, and attention from the mainstream media. Because of these [[positive feedback]] effects, competition among scientists to publish in high-level journals like ''Nature'' and its closest competitor, ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', can be very fierce. ''Nature''{{'}}s [[impact factor]], a measure of how many citations a journal generates in other works, was 42.778 in 2019 (as measured by [[Institute for Scientific Information|Thomson ISI]]).<ref name="WoS" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Journal metrics {{!}} Nature Research|url=https://www.nature.com/nature-research/about/journal-metrics|website=www.nature.com|language=en|access-date=2020-05-30}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Nature|url=https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21206&tip=sid|website=www.scimagojr.com|access-date=2020-05-30}}</ref> However, as with many journals, most papers receive far fewer citations than the impact factor would indicate.<ref>{{cite bioRxiv |last1=Larivière |first1=Vincent |last2=Kiermer |first2=Véronique |last3=MacCallum |first3=Catriona J. |last4=McNutt |first4=Marcia |last5=Patterson |first5=Mark |last6=Pulverer |first6=Bernd |last7=Swaminathan |first7=Sowmya |last8=Taylor |first8=Stuart |last9=Curry |first9=Stephen |date=2016-07-05 |title=A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions |language=en |biorxiv=10.1101/062109}}</ref> ''Nature''<nowiki/>'s journal impact factor carries a long tail.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Callaway|first=Ewen|date=2016-07-14|title=Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=535|issue=7611|pages=210–211|doi=10.1038/nature.2016.20224|pmid=27411614|bibcode=2016Natur.535..210C|s2cid=4452614|issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Studies of methodological quality and reliability have found that some high-prestige journals including ''Nature'' "publish significantly substandard structures", and overall "reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank".<ref name="Brembs2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Brembs B |title=Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability |journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |volume=12 |page=37 |year=2018 |pmid=29515380 |pmc=5826185 |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

As with most other professional scientific journals, papers undergo an initial screening by the editor, followed by [[peer review]]. In this process, the editor selects several other scientists to read and critique articles, based on their expertise with the subject matter but who have no connection to the research under review. These critiques are then given to the original author, who makes revisions based on feedback. In the case of ''Nature'', articles are generally sent for peer review if it is decided that they deal with a topical subject and are sufficiently ground-breaking in that particular field. As a consequence, the majority of submitted papers are rejected without peer review.

According to ''Nature''{{'}}s original [[mission statement]]:
{{blockquote|It is intended, FIRST, to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life; and, SECONDLY, to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time.<ref name=nature1869>{{cite web |url=http://media.nature.com/full/nature-cms/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/7568/mission.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221010/http://media.nature.com/full/nature-cms/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/7568/mission.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-10 |url-status=live |title=Nature's mission statement |access-date=13 June 2020 |work= Nature |date=11 November 1869 }} Reprinted as: {{cite journal |title=A Weekly Illustrated Journal of Science (Reprinted from Nature, January 20, 1870) |journal=Nature |date=November 1969 |volume=224 |issue=5218 |pages=424 |doi=10.1038/224424a0 |bibcode=1969Natur.224..424W |author1=Wordsworth |s2cid=4255504 |doi-access=free }}</ref>}}

This was later{{Year needed|date=September 2023}} revised to:
{{blockquote|First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.<ref name=nature2000>{{cite web |url=http://www.nature.com/nature/about/index.html |title=Nature's mission statement |website=Nature|date=15 June 2023 }}</ref>}}

===Landmark papers===
Many of the most significant scientific breakthroughs in modern history have been first published in ''Nature''. The following is a selection of scientific breakthroughs published in ''Nature'', all of which had far-reaching consequences, and the citation for the article in which they were published.

* '''[[Wave nature]] of particles''' ([[Davisson–Germer experiment]]) — <small>{{Cite journal | author=[[C. Davisson]] and [[L. H. Germer]] | s2cid=4104602 | title=The scattering of electrons by a single crystal of nickel | journal=Nature | year=1927 | volume=119 | pages=558–560 | doi=10.1038/119558a0|bibcode = 1927Natur.119..558D | issue=2998|ref=none | url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scattering_of_Electrons_by_a_Single_Crystal_of_Nickel.pdf}}</small>
* '''The [[neutron]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=J. Chadwick | s2cid=4076465 | title=Possible existence of a neutron | journal=Nature | year=1932 | volume=129 | page=312 | doi=10.1038/129312a0|bibcode = 1932Natur.129Q.312C | issue=3252 | author-link= J. Chadwick| doi-access=free |ref=none |url=}}</small>
* '''[[Nuclear fission]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=[[L. Meitner]] and [[O. R. Frisch]] | s2cid=4113262 | title=Disintegration of uranium by neutrons: a new type of nuclear reaction | journal=Nature | year=1939 | volume=143 | pages=239–240 | doi=10.1038/143239a0|bibcode = 1939Natur.143..239M | issue=3615|ref=none}}</small>
* '''The structure of [[DNA]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=[[J. D. Watson]] and [[F. H. C. Crick]] | s2cid=4253007 | title=Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid | journal=Nature | year=1953 | volume=171 | pages=737–738 | doi=10.1038/171737a0 | pmid=13054692 | issue=4356|bibcode = 1953Natur.171..737W | title-link=Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids |ref=none}}</small>
* '''First molecular [[protein]] structure''' ([[myoglobin]]) — <small>{{Cite journal |author1=J. C. Kendrew |author2=G. Bodo |author3=H. M. Dintzis |author4=R. G. Parrish |author5=H. Wyckoff |author6=D. C. Phillips |s2cid=4162786 | title=A three-dimensional model of the myoglobin molecule obtained by X-ray analysis | journal=Nature | year=1958 | volume=181 | pages=662–666 | doi = 10.1038/181662a0 | pmid= 13517261 | issue= 4610|bibcode = 1958Natur.181..662K |ref=none }}</small>
* '''[[Plate tectonics]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=J. Tuzo Wilson| s2cid=4226266 | title=Did the Atlantic close and then re-open? | journal=Nature | year=1966 | volume=211 | pages=676–681| doi=10.1038/211676a0|bibcode = 1966Natur.211..676W | issue=5050 | author-link= J. Tuzo Wilson| doi-access=free |ref=none}}</small>
* '''[[Pulsars]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author-link=Antony Hewish|first1=A. |last1=Hewish|author-link2=Jocelyn Bell Burnell|first2=S. J. |last2=Bell|first3=J. D. H. |last3=Pilkington|first4=P. F. |last4=Scott|first5=R. A. |last5=Collins| s2cid=4277613 | title=Observation of a Rapidly Pulsating Radio Source | journal=Nature | year=1968 | volume=217 | pages=709–713| doi=10.1038/217709a0 | bibcode=1968Natur.217..709H | issue=5130|ref=none}}</small>
* '''The [[ozone hole]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=[[Joe Farman|J. C. Farman]], [[Brian G. Gardiner (meteorologist)|B. G. Gardiner]] and [[Jon Shanklin|J. D. Shanklin]] | s2cid=4346468 | title=Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction | journal=Nature | year=1985 | volume=315 | pages=207–210 | doi=10.1038/315207a0 | issue=6016|bibcode = 1985Natur.315..207F|ref=none }}</small>
* '''First [[cloning]] of a [[mammal]]''' ([[Dolly the sheep]]) — <small>{{Cite journal |author-link1=Ian Wilmut|first1=I.|last1=Wilmut|first2=A. E. |last2=Schnieke|first3=J. |last3=McWhir|first4=A. J. |last4=Kind |author-link5=Keith Campbell (biologist)|first5=K. H. S. |last5=Campbell | s2cid=4260518 | title=Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells | journal=Nature | year=1997 | volume=385 | pages=810–813 | doi=10.1038/385810a0 | issue=6619 | pmid=9039911|bibcode = 1997Natur.385..810W |ref=none}}</small>
* '''The [[human genome]]''' — <small>{{Cite journal | author=International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium | title=Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome | journal=Nature | year=2001 | volume=409 | issue=6822 | pages=860–921 | doi=10.1038/35057062 | pmid=11237011| bibcode=2001Natur.409..860L |hdl=2027.42/62798 | doi-access=free|ref=none | hdl-access=free }}</small>

===Controversies===
In 2017, ''Nature'' published an editorial entitled "Removing Statues of Historical figures risks whitewashing history: Science must acknowledge mistakes as it marks its past". The article commented on the placement and maintenance of statues honouring scientists with histories that have since come under criticism for a variety of reasons. Specifically, the editorial called on examples of [[J. Marion Sims]], the 'Father of gynecology' who experimented on African American female slaves who were unable to give informed consent, and [[Thomas Parran Jr.]] who oversaw the [[Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment]].  The editorial as written made the case that removing such statues, and erasing names, runs the risk of "whitewashing history", and stated "Instead of removing painful reminders, perhaps these should be supplemented". The article caused a large outcry and was quickly modified by Nature.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes |journal=Nature |date=7 September 2017 |volume=549 |issue=7670 |pages=5–6 |doi=10.1038/549005b |pmid=28880309 |bibcode=2017Natur.549R...5. |s2cid=4462464 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The article was largely seen as offensive, inappropriate, and by many, racist. ''Nature'' acknowledged that the article as originally written was "offensive and poorly worded" and published selected letters of response.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Readers respond to Nature's Editorial on historical monuments |journal=Nature |date=8 September 2017 |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22584 }}</ref> The editorial came just weeks after hundreds of white supremacists marched in [[Charlottesville, Virginia]], in the [[Unite the Right Rally|Unite the Right rally]] to oppose the removal of [[Robert E. Lee Monument (Charlottesville, Virginia)|a statue of Robert E. Lee]], setting off violence in the streets and killing a young woman. When Nature posted a link to the editorial on [[Twitter]], the thread quickly exploded with criticisms. In response, several scientists called for a boycott.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Schulson |first=Michael |title=History Lessons for 'Nature'|date=17 September 2017 |newspaper=Undark Magazine |url=https://undark.org/article/nature-journal-j-marion-sims/}}</ref> On 18 September 2017, the editorial was updated and edited by Philip Campbell, the editor of the journal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Campbell |first1=Philip |s2cid=47247939 |title=Statues: an editorial response |journal=Nature |date=18 September 2017 |volume=549 |issue=7672 |pages=334 |doi=10.1038/549334c |pmid=28922663 |bibcode=2017Natur.549..334C }}</ref>

When [[Paul Lauterbur]] and [[Peter Mansfield]] won a [[Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine]] for research initially rejected by ''Nature'' and published only after Lauterbur appealed against the rejection, ''Nature'' acknowledged more of its own missteps in rejecting papers in an editorial titled, "Coping with Peer Rejection":
{{blockquote|[T]here are unarguable ''faux pas'' in our history. These include the rejection of [[Čherenkov radiation|Cherenkov radiation]], [[Hideki Yukawa]]'s [[meson]], work on [[photosynthesis]] by [[Johann Deisenhofer]], [[Robert Huber]] and [[Hartmut Michel]], and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of [[Stephen Hawking]]'s [[Hawking radiation|black-hole radiation]].<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Nature |date=16 October 2003 |title=Coping with peer rejection |volume=425 |page=645 |doi=10.1038/425645a |pmid=14562060 |issue=6959 |bibcode=2003Natur.425..645.|doi-access=free }}</ref>}}

In June 1988, after nearly a year of guided scrutiny from its editors, ''Nature'' published a controversial and seemingly anomalous paper detailing [[Jacques Benveniste]] and his team's work studying [[water memory]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davenas |first1=E. |last2=Beauvais |first2=F. |last3=Amara |first3=J. |last4=Oberbaum |first4=M. |last5=Robinzon |first5=B. |last6=Miadonnai |first6=A. |last7=Tedeschi |first7=A. |last8=Pomeranz |first8=B. |last9=Fortner |first9=P. |last10=Belon |first10=P. |last11=Sainte-Laudy |first11=J. |last12=Poitevin |first12=B. |last13=Benveniste |first13=J. |s2cid=12992106 |title=Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE |journal=Nature |date=June 1988 |volume=333 |issue=6176 |pages=816–818 |doi=10.1038/333816a0 |pmid=2455231 |bibcode=1988Natur.333..816D }}</ref> The paper concluded that less than a single molecule of [[antibody]] diluted in water could trigger an immune response in human [[basophils]], defying the physical [[law of mass action]]. The paper excited substantial media attention in Paris, chiefly because their research sought funding from [[homeopathic]] medicine companies. Public inquiry prompted ''Nature'' to mandate an extensive and stringent experimental [[replication (statistics)|replication]] in Benveniste's lab, through which his team's results were refuted.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maddox |first1=John |last2=Randi |first2=James |last3=Stewart |first3=Walter W. |s2cid=9579433 |title='High-dilution' experiments a delusion |journal=Nature |date=1 July 1988 |volume=334 |issue=6180 |pages=287–290 |doi=10.1038/334287a0 |pmid=2455869 |bibcode=1988Natur.334..287M }}</ref>

Before publishing one of its most famous discoveries, [[James D. Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]]'s 1953 [[Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid|paper]] on the [[structure of DNA]], ''Nature'' did not send the paper out for peer review. [[John Maddox]], ''Nature''{{'}}s editor, stated: "the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by ''Nature'' ... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field ... could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maddox |first1=J. |doi=10.1038/426119b |title=How genius can smooth the road to publication |journal=Nature |volume=426 |issue=6963 |page=119 |year=2003|bibcode=2003Natur.426..119M |doi-access=free }}</ref>

An earlier error occurred when [[Enrico Fermi]] submitted his breakthrough paper on the weak [[Fermi's interaction|interaction theory]] of [[beta decay]]. ''Nature'' rejected the paper because it was considered too remote from reality.<ref>{{cite book|author=Rhodes, Richard |title=The Making of the Atomic Bomb|publisher= Touchstone|location= New York|date= 1986|isbn= 978-0-671-44133-3}}</ref> Fermi's paper was published by ''[[Zeitschrift für Physik]]'' in 1934.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fermi |first1=E. |s2cid=125763380 |title=Versuch einer Theorie der β-Strahlen. I |journal=Zeitschrift für Physik |volume=88 |issue=3–4 |pages=161–177 |year=1934 |doi=10.1007/BF01351864 |bibcode=1934ZPhy...88..161F}}</ref>

The journal apologised for its initial coverage of the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] in which it linked China and Wuhan with the outbreak, which may have led to racist attacks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3079293/coronavirus-nature-magazine-apologises-reports-linking-covid-19|title=Scientific journal admits error in linking coronavirus with China|date=2020-04-09|website=South China Morning Post|language=en|access-date=2020-04-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Stop the coronavirus stigma now |journal=Nature |date=7 April 2020 |volume=580 |issue=7802 |pages=165 |doi=10.1038/d41586-020-01009-0 |pmid=32265571 |bibcode=2020Natur.580..165. |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==== Retractions ====
From 2000 to 2001, a series of five fraudulent papers by [[Schön scandal|Jan Hendrik Schön]] was published in ''Nature''. The papers, about [[semiconductors]], were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003, ''Nature'' retracted the papers. The Schön scandal was not limited to ''Nature''; other prominent journals, such as ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Physical Review]]'', also retracted papers by Schön.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Retractions' realities |journal=Nature |date=6 March 2003 |volume=422 |issue=6927 |pages=1 |doi=10.1038/422001a |pmid=12621394 |bibcode=2003Natur.422Q...1. |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In 2024, a paper titled "[[Cell potency|Pluripotency]] of [[Mesenchymal stem cell|mesenchymal stem cells]] derived from adult marrow," published in 2002, was [[Retraction in academic publishing|retracted]] due to concerns raised regarding some of the panels shown in a figure, making it the most-cited retracted paper ever.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-07 |title=University of Minnesota retracts pioneering studies in stem cells, Alzheimer's disease |url=https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-university-minnesota-retracts-stem-cells.html |access-date=2024-07-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093350/https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-university-minnesota-retracts-stem-cells.html |archive-date=7 July 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yuehua |last2=Jahagirdar |first2=Balkrishna N. |last3=Reinhardt |first3=R. Lee |last4=Schwartz |first4=Robert E. |last5=Keene |first5=C. Dirk |last6=Ortiz-Gonzalez |first6=Xilma R. |last7=Reyes |first7=Morayma |last8=Lenvik |first8=Todd |last9=Lund |first9=Troy |last10=Blackstad |first10=Mark |last11=Du |first11=Jingbo |last12=Aldrich |first12=Sara |last13=Lisberg |first13=Aaron |last14=Low |first14=Walter C. |last15=Largaespada |first15=David A. |date=June 2024 |title=Retraction Note: Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=630 |issue=8018 |pages=1020 |doi=10.1038/s41586-024-07653-0 |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free |pmid=38886620 |bibcode=2024Natur.630.1020J }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yuehua |last2=Jahagirdar |first2=Balkrishna N. |last3=Reinhardt |first3=R. Lee |last4=Schwartz |first4=Robert E. |last5=Keene |first5=C. Dirk |last6=Ortiz-Gonzalez |first6=Xilma R. |last7=Reyes |first7=Morayma |last8=Lenvik |first8=Todd |last9=Lund |first9=Troy |last10=Blackstad |first10=Mark |last11=Du |first11=Jingbo |last12=Aldrich |first12=Sara |last13=Lisberg |first13=Aaron |last14=Low |first14=Walter C. |last15=Largaespada |first15=David A. |date=July 2002 |title=Retracted Article: Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature00870 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=418 |issue=6893 |pages=41–49 |doi=10.1038/nature00870 |pmid=12077603 |bibcode=2002Natur.418...41J |issn=1476-4687}}{{Retracted|doi=10.1038/s41586-024-07653-0|pmid=38886620|https://retractionwatch.com/2024/06/18/nature-retracts-highly-cited-2002-paper-that-claimed-adult-stem-cells-could-become-any-type-of-cell/ ''Retraction Watch''|intentional=yes}}</ref>