The scientific journal Nature wants to show people the brave academic publishing.
In the editorial of Monday, the magazine announced that it will include the pendant review files with the papers it publishes, allowing access to the scenes from the scenes in which the auditors respond to scientific papers and authors with changes.
The publication of the counterparts’ reviews in nature has been optional since 2020; Starting at the two, it is now automatic.
“Our goal in doing this is to open what many see as the” black box “of science, and shed light on how to make a research paper. This works to increase transparency and (hope) to build confidence in the scientific process. “The public peer review reports also enrich scientific communication: It is an opportunity to add it to a” story “of how the result reaches, or a subsidized conclusion.”
The opening of a peer review is more common among scientific journals, but nature is one of the largest and most influential magazines that adopt this practice.
When a scientific study is presented to a credible magazine, the study will be subject to the review of the peer, a process in which experts in this field investigate work for bad thinking, bad research practices and data errors, among other issues. These external experts share their observations with magazine editors and authors in the so -called rulers’ reports.
“Lids review improves papers,” the editorial said. “The exchanges between authors and rulers should be considered an essential part of the scientific registry, just as it is a major part of the research and publishing research.”
The new nature process will make referees and public authors’ reports by default. The magazine’s step comes at a time when confidence in science has declined. Pew Research Center poll In the fall of 2024, it showed that confidence in scientists had decreased about 10 percentage points from 2019 to 2024, and that only 45 % of Americans looked at scientists as good contacts.
Michael Eisen, the former editor of the ELIFE scientific magazine and supporter of the renewal of scientific publishing, said that he sees the decision of nature as “a step in the right direction in general towards more transparency in publishing.”
“I think seeing the sausage is good,” Eisen said, adding that he believes it can help improve confidence in science. “There are a lot of criticism that stems from a lack of understanding. This lack of understanding, in my view, stems from a lack of transparency of scientists and sciences about what the process is.”
Eisen said that this step can help skeptical of science to know the amount of rigor and interrogation that is applied to the main topics.
“Through a vaccine sheet, I think it will be good for people to see the scrutiny of a paper. It will help people understand and appreciate science and how it is better.”
At the same time, it can help prevent exaggeration in the wonderful results.
Eisen said: “Perhaps people will help bypass the idea that when a sheet is published, it is lead resistant and there are no remaining questions,” Eisen said.
Eisen said that nature can make the audience’s relations on the rejected manuscripts, which are sometimes published by other scientific journals.
Eisen said: “The real radical step is to spread the reviews of all papers,” Eisen said. “Seeing the questions that appeared in accepted papers reviews are one thing; seeing the reason for rejecting the papers by magazines is something else.”
This article was originally published on NBCNEWS.com
