Search

The author reflects on the efforts of the journal's editorial team to optimize the peer-review process and improve author experience. The commitment of the journal to provide an efficient, fair and constructive path to publication is mentioned. The author indicates that 91.8% of the papers accepted at the journal from January-October 2014 underwent only one major round of revision, with a median duration from submission to acceptance of about seven months.

The author reflects on the importance of high quality refereeing for a robust peer review process. The author highlights the central elements of the ideal referee report. Moreover, the author states that an ideal report must offer an objective and thorough evaluation of the potential impact of the study, technical aspects, and judged in the context of the published literature.

The article focuses on the referee reports shared by thirty neuroscience journals. This action is in response to the long process in publishing the manuscripts of biologists. It states that the reports will reduce the processes in publishing the said works. Meanwhile, a group of editors set up the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium which aims to help biologists published their papers.

The article focuses on the controversy about open access archiving of the scientific literatures. It notes that authors and readers are free to gain access to the researches but the question about copyright protection arises. Meanwhile, PubMed Central (PMC), an open access archives, provides a valuable repository for published work. Thus, the challenge of making the scientific work accessible while realizing the need to finance the publishing process is presented.

The article comments on the apparent proliferation of image manipulation is scholarly journals. The author notes that most image manipulation are ill conceived attempts to beautify data to address a perceived need to present a clear-cut, black-and-white story. He adds a more proactive approach at the editorial level is warranted. He encourages voluntary author-contribution declarations, which aim to enhance transparency and accountability.

Editorial. Focuses on the plans of 'Nature Cell Biology' journal to improve the publication of molecular cell biology discoveries. Increase in the number of editorial staff; Two major changes that are designed to clarify and enhance the readability of the journal; Formats for primary research.

Provides a corrected reprint to DiTullio and colleagues' article, featured in the January 2003 issue of the periodical 'Nature Cell Biology.'

Provides a corrected reprint to Matanis and colleagues' article, featured in the January 2003 issue of the periodical 'Nature Cell Biology.'

Editorial. Announces the publication of a supplement from the periodical 'Nature Cell Biology' entitled 'Milestones in Cell Division.' Highlight of the significant events in the field of cell biology; Selection process for the milestones; Web site of the supplement.

Editorial. Discusses the importance of journal impact factor, a way to help librarians evaluate journals. Launching of the first impact factor of the 'Nature Cell Biology'; Effect of the impact factors on the career prospects of scientists; Limitations of the impact factor.