Supporting ECRs in peer review at Nature journals

Peer review is an important step towards becoming independent researchers, and yet many early career researchers (ECRs) usually don’t receive any training on it. An innovative initiative in Nature journals is changing this, by encouraging experienced peer reviewers to involve an ECR in the review process. The initiative offers ECRs hands-on experience in peer review, as well as acknowledgment for their work. Learn more about the initiative, and hear from editors, reviewers, and ECRs about their experiences.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are trained to conduct high-quality, original research, to develop a deep understanding of their field, to master research methodologies, and to hone their critical and analytical thinking skills. But more often than not, their training does not include preparation for their participation in academic journal publication, although it is an inherent and essential part of an academic career.

Peer review: The importance of gaining experience and training  

Academics participate in journal publication under different hats, often concurrently: as authors, editors, and peer reviewers. For ECRs, peer review is an important step towards becoming independent researchers. While authoring manuscripts has its own challenges, and editing usually comes later in an academic career, peer review is timely for ECRs, but sometimes inaccessible.

Peer review requires well-developed critical assessment skills, to allow reviewers to confidently evaluate manuscripts that sometimes deal with complex or unfamiliar topics or methodologies. It entails providing rigorous feedback, while balancing between being critical and constructive. Reviewing manuscripts is also beneficial for the reviewer’s own development as a scholar, as it improves their scientific writing and argument building skills (For researchers at any stage of their career, resources for peer reviewers are available to support them in this important work).

In journals across the Springer Nature portfolio, various initiatives address the missing training in peer review for ECRs: From Nature Communications’ peer review mentoring programs to npj Digital Medicine’s editorial fellowship, and available tutorials and a peer review online training course. These initiatives came about from the understanding that training and experience in peer review is essential to the professional development of ECRs.

Nature journals’ co-review with early career researchers initiative

In 2020, Nature Reviews journals launched an innovative co-review initiative, which is now available also in Nature Communications. The initiative encourages experienced researchers that serve as referees in a peer review process to involve an ECR from their team in their review.

Nathalie Le Bot, Editorial Director, Health and Clinical Sciences at Nature Communications, brought the initiative into Nature Communications: “We launched the initiative because ECRs represent the future scientific communities we want to support through their careers.” The initiative aims to support the career development of ECRs, both in training and offering hands-on experience, and also by ensuring proper acknowledgment for performing peer review.

The process is straightforward: The established referee is invited by the editor to review a manuscript, and encouraged to suggest an ECR to perform the review with them. The ECR is then invited by the editor as a co-reviewer, and the established referee and ECR compile a joint report on the manuscript. The ECR is recognised and credited for their contribution as a co-reviewer (as is the established referee).

Similar to the overwhelmingly positive results from the experience in the Nature Reviews journals, the co-review initiative at Nature Communications has delivered impressive results since its introduction earlier in 2024. With 26% of all reviewed manuscripts having involved an ECR, the initiative is evidently effective. An additional contribution of the initiative lies in its support for gender diversity amongst reviewers, with 21% of established reviewers and 27% of ECRs who took part in the initiative identifying as women.

Opening doors for ECRs: What participants thought of their experience

When asked about their experience as participants in the co-review initiative, respondents emphasised three main aspects: The importance of offering ECRs training on the review process and a chance to practise and develop critical review skills; the new perspectives offered by ECR reviewers; and the credit to ECR for participation in the co-review.

Training

For established referees, the initiative offers a defined and equitable structure to share a review with an ECR and to incorporate peer review training into their instruction of ECRs. One referee who took part in the initiative shared that the “process was an opportunity to engage an ECR in this important scientific task. It is an excellent program that gave me the chance to transfer my skills and experience to the next generation of scientists” (This and following anonymous quotes have been reworded while preserving original meaning).

ECRs, even those who have previously peer reviewed, recognise the challenges of this task and how beneficial support and guidance can be. Emma Picot, an ECR from the University of Warwick who participated in the co-review initiative shared: “I have previously reviewed papers for lower impact journals and have felt confident there, but I would find solo reviewing a Nature Communications paper daunting. The sheer amount of information summarised in the paper and supplemental data is intensive and would leave me worried I'd miss something important. Being able to discuss my opinions with a more experienced reviewer who had also looked at the paper properly to see where we agreed and disagreed was fantastic.”

Perspectives

ECRs drive science forward with new ideas and enthusiasm. They are more likely to have less bias resulting from experience and commitment to established paradigms, they are often proficient with new technologies and emerging research tools, and have an abundance of energy and motivation.

Established referees that were invited to peer review highlighted the benefits of including the additional – and fresh – ECR point of view in the review process: “I felt that the different viewpoint offered by the ECR exposed some issues I dismissed, and we reached a better review thanks to the discussion.” Another established reviewer tied together the benefits to the ECR along with how the co-review benefits the review process itself: “Training ECRs in the review process is critical. At the same time, their involvement in the review process brings in a novel and significant viewpoint.”

A structured co-review, it was mentioned by several, holds advantages for all who engage as well as the outcome: “This enabled the reviewer and co-reviewer to participate in a productive dialogue about the data. The reviewer has a broader perspective and a critical evaluation of the data, while the co-reviewer presents innovative and direct questions.”

Credit

Participating in peer review is essential for establishing oneself as an academic, but it is not always easy to get invited to review. According to an ECR who took part in the initiative, it was “an excellent chance to take part in the manuscript review process and it can also support me in building my reputation as an ECR.”

Reputation building requires recognition for work undertaken. Setting up a structure that encourages the established referees to collaborate with an ECR while providing recognition for the ECR’s contribution helps to create a fair process. One ECR co-reviewer shared: “This is a wonderful initiative especially because it gives the co-reviewing ECR credit for the review they did (with the review activity registered to our ORCID profile). Previously, ECRs would often co-review manuscripts with their supervisors but would not get acknowledgement for their work.”

Engaging with ECRs, from peer review and beyond

“Receiving such positive feedback on the co-review initiative encourages us to continue with it. It is clear that all stakeholders understand the importance and value of this initiative, and consider it worthwhile,” says Engi Hassaan, Associate Editor at Nature Communications. “Our goal is to develop continuous engagement with ECRs, and the co-review initiative is the first step,” she explains.

After the co-review, participating ECRs can indicate whether they are comfortable reviewing independently in the future or would prefer feedback from an editor on their first independent review, providing them additional support as they gain experience in this task. They are also offered optional training through live interactive workshops or Q&A sessions with in-house editors, to guide their journey in academic publishing. Once they have completed two reviews independently, the ECRs unlock Nature Masterclasses online that can further support their training and growth.

ECRs are the next generation of scientists that will lead research in industry and academia. Investing in their training is future-proofing scientific rigour, ensuring they can perform their best as reviewers, authors, or editors.

Check out Nature Communications’ early career researchers pathways page to learn more about the co-review initiative. If you’re an ECR, fill out the online form to register your interest in the co-review initiative, where you can also ask to be included in Nature Communications’ ECRs database to be considered for future review opportunities.