Nature publishing only positive reviews shows half the story

As the journal Nature moves to publish peer review reports for accepted papers, Bodo Stern argues this partial openness falls short of true transparency in scholarly communication..

This article is shared from the LSE Impact blog the article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science or Dementia Researcher. Shared under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) the orginal publication can be found at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/08/06/natures-decision-to-publish-positive-peer-review-reports-only-gives-half-the-picture/

Nature’s recent decision to publish peer review reports for all accepted papers, has been hailed as an important step in the right direction. Indeed, had this move come fifteen years ago, when the EMBO Journal began publishing peer-review reports for accepted papers, it would have been seen as bold and progressive.

Yet, in today’s rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication, the decision feels less like a visionary leap and more like an uninspired nod to the status quo. It reinforces a model of publishing that continues to treat peer review as a consulting service for editors, rather than a scholarly contribution in its own right. In contrast, the rise of preprints enables a form of transparent and community-driven peer review that is unconstrained by editorial decisions and thus supportive of a more open and equitable scholarly discourse.

In today’s rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication, the decision feels less like a visionary leap and more like an uninspired nod to the status quo.

Nature’s new policy will undoubtedly surface valuable scholarly insights. Nevertheless, publishing only the peer-review reports of accepted papers perpetuates a partial and potentially misleading picture of scientific discourse. It is akin to a data transparency policy that requires sharing only “positive” data points. We would rightly question the integrity of such an approach even if it increased the amount of publicly available data. We should apply the same standard to peer review. Transparency filtered through the lens of editorial acceptance is not true transparency; it is selective disclosure.

That selectivity has real consequences. First, it risks turning peer review reports into promotional endorsements rather than critical evaluations. The risk is compounded by the structure of academic publishing: authors can submit rejected manuscripts to other journals without disclosing prior concerns. With enough persistence, they may eventually receive favourable reviews and get published. If all journals adopted Nature’s approach – publishing only reviews of accepted papers – while keeping more critical assessments hidden, we’d risk elevating low-quality science with the veneer of peer-reviewed legitimacy. The outcome is arguably worse than simply publishing weak science: it would be publishing weak science endorsed publicly by reviewers.

The outcome is arguably worse than simply publishing weak science: it would be publishing weak science endorsed publicly by reviewers.

Second, this policy may distort editorial decision-making. As a former editor, I know how deeply editors value bold, groundbreaking work – even when it receives mixed or skeptical reviews. But, if those critical reviews are destined to become public, editors may feel pressure to reject such submissions in favour of safer, more unanimously praised papers. This dynamic could intensify pressure to conform to consensus and reduce the space for bold or unconventional science – outcomes that echo Sydney Brenner’s sharp critique of peer review as a “regression to the mean.”

True transparency in peer review must begin at the outset—not as an afterthought to editorial gatekeeping. Journals and authors should agree in advance to openness, regardless of the outcome. Only then can peer review fulfill its potential to rigorously assess evidence and strengthen scientific claims.

True transparency in peer review must begin at the outset—not as an afterthought to editorial gatekeeping.

Preprints make this kind of transparency possible. Because the manuscript is already public, peer review of preprints shifts the focus from editorial selection to scientific merit. Reviewers can evaluate the work on its substance rather than its fit for a particular journal. And it becomes feasible to share intermediate products of the review process – such as reviewer reports, author responses, and revised versions. Making this information visible enhances accountability and reveals how papers evolve through critical feedback.

Open peer review of preprints is not just a tool for transparency – it is a way to accelerate scientific progress. Without it, we cannot expect research communication to be as complete, accurate, or useful as it should be. Scholarly critiques are more likely to inform future work if they are made public. But transparency alone is not enough. Peer review, like all scientific endeavors, is imperfect. Making diverse and sometimes conflicting expert opinions visible is a starting point – but the ultimate goal is to build consensus, not confusion.

To achieve this, journals must take the next step. They must contextualize open peer review to help both experts and non-experts make sense of scientific debates. This not only fosters public trust in science, but ensures researchers receive credit when they correct flawed claims or defend valid ones.

Ultimately, transparent peer review reveals that science is not self-correcting by default. Corrections don’t happen automatically – they require individuals who put their reputation on the line when they challenge peers or revise their work in light of critique. This is what builds accountability and trustworthy knowledge. A system that showcases only the sanitized outcomes of editorial selection gives us just half the picture. We can – and must – aim higher.

Bodo Stern

About the author

Bodo Stern is Head of Strategic Initiatives at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He oversees programmes that support scientific discovery, foster collaboration, and drive innovation. With a focus on building initiatives that strengthen the research community, he works to create opportunities that enable scientists to tackle some of the most important questions in biology and medicine.

Find Bodo on LinkedIn