According to
Science, another academic journal, being published in
Nature has been known to carry a certain level of prestige in academia. 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, can be very fierce.
Natures
impact factor, a measure of how many citations a journal generates in other works, was 42.778 in 2019 (as measured by
Thomson ISI). However, as with many journals, most papers receive far fewer citations than the impact factor would indicate.
Natures journal impact factor carries a long tail. 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". 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
Natures original
mission statement: This was later revised to:
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) — •
The neutron — •
Nuclear fission — •
The structure of DNA — •
First molecular protein structure (
myoglobin) — •
Plate tectonics — •
Pulsars — •
The ozone hole — •
First cloning of a mammal (
Dolly the sheep) — •
The human genome —
Controversies Nature has famously rejected papers that later became foundational to modern science. For example,
Enrico Fermi's breakthrough paper on the weak
interaction theory of beta decay was rejected by Nature because it was considered too remote from reality. (Fermi's paper was instead published by
Zeitschrift für Physik in 1934.) In another example,
Nature initially rejected
Paul Lauterbur and
Peter Mansfield's research on
MRI, which would later win them the
Nobel Prize in Medicine. Only after Lauterbur appealed the rejection did Nature publish their work. In a 2003 editorial, "Coping with Peer Rejection",
Nature acknowledged several other rejection missteps: The journal has also faced scrutiny for not following editorial procedure. For example, before publishing
Watson and
Crick's 1953
paper on the
structure of DNA,
Nature did not send the paper to peer review.
John Maddox,
Natures 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." In June 1988,
Nature published a controversial and seemingly anomalous paper detailing
Jacques Benveniste and his team's work studying
water memory. 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 gained substantial media attention in Paris, France, chiefly because their research sought funding from
homeopathic medicine companies. Public inquiry prompted
Nature to mandate an extensive and stringent experimental replication in Benveniste's lab, through which his team's results were refuted. The journal has also been criticised for its social stances. 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 argued against removing monuments to scientists with controversial legacies. Specifically, the editorial cited 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 made the case that removing monuments could result in "whitewashing history" and stated, "Instead of removing painful reminders, perhaps these should be supplemented." The article drew condemnation, particularly on social media, and was quickly modified by
Nature.
Nature acknowledged that the article, as originally written, was "offensive and poorly worded" and published selected letters of response. The controversy was intensified as the editorial was published shortly after the violent
Unite the Right rally in
Charlottesville, Virginia. In response, several scientists called for a boycott. On 18 September 2017, the editorial was updated and edited by Philip Campbell, the editor of the journal. In April of 2020, the journal apologized for its initial coverage of the
COVID-19 pandemic in which it linked China and the city of Wuhan with the outbreak, which may have led to racist attacks. Before the election for the 46th President of the United States, Nature published an editorial entitled "Why Nature Supports Joe Biden for US President". Political scientists Ffloyd Jiuyun Zhang found that this decreased trust in Nature and in the institution of science more broadly. Philosopher of science Byron Hyde argues that repeated presidential endorsements since 2012 were a mistake and that any benefits are overshadowed by the loss of public trust.
Retractions From 2000 to 2001, a series of five fraudulent papers by
Jan Hendrik Schön were 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 and
Physical Review, also retracted papers by Schön. In 2024, a paper titled "Pluripotency of
Mesenchymal Stem Cells Derived from Adult Marrow", published in 2002, was
retracted due to concerns raised regarding some of the panels shown in a figure, making it the most-cited retracted paper ever. ==Science fiction==