PÕ¾ÊÓƵ

We believe in using AI responsibly and for the benefit of the research community, our authors, editors and readers, and our staff.  

We achieve this by being committed to adopting an ethically-focused approach while using, designing, developing, and deploying AI based solutions. We design and use solutions which contain AI or are enabled by AI responsibly, making sure that we consider and mitigate any negative impact, be it societal or environmental. We place human-centered values at the heart of our approach to the responsible use of AI, and these are reflected in our and editorial policies. Below are links to our current editorial policies concerning  the use of AI.  PÕ¾ÊÓƵ is monitoring ongoing developments in this area closely and will review and update these policies as appropriate.

• SN does not attribute authorship to AI.
• SN does not allow the inclusion of generative AI images in our publications.
• SN asks peer reviewers not to upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

Please read full policies for context and any exclusions.

We believe that every author’s contribution to a research paper should be clearly credited.

We achieve this by requiring authors to include a statement in the manuscript that specifies the contribution of each author. We encourage collaboration with scholars and other relevant stakeholders in the locations where the research is conducted, and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfill authorship criteria.

We believe that only through relationships based upon mutual respect can we build trust and deliver quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve.

We achieve this by behaving professionally and respectfully at all times when engaging with authors, reviewers and readers. Likewise, we expect the same standards of behavior from the academic community and the public in their interactions with our staff. We do not tolerate aggressive behavior, or any form of harassment, bullying or discrimination directed against PÕ¾ÊÓƵ staff. 

We believe that authors, peer reviewers and editors should be required to disclose any competing interests that might influence their decisions and conclusions around a particular piece of content.

We achieve this by requiring declarations of competing interests in selected journals and fields, and we aim to implement such declarations across the entire PÕ¾ÊÓƵ portfolio in the near future.

We believe that PÕ¾ÊÓƵ has a responsibility to support the relevant guidelines (based on research community or geographical region) that specify best practice in research.

We achieve this by requiring all experimental results on animal and human participants to conform to the authors’ local regulations and ethical standards, and we also encourage adherence to international standards.

We believe that all correspondence between editors, authors and peer reviewers should be treated as confidential by default.

We achieve this by ensuring that all of our editors and employees receive clear guidance about the need for confidentiality during and beyond the manuscript assessment process. Some of our journals offer a media service through which selected papers can be released confidentially to the media, under embargo, ahead of publication.

We believe that research that involves the use of clinical, biomedical or biometric data from human participants must only be carried out with the explicit consent of those whose data are involved. Consent must be obtained without any form of coercion and with participants’ explicit understanding of the purpose for which their data will be used. 

We achieve this by requiring authors to certify that such consent has been obtained, supporting our editors in identifying and managing submissions of concern, and by requiring authors to supply documentary evidence of consent when needed.

We believe that it is our responsibility to maintain the integrity of the published literature and to act quickly to address any challenges or questions around the work that we publish.

We achieve this by having clear processes to investigate allegations of publication and research misconduct and clear policies around corrections, editorial expressions of concern and retractions. These involve working closely in the first instance with the authors and, where appropriate, the authors’ institution(s).

We believe that the corresponding author should be empowered to act on behalf of all co-authors during the manuscript assessment and publication process.

We achieve this by asking the corresponding author to confirm that they have the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors, and that all of the listed authors have agreed to all of the content of the book or article including the author list and author contribution statements.

We believe that research benefits from diversity. We aim to foster equity, diversity and inclusion within our internal practices and in published content, embody these values in all our editorial activities and to support and promote these values in the research community.

We achieve this by setting out expectations of diversity for conferences organised by PÕ¾ÊÓƵ and working to improve the gender and geographic diversity of commissioned authors, peer reviewers and editorial board members. Nature Conferences has made specific commitments, which you can read .

We believe that for information to be published, the benefit to the research community, society, or to public health, must outweigh any risks.

We achieve this by providing guidelines and an assessment framework to assist those considering the risks and benefits of publishing specific information.

This framework can be found .

We believe strongly that the editorial decision-making process should be independent of all commercial concerns.

We achieve this by ensuring that editorial decisions are dealt strictly within the editorial structures of the publication/business and that no one from the commercial or executive side of the business can get involved in, interfere with, or even comment on editorial decisions under any circumstances. 

We believe that PÕ¾ÊÓƵ has a responsibility to investigate any instances of fraud or malpractice that it detects.

We achieve this by working closely with the Committee on Publication Ethics and having clear guidelines in place for editors. Where a paper is suspected or discovered to be based on fraudulent results or to contain images that have been inappropriately manipulated, the editor will take prompt steps to investigate and to notify readers. The paper will be retracted if fraud is confirmed.

We believe that it should be simple for authors to credit their funding sources, for readers to understand what these sources are, and for funders to see the works of authors they fund.

We achieve this by integrating the Crossref Funder Registry with our systems, allowing our readers to benefit from this unique taxonomy of grant-giving organizations.

We believe that authors, editors, reviewers and publishers need to be mindful about research and its dissemination that may potentially harm population groups, as a result of discrimination in the assumptions or framing, methodology, interpretation or presentation of the research.

We achieve this by presenting principles and guidelines intended to assist those considering the interests of population groups and also ethical aspects of various forms of discrimination. A full presentation of these principles and guidelines can be found .

We believe that it should be simple for authors to link their publication to their institution, for readers to unequivocally understand the affiliation, and for institutions to see the works that have been published by their past and current employees.

We achieve this by integrating GRID APIs with our systems, allowing authors to use a list of a list of predefined institutions when submitting their work, thereby assisting disambiguation. GRID comprises a worldwide collection of institutes associated with academic research. 

We believe that robust and well-conducted peer review supports the advance of research and discovery by ensuring that research results are robust and trustworthy.

We achieve this by ensuring that all of the primary research papers and review articles that we publish are peer reviewed by appropriate experts in the field. Peer reviewers may choose to remain anonymous or, for some publications, to reveal their identity and/or the content of their peer review report. On some journals we offer the option of double-blind peer review.

We believe that personal data should be disclosed only with the full permission of the individual to whom the data pertains.

We achieve this by requiring authors to obtain consent to publish individual indentifiable personal data. In cases where personal data is published without consent, editors will retract the article or obscure identifiable data.

We believe that PÕ¾ÊÓƵ has a responsibility to investigate any instances of plagiarism that it detects.

We achieve this by routinely using the Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate on submitted manuscripts, and having clear guidelines in place for editors. Where a paper is suspected or discovered to be based on plagiarism, the editor must take prompt steps to investigate and to notify readers. The paper will be corrected or retracted depending on the severity of the case.

We believe that sharing preprints can accelerate research and help advance discovery.

We achieve this by ​​​​​​​having a unified policy that encourages posting of preprints on preprint servers, supports citation and open licensing of preprints with the expectation that authors will respect our policies on communications with the media.

We believe that the research we publish should adhere to high standards of transparency and robustness in their methods and results. This, in turn, supports the principle of reproducibility, which is a foundation of good research, especially in the natural sciences.

We achieve this by developing editorial processes and checklists to provide clarity for authors and supporting authors in the reporting of their work. We support the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines.

We believe that PÕ¾ÊÓƵ should support community best practices in the sharing and archiving of research data. 

We achieve this by facilitating compliance with research funder and institution requirements to share data.

We believe that it is essential to secure the correct rights to third-party content in order that it can legally be published and re-used.

We achieve this by requiring authors to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures, tables or text that has previously been published elsewhere. We can provide support and advice to authors to facilitate this process.