You have full access to this article via your institution.
A reviewer of a Nature manuscript can now invite an early-career researcher as a co-reviewer.Credit: Getty
At the start of this year, Nature began a co-reviewing project, designed to encourage established academics to mentor early-career researchers (ECRs) in carrying out peer review. Here’s how it works. When a referee is invited to review a manuscript, we ask them whether they would like to suggest an ECR as co-reviewer. If they agree, the pair compiles a joint report.
Growing early career researchers pathways through co-review
Early results are encouraging. Around 17% of manuscripts reviewed for Nature have formally involved an ECR in the scheme’s first three months. We are not the only journal to do this, nor the first. Similarly encouraging results have been reported by other journals in the portfolio of Nature-branded journals; the Nature Reviews journals introduced co-reviewing back in 2020. Nature Communications joined in 2024, after a successful pilot programme in May 2023. Journals from other publishers are on a similar path (V. Macarelli and F. T. Merkle Trends Cell Biol. 35, 353–356; 2025).
The more the merrier
Co-reviewing schemes have many benefits. First, credit is given where it is due. It’s well known that ECRs are often asked by senior colleagues to co-review. In some cases, there is (formal and informal) mentoring involved and ECRs are recognized by their senior colleagues and by research managers for their contributions to the review.
In other cases, there isn’t such recognition or, worse, an ECR could be asked to ghost-write review comments (G. S. McDowell et al. eLife 8, e48425; 2019). Formal co-reviewing is one response to this practice.
Focus on Peer Review
Second, reviewing is a skill. Practice is necessary, and so is knowledge of how to peer review. Increasingly, publishers are providing training. For example, Nature Masterclasses, this journal’s training academy for researchers, is offering a free course on peer reviewing. The course explains what editors look for in a review and the different approaches that reviewers use to assess manuscripts. The training also includes guidance on writing fair and constructive referee reports; the types of conflict of interest that need to be declared; and how to deal with unforeseen problems, difficulties in accessing data or what to do if you run out of time to review.
Third, co-reviewing is good for the senior partners, too. Reviews are richer when they include the perspective of colleagues who bring new ways of looking at science or who ask different questions.
Learning the ropes
Peer review is a foundation stone of secure scientific knowledge. It is important for maintaining the credibility of research and the integrity of the academic record. Reviewers enable authors to benefit from more expertise, and the process of reviewing itself helps all involved to keep on top of the literature in their field.
Perhaps most of all, it will help ECRs to establish crucial skills and experience as they embark on their own research careers. In a 2018 survey, ECRs said that supervisors were one of their biggest sources for learning how to review. When respondents were asked what support would be most useful, overwhelmingly, they stated working with an adviser. Co-reviewing gives ECRs that opportunity in a formal way.
If you’re an established researcher, please join these schemes. If you’re an ECR, encourage your seniors to do so. Ultimately, science will reap the rewards.
