Interview


But we continue to have much to learn. We like to think that researchers submit


their work to us because of the service and support we can offer them, because we are highly professional and dedicated, because we are independent and strive to be unbiased. In all we do we strive for rigour; take peer review as an example: we ensure rigorous peer review so that the papers we consider can be improved through the combined efforts of our editors and carefully selected reviewers. We develop tools for and provide guidance on the best practice for the reporting of methods and data availability, always striving to publish research which is robust and reproducible. When you look at our journalistic


g


and protocols. This focus continues to gather momentum and these days we work with the research community more than ever before to develop tools that help our authors to showcase the integrity of their research. I am also very keen for us to engage with members of hitherto underrepresented groups. The scientific community itself could and should be more diverse; I would like Nature to make a contribution to this transformation. Not only is it the right thing to do but it will also improve research itself. It is important to remember that we


are all products of our times; I am able to do things that my predecessors couldn’t just because I am the helm of Nature at a time when we are more connected to one another than ever before. For example, I am the first editor-in-chief to engage with our community on social media; a mode of interaction I value a lot. Because we live in a digital age, we are able to enhance the visual aspects


14 Research Information December 2019/January 2020


of our communication in ways that were not possible before. For example, just in time for our 150th anniversary we’ve just redesigned our look, under the leadership of our creative director. The redesign was very much driven by the desire to improve our readability online, as this is the principal way our content is consumed these days, but also to respond in the ways that science is changing (for example, we retired our Letter format, which was no longer serving researchers sufficiently well because of its brevity).


Do you think the Nature brand is still as strong as it ever was, or is it changing? What makes researchers want to publish with you?


I actually believe the brand is stronger than it has been in the past. A brand and what it stands for needs time to establish itself and we have worked hard over the decades, building on what we have done right but also learning from our mistakes.


content, we make analogous efforts to ensure rigour, balance and excellence in our reporting, and our journalists have been recognised by international award- granting bodies. All of this contributes to our reputation among our readers. At a time when boundaries between


disciplines are blurring, many researchers are keen to publish their work in multidisciplinary journals, so it may come to the attention of the whole scientific community, not just those in their field. When you think about work that addresses the UN’s sustainable development goals, much of contemporary impactful research requires reaching beyond conventional research disciplines. Nature has evolved over its 150 years;


this evolution is set to continue. I believe that it is our willingness to adapt, our responsiveness and the service that we have, and will continue to offer, that have ultimately led to the strength of brand created, and continues to make Nature an attractive choice for researchers.


@researchinfo | www.researchinformation.info


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32