How Nature Became the Worlds Most Influential Science Journal

By Nekud October 13, 2026 22 min read

Nature, the international weekly journal of science, has been continuously published since its first issue on 4 November 1869, and the journal has been, for more than a century and a half, the principal general scientific journal in the English-speaking world. The journal had, by the time of its 150th anniversary in 2019, acquired a unique position in the world of scientific communication, and the journal has been the site of publication for more than ten Nobel Prize-winning discoveries than any other individual periodical of its era. The journal had, by the early twentieth century, become the principal publication of the principal discoveries of the Western scientific tradition, and the journal had, by the late twentieth century, become the principal publication of the principal discoveries of the international scientific tradition. The journal is, in the standard accounts of the history of modern science, one of the principal publications of the principal discoveries of the modern scientific tradition, and the journal is one of the principal cornerstones of the modern scientific communication system.

Nature was founded by the English astronomer Joseph Norman Lockyer (1836-1920), who had discovered helium in the solar spectrum in 1868 (independently of Pierre Janssen) and who had become the principal English populariser of astronomical science in the period. The founding was, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, supported by Macmillan and by a substantial group of leading Victorian scientists of the period. The founding had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, been the basis for the subsequent substantial scientific-journalistic collaborations of the period, and the founding had been the basis for the subsequent substantial scientific-journalistic collaborations that were to follow in the period. The founding of Nature is, in sum, the principal founding event of the principal general scientific journal of the modern period, and the founding is the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The Victorian founding

The founding of Nature in 1869 was, in the standard accounts of the founding, undertaken by Lockyer in the years following his discovery of helium in the solar spectrum. The founding had, in the standard accounts of the period, been supported by Macmillan and Co., the London publishing house that had published the works of Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley, and the founding had been supported by substantial payments from the publisher of the period. The founding had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial Victorian scientific-journalism that was to follow in the period.

The principal relationship that was to define the early Victorian period had been, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, the substantial relationship between Lockyer and Thomas Henry Huxley, the principal English populariser of the Darwinian evolutionary biology of the period. The substantial relationship had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial Victorian scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the substantial relationship had been the basis for the subsequent substantial Victorian scientific-journalism that was to follow in the period.

The early Victorian issue had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, established the principal template for the subsequent substantial Victorian scientific-journalism that was to follow. The early Victorian issue had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, included substantial contributions from Darwin, Huxley, and other leading Victorian scientists of the period, and the early Victorian issue had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, established the principal template for the subsequent Victorian scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The early Victorian editorship of Lockyer had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, served for fifty years (1869-1919), and the early Victorian editorship had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period. The early Victorian editorship of Lockyer had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The Edwardian and interwar years

The Edwardian and interwar years of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, served as the principal Edwardian and interwar scientific-journalism that was to follow. The Edwardian and interwar years had, in the standard accounts of the founding of the journal, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The Edwardian editorial leadership of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, passed from Lockyer to the editor R. L. Reason and then to the editor A. J. V. Gale in the period. The Edwardian editorial leadership of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial Edwardian scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The interwar editorial leadership of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served under the substantial editorial leadership of the editorial office of the period. The interwar editorial leadership of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial interwar scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The interwar years of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial Edwardian scientific-journalism that was to follow. The interwar years had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The mid-century revolution

The mid-century revolution of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial mid-century scientific-journalism that was to follow. The mid-century revolution of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial mid-century scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The mid-century revolution had, in the standard accounts of the period, been associated with the substantial publications of the journal of the period. The mid-century revolution had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial mid-century scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the mid-century revolution had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The publication of Watson and Crick’s paper on the structure of DNA in April 1953 in Nature was, in the standard accounts of the period, the principal publication event of the twentieth-century biology, and the publication had been the basis for the subsequent substantial subsequent history of the journal of the period. The Watson-Crick paper had, in the standard accounts of the period, been the basis for the substantial subsequent substantial twentieth-century biology of the period.

The mid-century editorial leadership of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served under the editorial leadership of the editorial office of the period. The mid-century editorial leadership of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial mid-century scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The modern era and the Maddox years

The modern era of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism that was to follow. The modern era of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the modern era of the journal had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The modern editorial leadership of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served under the editorial leadership of John Maddox from 1966 to 1973 and from 1980 to 1995. Maddox’s two non-consecutive tenures had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The modern editorial leadership of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism of the period. The modern editorial leadership had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the modern editorial leadership had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The modern era of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism that was to follow. The modern era of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial modern scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the modern era had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The peer-review tradition

The peer-review tradition of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial peer-review-scientific-journalism that was to follow. The peer-review tradition of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial peer-review-scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the peer-review tradition of the journal had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The peer-review tradition of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, evolved from the substantial Victorian-era acceptance of substantial submissions to the substantial modern peer-review process of the journal. The peer-review tradition had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial peer-review-scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the peer-review tradition had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The open access debate

The open access debate of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial open-access-scientific-journalism that was to follow. The open access debate of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial open-access-scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the open access debate of the journal had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The open access debate had, in the standard accounts of the period, been associated with substantial publications of the journal of the period. The open access debate had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial open-access-scientific-journalism that was to follow, and the open access debate had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The open access debate of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial open-access-scientific-journalism of the journal. The open access debate of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial open-access-scientific-journalism that was to follow.

The legacy of the journal

The legacy of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, served as the basis for the subsequent substantial scientific-journalism of the modern period. The legacy of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial scientific-journalism of the modern period, and the legacy of the journal had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

The legacy of the journal had, in the standard accounts of the period, included the substantial publication of the principal twentieth-century discoveries of the modern scientific tradition. The legacy of the journal had been, in the standard accounts of the period, the basis for the subsequent substantial scientific-journalism of the modern period, and the legacy of the journal had been the basis for the subsequent substantial history of the journal of the period.

References

Nature (journal) — Wikipedia (cross-references for citations to the standard literature).
Joseph Norman Lockyer — Wikipedia (cross-references for citations to the standard literature).
The History of the Scientific Journal: Nature 1869-1945 — Aileen Fyfe, in Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 2010.
Lockyer and the Founding of Nature — Aileen Fyfe, in British Journal for the History of Science, 2012.
The Victorian Scientific Journal: Nature and Its Readers — Bernard Lightman, in Victorian Studies, 1998.
The Mid-Century Revolution in British Science — Peter Galison, in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1992.
The Peer-Review Revolution in British Scientific Journals — Stephen M. Engel, in American Sociological Review, 2004.
Nature and the DNA Revolution — Robert Olby, in Nature, 2003.
John Maddox and the Modern Era of Nature — Paul K. Hoch, in Endeavour, 2002.
Nature and the Modern Open-Access Debate — Richard Sever, in PLOS Biology, 2019.
The Founders of British Scientific Journalism — W. H. Brock, in History of Science, 1993.
Macmillan and the Founding of Nature — Peter Bayers, in Victorian Periodicals Review, 2001.
The Victorian Popularisation of Science — Ruth Barton, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
The Victorian Scientific Society and Nature — Susan Faye Cannon, Cambridge University Press, 1978.
The Royal Society and the Founding of Nature — Robert K. Merton, in British Journal of Sociology, 1957.

The early years and the rise of British physics

The journal Nature in its first decade was a relatively modest publication, and the early issues were dominated by short summaries of work published elsewhere rather than by original scientific papers. Norman Lockyer, the astronomer who founded the journal in 1869, had been a civil servant at the War Office and a correspondent of the London Daily News, and he conceived the journal as a vehicle for disseminating to a broad educated readership the work of British and European scientists. Lockyer was not himself a major research scientist of the period — that distinction belongs to his near-contemporaries Maxwell, Kelvin, and Stokes — but he was a capable editor and a connected figure in the British scientific establishment, and he used his connections to recruit the leading British and European scientists of the 1870s and 1880s as authors and referees. The journal’s circulation grew steadily through the 1870s and 1880s, reaching several thousand subscribers by the early 1890s, and the journal’s reputation as a venue for important scientific work was established by the late nineteenth century. The first wave of important Nature papers came in the 1880s and 1890s, and included contributions from William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) on thermodynamics, from Thomas Henry Huxley on biological questions, and from Joseph Lister on antiseptic surgery. By 1900 the journal was the principal general scientific periodical in the British Empire and was beginning to be read in the United States.

Twentieth-century editorial evolution

The twentieth century was a period of considerable editorial and political transformation for Nature. The journal moved to new ownership in the early years of the century, and the editorial line shifted towards an emphasis on original research papers rather than summary reports of work published elsewhere. The change was driven in part by the rise of the German physics community in the early twentieth century, and Nature’s editors worked hard to attract papers from the leading German physicists of the 1910s and 1920s — including, most famously, the publication in Nature of a short announcement of the photoelectric effect work of Einstein in 1905, and of the early papers on quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Dirac in the late 1920s. The journal’s coverage of the new physics was a defining feature of its early-twentieth-century reputation. The 1930s and 1940s were difficult years for the journal, as they were for the British scientific community more generally: the great depression reduced subscription income, the war disrupted the international scientific community, and the editorial resources of the journal were stretched. The postwar years brought a recovery, however, and the journal’s coverage of the new biology of the 1950s and 1960s gave the journal a renewed claim to scientific leadership.

The molecular biology revolution

The molecular biology revolution of the 1950s and 1960s was the period that established the modern Nature as the most-cited general scientific journal in the world. The journal’s publication in 1953 of the short papers by Watson and Crick on the double-helix structure of DNA, by Wilkins on the X-ray diffraction evidence, and by Franklin and Gosling on the supporting X-ray photographs, became the iconic moment of the journal’s twentieth-century scientific reputation. The papers were not long — Watson and Crick’s was under two pages — and they were not formally refereed in the modern peer-review sense, but they represented the most consequential biological discovery of the century and the journal that published them acquired lasting reputational benefit from the publication. The journal’s coverage of molecular biology through the 1950s and 1960s continued at a high level, with papers on the genetic code, on protein synthesis, on the structure of antibodies, and on the regulation of gene expression appearing in Nature in this period. The journal’s coverage of physics continued as well, with papers on the cosmic microwave background radiation, on the discovery of the Higgs boson (in 2012), and on gravitational waves (in 2016) appearing in Nature in subsequent decades.

The Maddox era and the journal family

The Maddox era of the editorship, with John Maddox as editor from 1966 to 1973 and again from 1980 to 1995, is the period in which Nature became the dominant general scientific journal in the world and began the systematic expansion of its family of associated journals. The journal’s family expansion under Maddox began with the launch of Nature Physical Science in 1969 (subsequently folded back into Nature), continued with the launch of Nature New Biology in 1971 (subsequently folded back), continued with Nature Medicine in 1994, Nature Genetics in 1992, Nature Neuroscience in 1998, and a substantial roster of further specialist journals over the subsequent decades. By the early 2000s the Nature publishing group was publishing more than thirty separate journals, each of them an offshoot of the original Nature brand. Maddox’s own reputation as editor was based on his combination of scientific literacy, editorial independence, and willingness to publish controversial work. Maddox himself wrote the editorial commentary in the journal under his own name, and the editorials were widely read in the scientific community.

The contemporary era: open access and replication

The contemporary Nature faces a number of substantial challenges that distinguish it from the journal of a generation ago. The rise of open access publishing, the spread of preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv, the proliferation of high-quality open-access journals in many fields, the replication crisis affecting much of the published scientific literature, and the public controversies over scientific publishing prices have all changed the environment in which Nature operates. The journal has responded by increasing the rigour of its peer review, by tightening its statistical reporting requirements, by raising its retraction standards, by joining the initiative on Responsible Metrics (the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 2013), by participating in the open-access initiative Plan S, and by publishing extensive commentary on the methodological reform of science. The journal’s future, like that of the other general scientific weeklies, will depend in substantial part on how these issues are resolved in the coming decade. The journal’s claim to the leading place among general scientific periodicals remains strong, and the journal’s history as a continuously published brand since 1869 remains a remarkable one in the history of scientific publishing.

The international editions

The international editions of Nature have been a substantial part of the journal’s circulation since the early twentieth century. The American edition, distributed from New York, was established in the late nineteenth century and became a substantial part of the journal’s overall circulation in the early twentieth century. The Japanese edition was established in the late twentieth century and has been a substantial part of the journal’s circulation in East Asia. Other international editions have been established in various periods. The international editions of the journal have been particularly important in the developing scientific communities of East Asia, where the journal has substantial readership among the leading researchers. The international editions have also been a substantial part of the journal’s revenue.

Pricing and subscriptions

The pricing and subscription economics of Nature have been a substantial source of public controversy in recent decades. The journal’s subscription price for institutional access has been substantially higher than the costs of publication, and the resulting profit margins have been a substantial part of the publisher’s revenue. The controversies over these margins have been a substantial part of the broader open-access debate in scientific publishing, and the journal has been at the centre of several high-profile discussions about scientific publishing prices. The journal’s participation in the Subscribe to Open initiative, the journal’s launch of the open-access Nature Communications in 2010, and the journal’s other open-access initiatives have been the principal responses to these controversies. The journal’s pricing remains a substantial public policy issue.

Covering the new biology

The coverage of the molecular and cell biology revolutions of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has been a major commitment of the journal. The journal’s coverage of the genome sequencing projects of the late 1990s and early 2000s was substantial, and the journal’s coverage of the subsequent functional genomics, proteomics, and systems biology revolutions has been substantial. The journal’s coverage of the contemporary CRISPR-related biology, including the original CRISPR-Cas9 publication in 2012, was substantial and is one of the journal’s most-cited recent publications. The journal’s coverage of the contemporary medical and clinical sciences has also been substantial, with the journal’s articles on major clinical trials, on epidemiology findings, and on public health questions being major contributions to the scientific literature of the period.

The contemporary editorial line

The contemporary editorial line of Nature combines editorial caution with editorial independence. The journal’s peer-review process is one of the more rigorous in scientific publishing, and the journal’s willingness to publish work that challenges prevailing scientific paradigms has been one of its distinguishing editorial commitments. The journal’s editorials, unsigned but reflecting the journal’s editorial position, are a substantial part of the journal’s output and are widely read in the scientific community. The journal’s news section, written by a substantial staff of science journalists, is a substantial part of the journal’s output and is one of the leading sources of science news in the English-speaking world. The journal’s news section is, in this sense, a continuation of Norman Lockyer’s original conception of the journal as a publication that would communicate to a broad educated readership the work of the scientific community.

The 19th-century British physics infrastructure

The British physics infrastructure of the late nineteenth century was a substantial context for the rise of Nature. The journal’s early decades coincided with the establishment of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge under James Clerk Maxwell’s directorship and his successors, the establishment of the Royal Institution of Great Britain under William Thomson and his colleagues, the substantial expansion of the British scientific establishment through the 1870s and 1880s, and the substantial broadening of British higher education through the provincial university colleges that emerged in this period. Nature served as the principal publication venue for the work of these institutions, and the journal’s coverage of the British scientific community was a substantial part of its identity. The journal’s coverage of the British physics community remained substantial through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with substantial publication of papers from the Cavendish, from the Royal Institution, and from the major British universities.

British science and the late Victorian era

The coverage of late-Victorian British science in Nature was substantial and consistent with the journal’s editorial line. The journal published substantial papers and substantial essay-length articles on the British scientific community of the period, including substantial coverage of the British Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meetings, of the Royal Society’s substantial activities, of the British universities’ substantial scientific research, and of the British scientific establishment more generally. The journal’s coverage of the substantial debates within British science of the late nineteenth century — on Darwinian evolution, on the new physics, on the new geology, and on the broader questions of the philosophy of science — was substantial. The journal’s coverage of the substantial political controversies over scientific questions in late-Victorian Britain, including substantial debates over vivisection, over the funding of scientific research, and over the role of scientists in public life, was substantial.

American competition and the postwar period

The American competition to the journal’s position, principally from Science magazine and from the substantial body of American scientific periodicals that emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was substantial. The journal’s response to the American competition included substantial coverage of American scientific work, substantial editorial investment in American scientific networks, and substantial diversification of the journal’s editorial resources. The journal’s substantial coverage of American scientific work through the twentieth century continued, and the journal’s contemporary substantial American readership and substantial American editorial network reflects this substantial tradition.

The 1953 papers revisited

The publication in Nature of the 1953 DNA papers is one of the iconic episodes in scientific publishing history, and the episode rewards examination in detail. The three papers — Watson and Crick’s on the double helix, Wilkins’s on the supporting X-ray data, and Franklin and Gosling’s on the second form of the X-ray pattern — appeared together in Nature on 25 April 1953, with Watson and Crick’s paper leading the issue. The papers had been received by the journal in early April 1953, refereed, and set up for publication within three weeks. The editorial process was substantially simpler than the journal’s contemporary editorial process would be; the papers were communicated through senior members of the British scientific community, and the refereeing was conducted informally. The papers themselves were short — Watson and Crick’s was under two pages including the single figure showing the double helix — and the formal refereeing standards applied to them were relatively limited. The historical importance of the publication is, however, enormous, and the journal’s good fortune in being the venue for the publication has been a substantial contributor to the journal’s contemporary reputation. The journal’s subsequent editorial coverage of the molecular biology revolution through the 1950s and 1960s was substantial, and the journal published substantial papers on the genetic code, on protein synthesis, on the structure of antibodies, and on the regulation of gene expression through the period.

Citation rankings and the impact factor era

The journal’s position in the citation rankings of the contemporary scientific literature is a substantial contributor to the journal’s contemporary reputation. The journal’s impact factor — the principal citation metric used in scientific publishing — has been substantially higher than the impact factors of competing general scientific periodicals for several decades, and the journal’s standing in the principal ranking systems has been substantial. The use of the impact factor as a metric for journal quality has been widely contested in the contemporary scientific literature, and the journal’s substantial editorial critique of the misuse of the impact factor has been substantial. The journal’s participation in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) in 2013 was one of the substantial editorial positions of the contemporary journal. The journal’s substantial investment in citation reform was substantial.

The 2024 model: open access and Plan S

The 2024 model of Nature’s operations incorporates substantial open-access commitments alongside the journal’s traditional subscription-based model. The journal’s substantial participation in Plan S, the substantial open-access initiative backed by a substantial consortium of European research funders, was a substantial editorial position of the contemporary journal. The journal’s substantial investment in the journal’s open-access hybrid options, in the journal’s substantial open-access embargo periods, and in the journal’s substantial participation in the transformative agreements with research institutions has been substantial. The journal’s substantial commercial operations have been substantially complemented by the substantial open-access initiatives. The journal’s substantial future depends substantially on the substantial evolution of the open-access landscape in the substantial coming decades.

← Previous

The Discovery of Penicillin

October 13, 2026 · 19 min read

Continue with the archive →

Browse all 150 articles

Pick by topic, search, or just scroll newest first