Nature's guidelines for authors say that

Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising

What actually counts as recent in this case? One year? Five years? It would be helpful to know before initiating the communications arising process which begins with direct correspondence to the author of the original paper, so carries consequences which may not be worthwhile if Nature consider the original paper too old to be of note.

closed as off-topic by Buzz, Fomite, user3209815, Coder, padawan Mar 6 '18 at 11:29

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See this discussion for more info.)" – Buzz, Fomite, user3209815, Coder, padawan
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • This seems like a question for Nature, not for Academia S.E. – tonysdg Jan 10 '17 at 22:28
  • You might just ask the editor if a comment to a specific publication is still "in time". – DSVA Jan 10 '17 at 22:55
  • I'm interested in the answer. Did you ask Nature, @SideshowBob? – FuzzyLeapfrog Jan 28 '17 at 11:00
  • 2
    Yes, eventually. Without naming the paper I said it was 5 years old and they said that is recent enough to consider a BCA. – Sideshow Bob Jun 23 '17 at 16:20
  • @SideshowBob Thanks for your contribution. Did you eventually submit the BCA? – High GPA Mar 2 at 8:59

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.