> The private sector funds most global research and development, and many of the results of such work are not published in peer-reviewed journals. We at Nature

> The private sector funds most global research and development, and many of the results of such work are not published in peer-reviewed journals. We at Nature think it’s important that journals engage with the private sector and work with its scientists so they can submit their research for peer review and publication … But this goal will not be achieved in a single step. It will require a process. And that requires engagement and dialogue between all stakeholders. I can understand this line of reasoning if the researchers involved needed convincing to publish their results in peer-reviewed journals at all. But this is Nature we're talking about, and more likely than not I imagine the incentives work the other way around. As it stands, the AlphaFold team gets to use a Nature publication to lend their work the veneer of prestige and credibility, without actually being held to the same standards of openness that are demanded of us ordinary mortals. As far as I can tell the uproar is about this specific double standard, and to the extent that this editorial doesn't really address this, I think it misses the point.