The landscape of post-publication scientific discourse has changed dramatically over the two past decades. In particular, academic Twitter now provides an immediate venue for sharing opinions about new articles. In theory, the public forum of Twitter democratizes whose opinion is heard and the audience they can reach. However, in reality tweets are limited in reach to those who ‘follow’ a particular individual, and by the whims of algorithms and human biases that privilege negative over positive messages1 and promote moral outrage2 over civil discourse. Moreover, although there are certainly examples of rich and edifying discussions about new scientific articles on Twitter, the platform is not well-suited to productive exchanges, especially when the issues at hand are nuanced, complex or controversial. Indeed, many researchers choose not to engage with social media, and authors of the original article might not see what people are tweeting about their work — and this is a missed opportunity to clarify misunderstandings or learn from disagreements.

At Nature Reviews Psychology, our Correspondence section provides a forum for readers to critique and discuss content published in the journal. Correspondence articles are typically accompanied by a Reply from the authors of the original article (and both pieces might be peer-reviewed, at the editors’ discretion). Our hope is that these pieces will foster fruitful discussion between authors and readers, and shine light on important debates that are useful for the field more broadly. The original article, the Correspondence and the Reply are cross-linked on our website, so all readers who find the original article can benefit from the deeper insight offered by these exchanges.

“Our hope is that these pieces will foster fruitful discussion between authors and readers, and shine light on important debates”

Our main criterion for considering a Correspondence is the degree to which it provides timely scientific criticism or clarification that is specific to the original article. A Correspondence should not simply use an article as a springboard to talk about a more general issue in the field; such a discussion would be better suited to our Comment section. We also do not consider Correspondence articles that simply expand upon a point that is already briefly made in the original article; readers already have access to further reading through the reference list of the original article. In general, a Correspondence must add a key point of value or nuance that moves the conversation forward.

In this issue, we publish our first two Correspondence articles, both of which offer insightful critiques of the Review by Gagné and colleagues on self-determination theory and the future of work. The original authors wrote Replies to both pieces, rounding out the discussion. These two Correspondence articles and their associated Replies further discussion and enhance understanding of the original article.

Anjana Karumathil and Ritu Tripathi suggest that Gagné et al.’s claim that algorithms are not themselves demotivating is too general. They argue that algorithmic decision-making obscures potential biases, shifts accountability away from management, and might lead workers to adapt behaviour to prioritize organizational goals over their career development. Thus, the use of algorithms might be demotivating under some conditions. In their Reply, Gagné and colleagues address each point in turn, describing how each is compatible with their perspective outlined in the original article: people can leverage responsible use of technology in organizations if they choose to do so.

Rather than focusing on a specific claim, David De Cremer and Devesh Narayanan raise a broader point: Gagné et al. discuss assumptions and consequences of self-determination theory through a Western lens and assume generalizability across cultures. De Cremer and Narayanan go on to describe how the basic human needs at the core of self-determination theory might be understood and experienced differently across cultures, and point to specific assumptions in the original article that might need revisiting on this basis. In their Reply, Gagné and colleagues clarify that the needs articulated in self-determination theory are universal, even though how they are satisfied might vary cross-culturally. They then hone in on one of the assumptions that De Cremer and Narayanan dispute, and clarify how this concern might stem from a misunderstanding of how monitoring relates to autonomy.

The ideas presented in a Review or Perspective live outside the specific words on the screen, and we invite you to engage with them. Whether your critique is suitable for a formal Correspondence or not, we are always keen to know what you think of the articles we publish. Correspondence can be submitted via our website, and you can email us at nrpsych@nature.com or find us on Twitter @NatRevPsych.