"This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . 0000008659 00000 n ~. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. We also found that manuscripts from female authors or authors from less prestigious institutions are accepted with a lower rate than those from male authors or more prestigious institutions, respectively. Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Does "Decision Sent to Author " before the peer review stage - reddit Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. Papers. editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. decision sent to author nature communications posted by Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal, Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number, Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing, Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.' We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under the "For Authors" section of the journal's homepage as listed on SpringerLink Nature Portfolio Journals If you have previously submitted a paper to a Nature Portfolio journal and would like an update on the status of your submission, please login to the manuscript . Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. The Editors may take time to discuss the reviews and may invite more reviewers or assign another editor, returning the submission to an earlier status. Cookies policy. Peer Review | Nature Portfolio process - Geological Society Of America If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. We considered using citations as a proxy for the quality of published papers; however, this would have limited the dataset to the small number of published articles that have had time to accrue citations, given the low acceptance rate of the journals considered, and the fact that the dataset is recent in relation to when DBPR was introduced at the Nature journals. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. This might be the result of editor bias towards the review model, of the fact that female authors select their best papers to be DBPR to increase their chances of being accepted, or both. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. We investigated the relationship between review type and institutional prestige (as measured by the institution groups) by testing the null hypothesis that the review type is independent from prestige. We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) We have analysed a large dataset of submissions to 25 Nature journals over a period of 2years by review model and in dependence of characteristics of the corresponding author. We also conducted regression analyses on the data, to measure the effect of different variables such as gender and institution group on three outcomes: author uptake, out-to-review, and acceptance. In the context of scientific literature, an analysis of 2680 manuscripts from seven journals found no overall difference in the acceptance rates of papers according to gender, while at the same time reporting a strong effect of number of authors and country of affiliation on manuscripts acceptance rates [9]. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. . California Privacy Statement, We also attempted to fit a generalized linear mixed effects model with a random effect for the country category, as we can assume that the data is sampled by country and observations from the same country share characteristics and are not independent. For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. . We understand that you have not received any journal email. Plast Reconstr Surg. In order to test whether the proportions in different groups were the same, we used the test of equal proportions in R (command prop.test). There is a tiny but significant association between institution group and acceptance, which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Decision Summary. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. We employed a Wald test to evaluate the statistical significance of each coefficient in the model by testing the hypothesis that the coefficient of an independent variable in the model is significantly different from zero. The multivariate regression analyses we performed led to uninformative models that did not fit the data well when the response was author uptake, out-to-review decision, or acceptance decision, and the predictors were review type, author gender, author institution, author country, and journal tier. 0000005727 00000 n In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. In order to measure any quality effect, we tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution group 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for DBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.37 for group 1, 0.31 for group 2, and 0.23 for group 3). The result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. 2016;1(2):1637. . Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal's citation influence to the size of the journal's article contribution over a period of five years. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9). What does a status change from "Manuscript submitted" to "To author waiting to send decision to author nature. While these shortcomings of the data are beyond our control, we have made it clear in the Results section when and why we have excluded a subset of the dataset in each aspect of the analysis. For this analysis, we included direct submissions as well as transferred manuscripts, because the editorial criteria vary by journal and a manuscript rejected by one journal and transferred to another may then be sent out to review. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Help us improve this article with your feedback. 0000014828 00000 n Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. . Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? Moreover, the two models do not have to be exclusive;one could think of a DBPR stage followed by full public disclosure of reviewers and editors identities and reports. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. If we compare the proportion of accepted manuscripts under DBPR and authored by female vs. male corresponding authors (26 vs. 25%) with a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction, we find that there is a not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for DBPR-accepted papers (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction: 2=0.03188, df=1, p value=0.8583). Another report found that the authors of submissions to the American Journal of Public Health were in fact recognizable in around half of the cases [3]. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. For DBPR papers, we found a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=7.5042, df=1, p value=0.006155); for SBPR papers, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=0.72863, df=1, p value=0.3933). Thank you for visiting nature.com. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. . 0000005880 00000 n 2002;17(8):34950. Blank RM. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Nature . In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. . See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts Motivation: First decision to send out to review in 3 weeks, but then a very long delay to receiving a final decision. There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly recordthat means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. Nature CommunicationsTips - Comment on/see emerging science in full HTMLin both phone and desktop-friendly sizes, Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search, Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals, Authors original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses. Table6 shows the counts and proportions of manuscripts that were sent out for review or rejected by the editors as a function of peer review model. Brown RJC. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. In the past if your work wasn't accepted in Nature or Science researchers would often try the respected general journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, or PNAS - which wags dubbed "Probably Not . 0000006193 00000 n The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the nature of revisions and the field of study. " Decision Summary" editordecision. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) 25th Apr, 2017. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? Our aim was to understand the demographics of author uptake and infer the presence of any potential implicit bias towards gender, country, or institutional prestige in relation to the corresponding author. Nature volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. 2nd ed. Yes Am Econ Rev. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Barbara McGillivray. In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . Get Scientific Editing. The decision is sent to the author. We however included transfers in all other analyses because we considered the analysed items as combinations of three attributes: paper, corresponding author, and journal to which the paper was submitted. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Research Integrity and Peer Review The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 This is because the Nature journals do not collect information on authors gender, and thus, such information can only be retrieved with name-matching algorithms with limited accuracy. Mayo Clin Proc. sciencenature - We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. In order to assign a measure of institutional prestige to each manuscript, we used the 2016/2017 Times Higher Education rankings (THE [20]) and normalised the institution names using the GRID API. Tulare Ca Obituaries, We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. We only retained a normalised institution name and country when the query to the GRID API returned a result with a high confidence, and the flag manual review was set to false, meaning that no manual review was needed. Check Status". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. The results on author uptake show that DBPR is chosen more frequently by authors that submit to higher impact journals within the portfolio, by authors from certain countries, and by authors from less prestigious institutions. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. Correspondence to Editorial process | Nature Communications journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. We investigated the question of whether, out of the papers that go to review, manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be accepted than those with male corresponding authors under DBPR and SBPR. On the other hand, an analysis of the Evolution of Language (EvoLang 11) conference papers found that female authors received higher rankings under DBPR [13]. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). Am J Roentgenol. https://www.grid.ac. As a matter of fact, the models accuracy (as tested on a random sample of 20% of the data chosen as test set) is 0.88, and the model always predicts author choices for SB, which is the majority class. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. In future works, we will consider studying the post-decision outcome also in relation to the gender of reviewers and defining a quality metric for manuscripts in order to isolate the effect of bias. This process left 13,542 manuscripts without a normalised name; for the rest of the manuscripts, normalised institution names and countries were found, which resulted in 5029 unique institution names. Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. Our results show that we cannot say that there is a significant difference between authors from prestigious institutions and authors from less prestigious institutions for DBPR-accepted manuscripts. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. 2002;179(6):14157. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. PubMedGoogle Scholar. England Women's Football Captain, Sci World J. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. This result does not change significantly if we focus on the three institution groups we defined (high-, medium-, and low-prestige), thus excluding the fourth group for which no THE rank was found (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.405, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.064), which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. 3. level 1. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. The motivation behind Nature Communications is to provide authors with more choice; both in terms of where they publish, and what access model they want for their papers.At present NPG does not provide a rapid publishing opportunity for authors with high-quality specialist work within the Nature branded titles. We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Part of Sodexo Disney Springs, I am not a robot. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. To place the results below within the right context, we point out that this study suffered from a key limitation, namely that we did not have an independent measure of quality for the manuscript or a controlled experiment in which the same manuscript is reviewed under both peer review models. Finally, we investigated the uptake of the peer review models by country of the corresponding author for the entire portfolio, using data on all of the 106,373 manuscripts. The post-review outcome of papers as a function of the institution group and review model (Table15) showed that manuscripts from less prestigious institutions are accepted at a lower rate than those from more prestigious ones, even under DBPR; however, due to the small numbers of papers at this stage, the results are not statistically significant. Press J to jump to the feed. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. 0000001795 00000 n Data are collected annually for full calendar years. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x.
Hulwarang Ritmo Sa Bawat Sukat, How Do You Play Catchphrase On Zoom, Was Fred Thompson Ever On Gunsmoke, Jayden Federline Piano, Crisps Coaches Moree To Toowoomba, Articles D