Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. There is not yet sufficient data to conclude which form of peer reviewtransparent or double-blindis the most conducive to rigorous and unbiased science reporting. Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. 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. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). . If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. botln botkyrka kommun. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The 5-year journal Impact Factor, available from 2007 onward, is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year. Tulare Ca Obituaries, 2015;136(6):136977. While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. The study reported on here is the first one that focusses on Nature-branded journals, with the overall aim to investigate whether there is any implicit bias in peer review in these journals and ultimately understand whether DBPR is an effective measure in removing referee bias and improving the peer review of scientific literature. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. We analysed the dataset of 128,454 records with a non-empty review type to answer the following questions: What are the demographics of authors that choose double-blind peer review? For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. Decision Sent to Author 2020-07-09 08:38:16 Decision Pending 2020-06-29 08:28:42 Under Review 2020-06-25 09:38:03 Under Editorial Consideration 2020-06-23 10:09:56 Manuscript Submission 2020-04-09 14:44:05 Stage Start Date Manuscript Ready for Publication 2020-07-16 10:45:24 . We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. 2017;6:e21718. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. Corresponding author defined. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Springer Nature. Blank RM. 0000004498 00000 n
This first-of-its-kindoption, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform andgives you real time updates onyour manuscripts progress through peer review. We investigated the proportion of OTR papers (OTR rate) under both peer review models to see if there were any differences related to gender or institution. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value <0.001, df=2, Cramers V=0.106). In our case, this analysis was hampered by the lack of an independent measure of quality, by potential confounders such as potential editor bias towards the review model or author characteristics, and by the lack of controlled experiments in which the same paper is reviewed under both SBPR and DBPR, or in which DBPR is compulsory, thus eliminating the effect of bias towards the review model. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 0000011063 00000 n
We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . 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. These records are excluded from the analysis, resulting in a dataset of 128,454 records, of which 20,406 (16%) were submitted to Nature, 65,234 (51%) to the 23 sister journals, and 42,814 (33%) to Nature Communications. 0000004437 00000 n
The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. statement and Nature 's editors are. 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 . Don't wait too long. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. 3. level 1. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). 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 . Usage: Cookies policy. If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 2nd ed. Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. Although each journal published by Cell Press is editorially independent, we have been using Editorial Manager, a manuscript tracking system that allows authors to transfer manuscripts along with any review comments they may have between Molecular Plant and Plant Communications.Should you have any questions about the . Regarding institutional bias, a report of a controlled experiment found that SBPR reviewers are more likely than DBPR reviewers to accept manuscripts from famous authors and high-ranked institutions [15], while another report found that authors at top-ranked universities are unaffected by different reviewing methods [16]. The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. 2019. To post social content, you must have a display name. JAMA. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. and JavaScript. England Women's Football Captain, Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. 0000005727 00000 n
0000008637 00000 n
We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. Brown RJC.
Guide to authors | Nature Communications Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. It's simple! Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. 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). Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373).
decision sent to author nature communications - tCubed (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? Terms and Conditions, The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. 0000004388 00000 n
85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. Because of the small size of the data set for accepted papers and of the lack of an independent measure for the quality of the manuscripts, we could not draw firm conclusions on the existence of implicit bias and on the effectiveness of DBPR in reducing or removing it. . When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. . 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. This might indicate that authors are more likely to choose DBPR when the stakes are higher in an attempt to increase their success chances by removing any implicit bias from the referees.
Blue Ridge Parkway Rhododendron Bloom 2022,
Articles D