decision sent to author nature communications

Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. Because the median is not subject to the . 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). The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=378.17, degrees of freedom=2, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.054 and show that authors submitting to more prestigious journals tend to have a slight preference for DBPR compared to SBPR. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 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). 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. Usage: Search. 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. 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 This first-of-its-kind option, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy . Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. 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. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. This can be due to quality or referee bias. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. 2012;114(2):50019. 2nd ed. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Natural Product Communications: SAGE 2008;23(7):3513. . We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). 0000047805 00000 n volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). 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. Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. Reviews for "Nature Communications" - Page 1 - SciRev Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. we could have chosen a different distribution of institutions among the four categories, and will likely have an impact on the uptake of DBPR across the institutional prestige spectrum. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Nature. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. To obtain 2021 Journal Metrics. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. Mayo Clin Proc. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 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. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement. botln botkyrka kommun. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. isolera golv plintgrund This agreement provides: A supported path for UC authors to publish open access in Springer's subscription-based and open access journals, including Springer, Springer Open, BioMed . The present study focusses on the effects of this publisher intervention in the 2years following implementation and can guide others when evaluating the consequences of introducing DBPR to their journals. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. Controlled experiments as described above were not possible due to peer review policies at the Nature journals and the fact that we could only analyse historical data. Toggle navigation. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Double anonymity and the peer review process. 0000001589 00000 n 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. 0000003551 00000 n The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Why did this happen? 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. England Women's Football Captain, Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. Internet Explorer). Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. Get Scientific Editing. . Am Econ Rev. Nature CommunicationsTips - Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the Natural Product Communications editorial office as follows: [email protected], 614-786-1970. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. For other authors characteristics, such as institutional prestige, a quality factor is more likely than for gender: it is not unthinkable to assume that on average manuscripts from more prestigious institutions, which tend to have more resources, are of a higher quality than those from institutions with lower prestige and fewer means. In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value <0.001, df=10, Cramers V=0.189). The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! 0000004476 00000 n Using Pearsons chi-square test of independence, we found a significant and large association between country category and review type (2=3784.5, df=10, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.189). This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. 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? sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. 0000007420 00000 n It was on December 21, 1968, that Apollo 8 launched from Cape Kennedy, in Florida, sending US astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell Jr and William Anders on the world's . "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. 8. nature1. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. In order to test whether two variables were independent, we used Pearsons chi-square test of independence and referred to the classification in [21] to define the strength of association. 0000011063 00000 n Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. Privacy By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. 2000;90(4):71541. bounded rationality . Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. 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. Brown RJC. 2009;4(1):624. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 0000082326 00000 n So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 0000004498 00000 n national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a 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. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . How do I find and access my journal's submission system. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. 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. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. 0000013595 00000 n Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms. 0000004388 00000 n . If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. 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 . by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. 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. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). PLOS ONE. We observed a trend in which the OTR rate for both DBPR and SBPR papers decreases as the prestige of the institution groups decreases, and we tested for the significance of this. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Google Scholar. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. n/a. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. 1991;81(5):104167. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort After reviewing the reports, you can proceed to making decisions on papers. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. 1 Answer to this question. In order to reduce the variability in the institutional affiliations, we normalised the institution names and countries via a Python script that queried the API of the Global Resource Identified Database (GRID [19]). Cookies policy. In the post-review analysis, we found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. 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. . Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts In these scenarios, crowd wisdom peaks early then becomes less accurate as more individuals become involved, explained senior author Iain Couzin, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for Decisions are to be made by consensus. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. Research Integrity and Peer Review IP-address: 40.77.167.199. Title page: A separate title page is necessary and should bear a) the title of the article, b) name of the authors, c) the institutions of origin, d) a short title and for Short Communications also the corresponding author's name, address, and e-mail.Please note that it should be a maximum of 5 authors for Short Communications. Journal Metrics | Nature Communications 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. Because the median is not subject to the distortions from outliers, we have developed and provided the 2-year Median, derived from Web of Science data and defined as the median number of citations received in 2021for articles published in 2019and 2020. 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. . sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. 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. Did you find it helpful? A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. 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. 9.3 weeks. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) 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. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. 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). 0000062617 00000 n BMC Med. For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). This study is the first one that analyses and compares the uptake and outcome of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals covering a wide range of disciplines depending on the review model chosen by the author (double-blind vs. single-blind peer review). 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. "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 . Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems Nature 's editors are. process - Geological Society Of America You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. As mentioned above and discussed below in more detail, the fact that we did not control for the quality of the manuscripts means that the conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR that can be drawn from this data are limited. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. For example, a report showed that 34% of 880 manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that would either potentially or definitely reveal the identities of the authors or their institution [2]. Terms and Conditions, Editorial process | Nature Communications Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. . Does "Decision Sent to Author " before the peer review stage - reddit sciencenature - For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4). Correspondence to Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. 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 "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. reparationstapet kllare . 0000001335 00000 n Accessed 15 Jan 2017. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, Blank RM. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." 0000011085 00000 n Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. In order to identify the pair(s) giving rise to this difference, we performed a test of equal proportion for each pair and accounted for multiple testing with Bonferroni correction. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. After manually checking a sample of gender assignments and their scores, we kept the gender returned by Gender API where the accuracy was at least 80 and assigned a value NA otherwise. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. "More Manuscript Info and Tools.

Hickory Powder Vs Liquid Smoke, Zajac Funeral Home Obituaries, Palais Theatre Seating, John Helvering Sandi Patty Husband, Articles D