decision sent to author nature communications decision sent to author nature communications

If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). 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. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 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 . The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (2=331.62, df=1, p value <0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (2=464.86, df=1, p value <0.001). Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. 2019. 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. 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. 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. We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): corresponding authors gender, the group of their institution (1, 2, 3, or 4), the category of their country (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, the UK, the USA, and Others), and the journal tier (Nature, Nature sister journals, and Nature Communications). The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Help us improve this article with your feedback. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . . 2012;114(2):50019. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. Renee Wever. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Why did this happen? BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. 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). 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). 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. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). Hope everybody's doing well. 2017;12(12):e0189311. manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. 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. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. 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. To post social content, you must have a display name. Mayo Clin Proc. 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. 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. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. (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. We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. Sodexo Disney Springs, Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Cite this article. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. Yes 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. Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. 9.3 weeks. Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. 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.' . This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 2017-07-13 11:21. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. California Privacy Statement, 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. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 0000004388 00000 n 2002;179(6):14157. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. Google Scholar. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). 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. Toggle navigation. 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. 3. level 1. Hathaway High School Staff, For Coupons, Giveaways, and Free Games to play with your family, distance between underground pull boxes fiber optic cable, richest instagram influencers non celebrity, big spring correctional center inmate search, rachael newsham and dan cohen relationship, giorno giovanna you will never reach the truth japanese, 34 eye opening photos of the great depression, Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). 1 Answer to this question. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 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. "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 . 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. 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. 0000001245 00000 n Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Did you find it helpful? Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 0000003764 00000 n We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. Nature. The Alan Turing Institute, London, England, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, Springer Nature, 4 Crinan Street, London, UK, You can also search for this author in In order to see whether the final decision outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Don't wait too long. 2006;6:12747. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 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 dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. 0000002625 00000 n Press J to jump to the feed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. . 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 . Perspect Psychol Sci. 2002;17(8):34950. An analysis of the journal Behavioral Ecology, which switched to DBPR in 2001, found a significant interaction between gender and time, reflecting the higher number of female authors after 2001, but no significant interaction between gender and review type [11]. 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. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. 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]). These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, . But the confusing part is, is that the reviewer are now done with reviewing (Review completed) but the new status became apperently ''Manuscript under consideration". How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 0000006193 00000 n Tulare Ca Obituaries, The effect of blinding on review quality. 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. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. " Decision Summary" editordecision. 0000065294 00000 n Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 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. 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. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission, https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. . Some research has not found conclusive results [6, 7], demonstrating the need for further large-scale systematic analyses spanning over journals across the disciplinary spectrum. Am Econ Rev. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. I am not a robot. 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. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. Several Nature journals (see list below) follow a transparent peer review system, publishing details about the peer review process as part of the publication (including the reviewer comments to. 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. Another issue that hampered our study was the lack of complete records for each manuscript in the dataset in relation to gender, country, and institution of the corresponding author. We note here that, in recent years, trends in scholarly publishing have emerged that strongly propose transparent, or open, peer review as a model that could potentially improve the quality and robustness of the peer review process [18]. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. 2021 Journal Metrics. It's simple! Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. ,.,., . Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. 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. 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. That is, authors that feel more vulnerable to implicit bias against the prestige of their institutional affiliation or their country tend to choose DBPR to prevent such bias playing a role in the editorial decision. 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. 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. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. . 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. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Check Status". . We divided the journals in three tiers: (i) the flagship interdisciplinary journal (Nature), (ii) the discipline-specific sister journals (Nature Astronomy, Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Cell Biology, Nature Chemical Biology, Nature Chemistry, Nature Climate Change, Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature Energy, Nature Genetics, Nature Geoscience, Nature Human Behaviour, Nature Immunology, Nature Materials, Nature Medicine, Nature Methods, Nature Microbiology, Nature Nanotechnology, Nature Neuroscience, Nature Photonics, Nature Physics, Nature Plants, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology), and (iii) the open-access interdisciplinary title (Nature Communications). Get Scientific Editing. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. You can see an example in the article above. The prestige of the corresponding authors institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 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. 0000082326 00000 n Sorry we couldn't be helpful. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. One possible explanation for the lack of fit is that more or other predictors would be needed in order to fully explain the response, for example, a measure of quality, as we have already indicated. 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. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Terms and Conditions, 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . . Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. 0000014828 00000 n We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. More specifically, the proportion of authors choosing DBPR is lower for higher ranking institution groups; in the uptake analysis by country, China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 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. 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 . Help us to improve this site, send feedback. 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. 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. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. 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. 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. 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. 0000001589 00000 n Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard.