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

Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. 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]. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. 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. Yes Because the median is not subject to the . 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. 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. . So, in October 2018, we added a new . R-CAPTCHA. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. 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. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. 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. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? 0000002034 00000 n Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Nature. Search. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Springer Nature. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? We did not observe any difference by author gender. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). BMC Med. 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. The lack of a significant association between gender and OTR rate regardless of peer review model (Table7) might suggest that there is no editor bias towards gender; however, this is based on the assumption that there is no gender-dependent quality factor. botln botkyrka kommun. 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. 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]. 0000014828 00000 n J Lang Evol. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. 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. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=0.13012, df=1, p value=0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). Don't wait too long. 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). PLOS ONE. Am Econ Rev. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. . 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. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. . We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. ~. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. 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 found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. 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. We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). When comparing acceptance rates by gender and regardless of review model, we observed that female authors are significantly less likely to be accepted than their male counterparts. My father emptied the thing at an unknown date ruining my spontaneous project, but at least I was able to recover the skull, jaw, spine & ribs. 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. captcha. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Why did this happen? 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/. 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. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. 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. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. Did you find it helpful? 0000012316 00000 n Please note that this definition is different from that of the corresponding author(s) as stated on published articles and who are the author(s) responsible for correspondence with readers. 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 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. The decision may need to be confirmed by multiple Editors in some journals, and the Editors may decide to seek additional reviews or assign another Editor, returning the manuscript to an earlier status. However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. 2006;295(14):167580. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. 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). A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Correspondence to "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 . 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 . One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.05, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. The effect of blinding on review quality. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. Part of 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. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 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. 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]. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. 2016;1(2):1637. We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value=0.6179). (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). 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. Corresponding author defined. Therefore, in the DBPR case, we can conclude that there is a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male corresponding authors and the OTR rate of papers by female corresponding authors. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. bounded rationality . Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . 8. Answer: From the description of the status change of the submission, it seems the manuscript did not pass the formatting check by the editorial staff and required corrections from the author. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . 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. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. 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 . 0000012294 00000 n 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. Example: Blood Cancer Journal: Go to the 'Publish with us' drop down menu: Click on 'Submit manuscript' in order to be directed to that journal's manuscript tracking system: For the status of your submission to Scientific Reports,go to the Scientific Reports contact webpage for email addresses to determine which one best fits your requirements. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Table2 displays the uptake by journal group and shows that the review model distribution changes as a function of the journal tier, with the proportion of double-blind papers decreasing for tiers with comparatively higher perceived prestige. California Privacy Statement, The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. 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. 0000047805 00000 n 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. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . 0000006193 00000 n Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. 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. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision).