decision sent to author nature communications
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. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. 1 Answer to this question. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 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 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). Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . 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. reparationstapet kllare . 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. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 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. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. The difference, however, is very small. Papers. As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. The WeWork Decision. BMC Med. . All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. 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 . Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 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. 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. 0000012316 00000 n The page will refresh upon submission. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. 2002;179(6):14157. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons 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. Am J Roentgenol. 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. . 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. Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. 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. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Ben Glocker (an expert in machine learning for medical imaging, Imperial College London), Mirco Musolesi (a data science and digital health expert, University College London), Jonathan Richens (an expert in diagnostic machine learning models, Babylon Health) and Caroline Uhler (a computational biology expert, MIT) talked to Nature Communications about their research interests in causality . Proc Natl Acad Sci. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. This can be due to quality or referee bias. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. %PDF-1.3 % 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 . In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 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]). Renee Wever. Scand J Econ. 0000002034 00000 n 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. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Google Scholar. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 0000039536 00000 n 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. 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. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. 0000009854 00000 n Sci World J. 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. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . The decision is sent to the author. 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. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. 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 tracking account for the corresponding journal. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. ,.,., . Am Econ Rev. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Search. nature physics. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. 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. 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. 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. 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]. 2016;14(1):85. 2021 Journal Metrics. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. . 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. 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. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 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. 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. Moreover, some records were not complete if authors made spelling mistakes when entering the names of their country or institution, as this would have made it impossible to match those names with normalised names for countries or for institutions using GRID. (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. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Check Status". 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. 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. 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. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. 0000002625 00000 n . sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. The study was designed to analyse the manuscripts submitted to Nature-branded journals publishing primary research between March 2015 (when the Nature-branded primary research journals introduced DBPR as an opt-in service) and February 2017. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. 0000014828 00000 n Trends Ecol Evol. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. 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. 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. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . 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. There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. The Editor may be reading and assessing the submission, assigning additional editors according to the journal's polices, or taking some other action outside of the system. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Nature. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. 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. 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. . 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. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. Submissions not complying with policy and guidelines receive an immediate (administrative) reject and are not forwarded to the review process (IEEE PSPB Operation Manual, 8.2.2.3) Authors are required to ensure before submission that their manuscripts are in full compliance with the magazine's submission policy and guidelines as outlined below. 3. level 1. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. 2006;295(14):167580. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. Correspondence to 1991;81(5):104167. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. 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. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. This resulted in 17,379 (14%) instances of manuscripts whose corresponding author was female, 83,830 (65%) manuscripts with male corresponding author, and 27,245 (21%) manuscripts with gender NA. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Barbara McGillivray. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. . No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. 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. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. Terms and Conditions, 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. Nature Support Solution home Author and Peer Reviewer Support Submission Rejection of your paper / manuscript Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM Springer is committed to your. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. . https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. 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. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. 2006;81(5):705. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Yes 430,805 Altmetric mentions (2021), The Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (these comprise articles, reviews, and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. 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. Nature. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. 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. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. This is public, and permanent. 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. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. 0000055535 00000 n If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . PubMedGoogle Scholar. 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. 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/. Toggle navigation. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. LZ. 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. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. 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 . 0000003551 00000 n For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. 8. nature1. It is calculated by multiplying the Eigenfactor Score by 0.01 and dividing by the number of articles in the journal, normalized as a fraction of all articles in all publications. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Table7 shows the results; for the sake of completeness, Table7 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was NA. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Back to top. 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. 4;N>0TjAWSI#|9aJs]PZYp M#M%,f-);k'\C/*('O2 X(^tL4[msd\5n9cIh(?J0yVg5[5(z,|j}(mLR:V#P/lAD~"jhQT H+}0Z3Nj>!76{7#FMxgiqyym qo=CFf.oA:+ 6hlXT?:SNMZ/|)wj 44X7^tkp+:LL4 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). BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. Privacy 2019. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Search. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts.The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. Any pending input will be lost. In order to detect any bias towards institutional prestige, we referred to a dataset containing 20,706 records, which includes OTR papers that were either rejected or accepted, as well as transfers. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 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. 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 tracking account for the . Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 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). 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. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. 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. . 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. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 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. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject.
Depressed Boyfriend Broke Up With Me,
How To Dress Up Canned Chicken Noodle Soup,
Articles D
