Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Usage: 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. 0000006193 00000 n
Barbara McGillivray. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. 0000004437 00000 n
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. Reviews for "Nature Communications" - Page 1 - SciRev 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. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. Papers. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by reparationstapet kllare Monitoring dairy cattle behavior can improve the detection of health and welfare issues for early interventions. The proportion of authors choosing double-blind changes as a function of the institution group, with higher ranking groups having a higher proportion of single-blind manuscripts (Table4). 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). We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). 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. This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and . Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 0000002034 00000 n
The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. Nature CommunicationsTips - 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. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. 0000004498 00000 n
This first-of-its-kindoption, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform andgives you real time updates onyour manuscripts progress through peer review. In Review. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. 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). In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. 0000011085 00000 n
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. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Decision Summary. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. n/a. 0000013573 00000 n
The page is updated on an annual basis. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. 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. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.03, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 25th Apr, 2017. We did not observe any difference by author gender. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". eLife. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 0000012294 00000 n
Is my manuscript likely to be peer reviewed by now? - Editage Insights Online First - Article available online 6. our vision is for all Springer Nature authors and reviewers to have an ORCID iD, and we are confident we will get there, slowly but surely. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . 0000001589 00000 n
Nature. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. Yes Did you find it helpful? The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Nature . 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'. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. 0000014828 00000 n
. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Sci World J. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. 2009;4(1):624. The effect of blinding on review quality. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. n - For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. 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 . If we compare male authors and female authors acceptance rates for SBPR papers (44 vs. 46%), we find that there is not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for SBPR-accepted manuscripts (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction test: 2=3.6388, df=1, p value=0.05645). 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 . 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]. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 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 . However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 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. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Search. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 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. 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. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . 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. J Lang Evol. 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. 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. 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. 0000003764 00000 n
Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. Linkping University. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. How do I check the status of my manuscript? Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. . 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. 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. 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. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 8. The difference, however, is very small. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. 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. Why did this happen? The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? 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. Nature Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. captcha. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . . Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. Mayo Clin Proc. 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. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . 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). nature physics. This is known as a rescinding. 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. 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. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? JAMA. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. 9. 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. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Am Econ Rev. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. 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. ~. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. 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). 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]. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. 1 Answer to this question. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. Yes So, in October 2018, we added a new . We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. 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. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! 2.3 Procedures Communications Arising submissions that meet Nature's initial selection criteria are sent to the authors of the original paper for a response, and the exchange to independent referees. Google Scholar. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? 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]. 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. 0000004174 00000 n
Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. 1991;81(5):104167. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 Nature 's editors are. 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). Tulare Ca Obituaries, BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. 0000004388 00000 n
bounded rationality . 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. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. We aimed at modelling acceptance based on the following variables (and all their subsets): review type (SB/DB), 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). 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. . 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. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. England Women's Football Captain, 0000007420 00000 n
Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. (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. 0000009876 00000 n
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. We studied whether papers were accepted or rejected following peer review, and we included transfers because the editorial decisions as different journals follow different criteria. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. 'Completed - Accept'. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. sciencenature - Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 0000003952 00000 n
When analysing uptake data by journal tier, we have included both direct submissions and transfers incoming to each journal group, for a total of 128,457 manuscripts that were submitted to one of the 25 Nature-branded journals. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. %PDF-1.3
%
In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. 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 . We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. 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. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). 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. In order to measure any quality effect, we tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution group 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for DBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.37 for group 1, 0.31 for group 2, and 0.23 for group 3). Help us to improve this site, send feedback. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. This is public, and permanent. If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? - Elsevier To obtain Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. 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
Teamsters Local 282 Pay Scale,
Land For Sale In Miller County, Mo,
Articles D
