decision sent to author nature communications
Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. BMC Med. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. 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. 0000004388 00000 n However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. J Lang Evol. n/a. This is public, and permanent. Renee Wever. 0000005727 00000 n 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. Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. 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. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Did you find it helpful? Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. 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. This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. statement and Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. botln botkyrka kommun. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) 0000005880 00000 n 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. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . We observed that DBPR is chosen more often by authors submitting to higher impact journals within the Nature portfolio, by authors from specific countries (India and China in particular, among countries with the highest submission rates), and by authors from less prestigious institutions. 2016;1(2):1637. . The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 0000006171 00000 n We would like to thank Michelle Samarasinghe for the help in collecting the data from the manuscript tracking system and Sowmya Swaminathan for the comments on the study and feedback on the manuscript draft. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 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 collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. 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). Among the studies dealing with institutional bias, an analysis of abstracts submitted to the American Heart Associations annual Scientific Sessions research meeting from 2000 to 2004 found some evidence of bias favouring authors from English-speaking countries and prestigious institutions [14]. The difference, however, is very small. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. Decisions are to be made by consensus. Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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. After peer review, a decision of accept, reject, or revision is made on the basis of the reviewers comments and the judgment of the editor. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. 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). 2008;23(7):3513. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . To obtain EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. 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. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). . Nature . Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). Part of Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence show a small effect size (2=138.77, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.082). Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). 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. 2nd ed. Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. 1 Answer to this question. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. In your 'Author Main Menu' manuscripts appear in different folders as they pass through phases in the editorial process: The submission is waiting for you to complete the submission (or revision) process. 0000039536 00000 n The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 2006;81(5):705. The Editors may take time to discuss the reviews and may invite more reviewers or assign another editor, returning the submission to an earlier status. In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value <0.001, df=10, Cramers V=0.189). This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. Communications (max. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. 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. 25th Apr, 2017. 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. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. 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. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. 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. Papers. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. 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). 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. 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. Here, we define the corresponding author as the author who is responsible for managing the submission process on the manuscript tracking system and for all correspondence with the editorial office prior to publication. 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. Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. 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. 0000002247 00000 n 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 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). Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? 0000001795 00000 n "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. 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. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. 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. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. 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 . Because the median is not subject to the . 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 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). I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. Hope everybody's doing well. The WeWork Decision. 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. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 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. For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4). May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. 2002;179(6):14157. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. Am J Roentgenol. 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. Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. Barbara McGillivray. In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. 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. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. 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. 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. For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal, Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number, Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing, Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. 0000007420 00000 n Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 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 . Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. 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. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. In Review. 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. Back to top. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API.
