2007;18(2):MR000016. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. trailer << /Size 54 /Info 7 0 R /Root 10 0 R /Prev 92957 /ID[<98e42fa76505e1b5b1796b170b58dfee><8c8134bb7fa785eceed4533362dfb985>] >> startxref 0 %%EOF 10 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 6 0 R /Metadata 8 0 R /PageLabels 5 0 R >> endobj 52 0 obj << /S 48 /L 155 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 0 R >> stream eLife. When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. 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. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. ~. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. Mayo Clin Proc. . 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). The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? 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 spite of the presence of explicit instructions to authors, this type of review model has sometimes been shown to fail to hide authors identity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. The following is an example of a poor cover letter: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer" by Researcher et al. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B 0000003551 00000 n 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 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. 0000005727 00000 n In the context of scientific literature, an analysis of 2680 manuscripts from seven journals found no overall difference in the acceptance rates of papers according to gender, while at the same time reporting a strong effect of number of authors and country of affiliation on manuscripts acceptance rates [9]. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. 0000002247 00000 n 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]). 2016;14(1):85. 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 Correct the online article. 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. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. 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. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.06, which means that the model only represents a 6% improvement over simply guessing the most frequent outcome, or in other words, the model is not powerful enough to predict the uptake of DB with high reliability. 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. Authors might choose SBPR when submitting their best work as they are proud of it and may opt for DBPR for work of lower quality, or, the opposite could be true, that is, authors might prefer to submit their best work as DBPR to give it a fairer chance against implicit bias. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. But the confusing part is, is that the reviewer are now done with reviewing (Review completed) but the new status became apperently ''Manuscript under consideration". Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. . 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. 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. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Cite this article. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. There . Any pending input will be lost. . by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort After reviewing the reports, you can proceed to making decisions on papers. 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 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. 0000014682 00000 n May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. 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. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. Article 0000065294 00000 n https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. 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). Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 2016;1(2):1637. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. . The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. 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. We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. reparationstapet kllare . These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. . Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 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. 1 Answer to this question. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. 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. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the nature of revisions and the field of study. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? Renee Wever. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. captcha. Sci World J. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Part of Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. How do I check the status of my manuscript? The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. 0000003764 00000 n 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. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. 2nd ed. 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. 2012;114(2):50019. The WeWork Decision. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 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. 2006;81(5):705. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. 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. 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. 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. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 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. 0000004174 00000 n 0000011063 00000 n How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 2002;179(6):14157. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. This process left 13,542 manuscripts without a normalised name; for the rest of the manuscripts, normalised institution names and countries were found, which resulted in 5029 unique institution names. 2008;23(7):3513. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Each indicates a particular phase of the review process that usually happens in a certain order, however an individual submission can skip a phase, or return back to an earlier phase, depending on Editor actions. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. 0000002034 00000 n An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. . (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). 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%. bounded rationality . 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). The effect of blinding on review quality. 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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. 9.3 weeks. Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. 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. The difference, however, is very small. In addition, the high prestige of these journals might accentuate an implicit referee bias and therefore makes such journals a good starting point for such an analysis. 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. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. . 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. Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. 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 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. 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. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 0000003952 00000 n 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. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. 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. A study analysing 940 papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008 found no significant difference between the grades of female- and male-authored papers by review type [12]. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. 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. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. Search. (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. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 0000008637 00000 n Google Scholar. 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. We aimed at modelling OTR decisions 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). Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. 00ple`a`0000r9%_bxbZqsaa`LL@` N endstream endobj 53 0 obj 142 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 6 0 R /Resources 12 0 R /Contents [ 24 0 R 28 0 R 30 0 R 32 0 R 34 0 R 36 0 R 38 0 R 40 0 R ] /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 >> endobj 12 0 obj << /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ] /Font << /TT2 18 0 R /TT4 16 0 R /TT6 14 0 R /TT8 15 0 R /TT9 25 0 R >> /XObject << /Im1 51 0 R >> /ExtGState << /GS1 44 0 R >> /ColorSpace << /Cs6 22 0 R /Cs8 21 0 R >> >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -211 /Flags 96 /FontBBox [ -517 -325 1082 998 ] /FontName /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /ItalicAngle -15 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 45 0 R >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 117 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 278 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /FontDescriptor 13 0 R >> endobj 15 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 121 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 333 278 0 0 556 556 556 556 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 722 722 722 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 833 0 0 667 0 0 667 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 0 0 278 889 611 611 611 0 389 556 333 611 0 0 0 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /FontDescriptor 20 0 R >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 122 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 191 333 333 0 0 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 0 556 556 556 0 556 278 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 667 722 722 667 611 778 0 278 500 0 556 833 722 0 667 0 722 667 611 0 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 556 500 556 556 278 556 556 222 222 500 222 833 556 556 556 556 333 500 278 556 500 722 500 500 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJF+Arial /FontDescriptor 19 0 R >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 891 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -216 /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -568 -307 2000 1007 ] /FontName /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 43 0 R >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 32 /Widths [ 250 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /FontDescriptor 17 0 R >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -665 -325 2000 1006 ] /FontName /JEGBJF+Arial /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 94 /XHeight 515 /FontFile2 42 0 R >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -628 -376 2000 1010 ] /FontName /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 133 /FontFile2 50 0 R >> endobj 21 0 obj [ /Indexed 22 0 R 255 41 0 R ] endobj 22 0 obj [ /ICCBased 49 0 R ] endobj 23 0 obj 1151 endobj 24 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 23 0 R >> stream Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. Toggle navigation. 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]. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. So, in October 2018, we added a new . And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. To obtain Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. 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. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. 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. 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. Thank you for visiting nature.com. nature physics. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. 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. 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 . Most journals assign a manuscript number upon initial submission and send an automated notice to advise you of the number (if not now, the manuscript number will be assigned when the first editor is assigned). You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. . 0000001589 00000 n Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. 0000004388 00000 n How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. Brown RJC. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? . Am Econ Rev. 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). 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]. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. 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.