decision sent to author nature communications

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. 0000004174 00000 n Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. BMC Med. The difference, however, is very small. 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. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. 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%. 8. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. . These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. 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). 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. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. and JavaScript. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. 2000;90(4):71541. %PDF-1.3 % 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. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? - Elsevier 2017;6:e21718. We also found that manuscripts from female authors or authors from less prestigious institutions are accepted with a lower rate than those from male authors or more prestigious institutions, respectively. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. Get Scientific Editing. 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]. Reviews for "Nature Communications" - Page 1 - SciRev Barbara McGillivray. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. 0000003952 00000 n 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. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. 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). 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. Scand J Econ. 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. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . 0000047805 00000 n You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. 0000082326 00000 n 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. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? These records are excluded from the analysis, resulting in a dataset of 128,454 records, of which 20,406 (16%) were submitted to Nature, 65,234 (51%) to the 23 sister journals, and 42,814 (33%) to Nature Communications. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. 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 . If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 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). Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and 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. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. . 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. 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. 'Completed - Accept'. Help us improve this article with your feedback. California Privacy Statement, This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. . Mayo Clin Proc. 0000005727 00000 n 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. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 0000003064 00000 n Examines all aspects of your scientific document. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. Help us improve this article with your feedback. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision). 2007;18(2):MR000016. Nature CommunicationsTips - Papers. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. We did not find a significant association between OTR and gender (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.015641, df=1, p value=0.9005). A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (2=331.62, df=1, p value <0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (2=464.86, df=1, p value <0.001). ~. 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. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Privacy palabras en latn con significados bonitos. 2006;6:12747. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Because of the small size of the data set for accepted papers and of the lack of an independent measure for the quality of the manuscripts, we could not draw firm conclusions on the existence of implicit bias and on the effectiveness of DBPR in reducing or removing it. 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. 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. 0000001589 00000 n We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. This can be due to quality or referee bias. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. decision sent to author nature communications - tCubed 2009;4(1):624. Don't wait too long. Please try your request again later. 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. 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. In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. . We have used this definition because it is in line with that used in the guide to authors for Nature (https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission). 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. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 0000012294 00000 n 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. . 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. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. We however included transfers in all other analyses because we considered the analysed items as combinations of three attributes: paper, corresponding author, and journal to which the paper was submitted. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . Brown RJC. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. 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 the median is not subject to the . Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . . 2021 Journal Metrics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Download MP3 / 387 KB. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. 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. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. Whereas in the more conventional single-blind peer review (SBPR) model, the reviewers have knowledge of the authors identity and affiliations [1]; under DBPR, the identity and affiliations of the authors are hidden from the reviewers and vice versa. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Am Econ Rev. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. 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. 9. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). 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. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. 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). 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.