decision sent to author nature communications

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]. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. %PDF-1.3 % If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. Barbara McGillivray. 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. We also conducted regression analyses on the data, to measure the effect of different variables such as gender and institution group on three outcomes: author uptake, out-to-review, and acceptance. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." 0000004437 00000 n McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. 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. Don't wait too long. Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. 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. palabras en latn con significados bonitos. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. 0000055535 00000 n Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. 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]. botln botkyrka kommun. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. Tulare Ca Obituaries, 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. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. The effect of blinding on review quality. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. 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. 0000012294 00000 n Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . 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. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. To obtain Journals can customize the wording of status terms. The multivariate regression analyses we performed led to uninformative models that did not fit the data well when the response was author uptake, out-to-review decision, or acceptance decision, and the predictors were review type, author gender, author institution, author country, and journal tier. We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). 0000006193 00000 n 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. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 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. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . This might indicate that authors are more likely to choose DBPR when the stakes are higher in an attempt to increase their success chances by removing any implicit bias from the referees. Nature. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 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). Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. 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'. 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). If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. We decided to exclude the NA entries for gender and tested the null hypothesis that the two populations (manuscripts by male corresponding authors and manuscripts by female corresponding authors) have the same OTR rate within each of the two review models. 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. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. The lack of a significant association between gender and OTR rate regardless of peer review model (Table7) might suggest that there is no editor bias towards gender; however, this is based on the assumption that there is no gender-dependent quality factor. California Privacy Statement, 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 0000004498 00000 n Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 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. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . 2019. 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). manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. 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. Download MP3 / 387 KB. . This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. 2009;4(1):624. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. isolera golv plintgrund This agreement provides: A supported path for UC authors to publish open access in Springer's subscription-based and open access journals, including Springer, Springer Open, BioMed . When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. . The page is updated on an annual basis. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . . Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. 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. Communications (max. For this analysis, we included direct submissions as well as transferred manuscripts, because the editorial criteria vary by journal and a manuscript rejected by one journal and transferred to another may then be sent out to review. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. 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). Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. https://www.grid.ac. 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. 0000003064 00000 n There is not yet sufficient data to conclude which form of peer reviewtransparent or double-blindis the most conducive to rigorous and unbiased science reporting. 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. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. . Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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 . 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. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. 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). HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. We employed a Wald test to evaluate the statistical significance of each coefficient in the model by testing the hypothesis that the coefficient of an independent variable in the model is significantly different from zero. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. 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. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. 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 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). . Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. A Pearsons chi-square test found a significant, but small association between institution group and review type (2=656.95, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.106). 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. We did not observe any difference by author gender. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 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. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 0000011085 00000 n England Women's Football Captain, For other authors characteristics, such as institutional prestige, a quality factor is more likely than for gender: it is not unthinkable to assume that on average manuscripts from more prestigious institutions, which tend to have more resources, are of a higher quality than those from institutions with lower prestige and fewer means. 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). This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? Often commercial sensors do not provide researchers with sufficient raw and open data; therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an open and customizable system to classify cattle behaviors. 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. 2016;14(1):85. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . 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. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. I am not a robot. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. 2017;6:e21718. 0000002247 00000 n As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. Am J Roentgenol. The page will refresh upon submission. 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. . Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. For example, a report showed that 34% of 880 manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that would either potentially or definitely reveal the identities of the authors or their institution [2]. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. 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. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles 0000003764 00000 n The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). 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). This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. This is because the Nature journals do not collect information on authors gender, and thus, such information can only be retrieved with name-matching algorithms with limited accuracy.

How To Turn Off Elkay Water Fountain, Kern County Scanner Club, The Distinguishing Feature Of A Coronavirus Is Its:, Surgical Tech Programs In Atlanta, Train Rides For Kids Near Los Angeles, Ca, Articles D