. "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? We analysed the dataset of 128,454 records with a non-empty review type to answer the following questions: What are the demographics of authors that choose double-blind peer review? Article All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. In this study, we sought to understand the demographics of authors choosing DBPR in Nature-branded journals and to identify any differences in success outcomes for manuscripts undergoing different review models depending on the gender and the affiliation of the corresponding author. 2019. 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. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. Back to top. 9.3 weeks. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. PLOS ONE. 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. 0000055535 00000 n Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the Natural Product Communications editorial office as follows: [email protected], 614-786-1970. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. 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. Scand J Econ. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. 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. 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 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. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. 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. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. There . 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 (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. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. As a matter of fact, the models accuracy (as tested on a random sample of 20% of the data chosen as test set) is 0.88, and the model always predicts author choices for SB, which is the majority class. 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. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. 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. 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 . Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. . Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Corresponding author defined. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. 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 . 2012;114(2):50019. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. 'Completed - Accept'. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? 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. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. 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. ->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision Original letter from Ben Cravatt in early 2000 after our meeting at UCSF when he sent me a sample of his FP-biotin probe to test in my laboratory. 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. 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]. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. This is public, and permanent. California Privacy Statement, So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 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. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 0000004476 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. %PDF-1.3 % Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. For each manuscript, we used Springer Natures internal manuscript tracking system to extract name, institutional affiliation, and country of the corresponding author; journal title; the manuscripts review type (single-blind or double-blind); the editors final decision on the manuscript (accept, reject, or revise); and the DOI. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 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. 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). 4;N>0TjAWSI#|9aJs]PZYp M#M%,f-);k'\C/*('O2 X(^tL4[msd\5n9cIh(?J0yVg5[5(z,|j}(mLR:V#P/lAD~"jhQT H+}0Z3Nj>!76{7#FMxgiqyym qo=CFf.oA:+ 6hlXT?:SNMZ/|)wj 44X7^tkp+:LL4 First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. Barbara McGillivray. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. I am not a robot. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. Peer review times vary per journal. 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). 0000011063 00000 n Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 2006;6:12747. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. . Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. 0000082326 00000 n Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 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. 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. 0000007420 00000 n waiting to send decision to author nature. 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. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. The motivation behind Nature Communications is to provide authors with more choice; both in terms of where they publish, and what access model they want for their papers.At present NPG does not provide a rapid publishing opportunity for authors with high-quality specialist work within the Nature branded titles. Search. 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]. . Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. 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. In Review. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. 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". 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. Research Integrity and Peer Review 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. 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. 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 . 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. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. 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. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 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. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? . However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Don't wait too long. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. 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. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. . Brown RJC. While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. 0000009854 00000 n 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). 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. Linkping University. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. 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. The difference, however, is very small. 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). Why did this happen? 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.
What Happens When You Mix Vaseline And Toothpaste, Dolores And Frank Catania Wedding, Sam Boyd Stadium Demolition, Advantage And Disadvantages Of Narrative Research, Articles D