Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Perspect Psychol Sci. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.).
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. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 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? The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 2017;6:e21718. 2006;6:12747. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. 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 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. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 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). 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. 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. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. Journal Issue available online . 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]. Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. 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. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Communications (max. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. 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. We should note that the significance of the results on outcome is limited by the size of the dataset for accepted papers, due to the high selectivity of these journals and to the low uptake of DBPR. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. nature~. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit We can conclude that authors from the least prestigious institutions are more likely to choose DBPR compared to authors from the most prestigious institutions and authors from the mid-range institutions. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 2012;114(2):50019. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles 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. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. 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. Papers. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. 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. 0000004174 00000 n
Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. How do I check the status of my manuscript? The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. 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. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. However, we did not achieve a good fit, as per the binned plot of residuals against expected values, and the C-index (used to assess the discriminatory ability of standard logistic models) is 0.68, so well below the threshold of 0.8 for good fit. 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. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 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. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. 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. Yes Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience.
Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support 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. Get Scientific Editing. It's simple! Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. We excluded papers for which the post-review outcome was a revision and papers which were still under review; thus, the dataset for this analysis comprises 20,706 records of which 8934 were accepted and 11,772 were rejected. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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 . 0000001245 00000 n
PLOS ONE. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. . (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. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews.
Nature Concerning the institutions, we defined four categories according to their THE ranks and used these as a proxy for prestige: category 1 includes institutions with THE rank between 1 and 10 (corresponding to 7167 manuscripts, 6% of all manuscripts), category 2 is for THE ranks between 11 and 100 (25,345 manuscripts, 20% of all manuscripts), category 3 for THE ranks above 100 (38,772 manuscripts, 30% of all manuscripts), and category 4 for non-ranked institutions (57,170 manuscripts, or 45% of all manuscripts). We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. 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. 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. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. We believe that Impact Factor is just one of a number of metrics that can be used to evaluate a journal, and a small number of highly cited papers can have a disproportionate effect on the mean number of citations per paper. 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. A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. 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 This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 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). 0000003952 00000 n
Brown RJC. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca
wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? 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]. BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009.
I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for 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. Decision Summary. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. 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. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. In the case of transfers, the author cannot change the review type compared to the original submission, and therefore, we excluded the 22,081 (17%) transferred manuscripts from the analysis of author uptake. %PDF-1.3
%
Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. 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. 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. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. 2002;179(6):14157. 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. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. 0000062196 00000 n
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. 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. . Correspondence to We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. 2019. Any pending input will be lost. 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]. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. 3. level 1.
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. 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. Blank RM. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://www.grid.ac. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in 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). 1991;81(5):104167. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 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. Back to top. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. 9. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. In order to test whether two variables were independent, we used Pearsons chi-square test of independence and referred to the classification in [21] to define the strength of association. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) 2008;23(7):3513. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. 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. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Barbara McGillivray.
Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. 2017;12(12):e0189311. We understand that you have not received any journal email. Trends Ecol Evol. 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. Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. we could have chosen a different distribution of institutions among the four categories, and will likely have an impact on the uptake of DBPR across the institutional prestige spectrum. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. . This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Springer Nature. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. 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'. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? 0000082326 00000 n
However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. 2006;81(5):705. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. Usage: 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). 0000009854 00000 n
Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 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 . And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Help us improve this article with your feedback. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. 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 Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. 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. 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
Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. 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. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). . We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): 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). n/a. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). 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). If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. 0000001335 00000 n
Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. Moreover, the two models do not have to be exclusive;one could think of a DBPR stage followed by full public disclosure of reviewers and editors identities and reports. 0000001568 00000 n
We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. 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. 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. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 8. nature1.
Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers