decision sent to author nature communications decision sent to author nature communications

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 made a decision and requested you revise the submission. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. I am not a robot. https://www.grid.ac. 25th Apr, 2017. 2006;81(5):705. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. 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. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". Nature Support Solution home Author and Peer Reviewer Support Submission Rejection of your paper / manuscript Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM Springer is committed to your. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. We considered using citations as a proxy for the quality of published papers; however, this would have limited the dataset to the small number of published articles that have had time to accrue citations, given the low acceptance rate of the journals considered, and the fact that the dataset is recent in relation to when DBPR was introduced at the Nature journals. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 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. How do I check the status of my manuscript? 0000039536 00000 n Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. 3. level 1. reparationstapet kllare . Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Sodexo Disney Springs, We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. Hope everybody's doing well. 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. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 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. captcha. 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. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. 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. 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. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 0000004476 00000 n Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. Perspect Psychol Sci. . IP-address: 40.77.167.199. We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). 0000003551 00000 n 2006;295(14):167580. 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. 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. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. 0000065294 00000 n When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 0000005727 00000 n All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. 2019. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. 2017;6:e21718. In Review. Journal Issue available online . In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. Yes 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. 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. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 'Completed - Accept'. There . 0000001335 00000 n Decision Summary. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. 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. The page will refresh upon submission. 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. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. 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]. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. 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. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B 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. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. . In order to test whether the proportions in different groups were the same, we used the test of equal proportions in R (command prop.test). See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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). In Review. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 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. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. 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. Research Integrity and Peer Review . and JavaScript. We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. It was on December 21, 1968, that Apollo 8 launched from Cape Kennedy, in Florida, sending US astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell Jr and William Anders on the world's . Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9). Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. 0000011063 00000 n If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. . Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Did you find it helpful? (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 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. Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. Cite this article. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. 1 Answer to this question. The analysis of success outcome at both the out-to-review and acceptance stages could in principle reveal the existence of any reviewer bias against authors characteristics. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Therefore, in the DBPR case, we can conclude that there is a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male corresponding authors and the OTR rate of papers by female corresponding authors. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. When analysing data for the entire portfolio, we only included direct submissions (106,373) and we excluded manuscripts that were rejected by one journal and then transferred to another. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 2021 Journal Metrics. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. Trends Ecol Evol. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. 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. 2008;23(7):3513. 0000062617 00000 n Because the median is not subject to the distortions from outliers, we have developed and provided the 2-year Median, derived from Web of Science data and defined as the median number of citations received in 2021for articles published in 2019and 2020. 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. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. nature~. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. Toggle navigation. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. (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. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 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. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. California Privacy Statement, If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. 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. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. 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]. 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. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. 2016;1(2):1637. 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. 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. 8. nature1. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. 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. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. 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. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. 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. 0000009876 00000 n Help us improve this article with your feedback. The decision is sent to the author. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. 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. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 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. 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. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . "More Manuscript Info and Tools. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. 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). Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Am Econ Rev. 0000013573 00000 n 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. Nature. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). 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). Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. 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. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. As a consequence, we are unable to distinguish bias towards author characteristics or the review model from any quality effect, and thus, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR in addressing bias.