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

BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. 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). Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. Search. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Please note that this definition is different from that of the corresponding author(s) as stated on published articles and who are the author(s) responsible for correspondence with readers. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Correspondence to 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. 2019. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=378.17, degrees of freedom=2, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.054 and show that authors submitting to more prestigious journals tend to have a slight preference for DBPR compared to SBPR. 0000001589 00000 n This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. 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. 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). 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. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly recordthat means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. 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. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. In our case, this analysis was hampered by the lack of an independent measure of quality, by potential confounders such as potential editor bias towards the review model or author characteristics, and by the lack of controlled experiments in which the same paper is reviewed under both SBPR and DBPR, or in which DBPR is compulsory, thus eliminating the effect of bias towards the review model. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. 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. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). 0000011085 00000 n 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 . 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). 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. 0000014828 00000 n On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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]. 2006;295(14):167580. 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. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. 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]. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. waiting to send decision to author nature. You can see an example in the article above. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. Renee Wever. Brown RJC. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. 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. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. R-CAPTCHA. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. and JavaScript. 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). We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. . I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. 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. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. 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. To place the results below within the right context, we point out that this study suffered from a key limitation, namely that we did not have an independent measure of quality for the manuscript or a controlled experiment in which the same manuscript is reviewed under both peer review models. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 0000011063 00000 n The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. . The Editors may take time to discuss the reviews and may invite more reviewers or assign another editor, returning the submission to an earlier status. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 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. . Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. . Corresponding author defined. Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. The page is updated on an annual basis. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. Several Nature journals (see list below) follow a transparent peer review system, publishing details about the peer review process as part of the publication (including the reviewer comments to. To post social content, you must have a display name. Linkping University. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. 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. 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). A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. How do I check the status of my manuscript? 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. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. nature physics. 0000062617 00000 n decision sent to author nature communications posted by Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. 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). Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) 0000008637 00000 n Until this is done, the decision can be changed. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. 0000009876 00000 n Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. 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. 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. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. 1991;81(5):104167. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. J Lang Evol. The data that support the findings of this study are available from Springer Nature but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. 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. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. 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. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 0000003551 00000 n When can I expect a decision from the Editor? Usage: 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. 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. 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). . botln botkyrka kommun. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. PLOS ONE. 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. In the context of scientific literature, an analysis of 2680 manuscripts from seven journals found no overall difference in the acceptance rates of papers according to gender, while at the same time reporting a strong effect of number of authors and country of affiliation on manuscripts acceptance rates [9]. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. . 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. If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. 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. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. 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. BMC Med. 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. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. 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. Any pending input will be lost. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 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). 1 Answer to this question. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=0.13012, df=1, p value=0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). 0000004476 00000 n Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). 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). 0000001335 00000 n 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. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard.