Hence, peer review processes at scholarly journals can be perceived as community work with the aim to establish consistent and sustainable networks between all actors involved. However, in contrast to the patent for the editorial process, where steps have a clear order, the infrastructure seems to allow for an open process: in principle, almost any event could follow any other, which leaves the responsibility for the process in the domain of the actors. Whether digital infrastructures such as editorial management systems are transforming the peer review process with regard to these two tasks is hard to tell, given the difficulties of exploring the process. At the same time, they emphasize a power perspective with regard to different degrees of involvement for actors, their role and participant status. We also thank the editor and the two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. In the light of the transparent review process at this publisher, where editorial decision letters are published alongside accepted papers, this is especially interesting, because decision letters for successful submissions can be expected to have a much larger audience than for non-successful submissions. The main aims of our study are hence the following: By investigating process generated data from a publishers editorial management system, we aim to explore the ways by which the digital infrastructure is used and how it represents the process of peer review. As we were aiming at identifying core elements of the process, we disintegrate the graph into components by deleting the passage points in descending order by size to make its meaningful components fall apart from each other. (2017). All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. Consequently, the analysis shows how much organizational effort goes into what Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) have called the administrative parts of the peer review process to which this article pays particular attention. Reconstructing the processes applying social network analysis, we found that the individual steps in the process have no strict order, other than could be expected with regard to the software patent. Exploring data from that infrastructure, we complement others research investigating views and perceptions of peer review practices with a new procedural perspective explicitly taking algorithms and digital affordances of digital infrastructures into account. [2] [3] It has 193 member states and 12 associate members, [4] as well as partners in the non . In this work, editorial management systems are perceived as an infrastructure supporting peer reviewed scientific publishing. Against that background, the goals of this research are 1) to explore the structure of activities in the process of handling manuscripts based on insights gained from process generated data from an editorial management system, taking Schendzielorzs and Reinharts (2020) model of the peer review process as a conceptual heuristic. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain the editors agency for administrating the process? Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a. The focus of the patent is on how to facilitate the peer review process in a digital infrastructure. unfortunately, the editor dont respond about reject and accept. We then continue by presenting major outcomes of the study, followed by a discussion about the editorial processes mediated by editorial management systems, and the role of automated decision making. dmsder moderne staatZeitschrift fr Public Pol. This matched with what we would have expected to happen: there are editorial decisions without peer review, which is also represented by the editorial management system. In total, 278,098 events were filed in the database. We store the data in our institute for 10years according to the Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3923602) by the German Research Association (DFG). An example would be a researcher filling in a form in a web frontend including uploading a manuscript (activity/action), which the infrastructure would be recording as Manuscript submitted by user X (event/stage). Making an editorial decision. Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. But there is a significant proportion of events triggered by actors with no role assigned (see Table 2). However, digital infrastructures supporting peer review have been established to support decision making and communication in the process of publishing scholarly manuscripts (Horbach and Halffman, 2019), enabling the investigation of the corresponding new digital practices. Peer reviewers are assigned to manuscripts, reviewers recommendations are considered and the fate of a manuscript is decided about by the editor. We use the perspective of the infrastructure by studying the recorded events it has created as a result of actions by different actors. Yet, the analysis of processual data from an editorial management system may lead to research paying more attention to organizational issues of scholarly publishing, that is, practices related with maintaining and binding reviewers, authors and editors to a scholarly journal. The rejected manuscripts and those to be resubmitted get a special treatment by the editors: the communication about the frustrating decision is thoroughly crafted showing in the network as two vertices about Drafting Decision Letter, notably resulting in longer durations for decisions to be sent to authors. Please note, this decision must be made at the time of initial submission and cannot be changed later. Secondly 2), we intent to gain insights into the ways editorial management systems shape or transform editorial practices, i.e., to explore the ways of how the technology has been implemented in the journal. . Recently, it has been established that in a minimal case, the peer review process is comprised of postulation, consultation, decision and administration. However, we decided to restrict our analysis of the sequence of stages to the 14,391 first-version manuscripts with 206,896 events to avoid obfuscation of the prototypical process by manuscript versions with a past. How long does an editor decision take? As described above, to investigate the idealized process from the patent empirically, we constructed a simplified network from the recorded events for all 14,391 first-version manuscripts, in which the nodes represent the stages and edges are drawn between two events which follow one another. Also, when we conceptually refer to the process, we write element or component for conglomerates of either actions or events which belong together. Again actors assigned editorial roles stand out, because their actions significantly affect actors with other roles assigned. We do this by comparing the model laid out in the patent for the infrastructure (Plotkin, 2009) with the empirical data generated by the infrastructure. The editors of the receiving journal will take the reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases they may choose to take advice from additional reviewers. Editage Insights is funded by Editage and endorses services provided by Editage but is editorially independent. More specifically, we hence thirdly 3), also aim at exploring as to whether one can find traces of automated decision making, something which could more radically alter editorial peer review and scholarly publishing. The analysis may also provide first insights to what extent the events recorded are automatically generated. resubmitnoveltyappeal, Resubmitpoint-by-pointresponse letterresubmitresponse letterresubmitresponse letternature, Proofreadingresubmit, Proofreadinglicence to publish, NatureNatureNature, wileynature science, Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review, Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewgetNature Communicationsget50%Nature Communicaitons, sciencenature. This procedure is followed by most journals. Once your manuscript passes the initial quality check, we assign it to a member of Editorial Board, who is an active researcher in your field. Based on the Nature Methods Review Speed Feedback System, it takes editor 146.00 days to accept manuscript. Thus, we bypass the (to us) opaque system, but can nevertheless infer insights about the practices and implementations of the peer review process in question. At the contrary, however, events triggered by authors and referees only affect events with actors assigned the same role. Yet, despite much research about biases in peer review, little do we know about the actual processes of peer review, and even less so about new practices and technologies supporting peer review (Jubb, 2015, p.13). Although editorial management systems have been introduced in the dawn of the current millenium, research about process generated data from these systems within scholarly journals has to the best of our knowledge not been published so far. When the process is finished, the manuscript lies dormant in the database. In this regard, editorial management systems perform timekeeping, when they support and oversee the duration of sub-processes (Reviewer Waited too Long, Waiting for Authors Revision etc.). Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.747562/full#supplementary-material, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=data.table, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggraph, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-116609, Manuscript identifier with version indicator, Role of person acting (relative to manuscript). One issue for discussion in that process is the role of the editor. When all the reviewer reports are received, the editors decide to either: If you are invited to revise and resubmit your manuscript, you should follow the instructions provided by the editor in their decision email. Answer (1 of 7): Most submissions are rejected by editors without review, and this should be fast - perhaps, two weeks (?). Nine events were attributed to the administrative activities of the peer review process, according to Schendzielorz and Reinhart (2020) comprising processes, where postulations are received, their treatments are initiated or being coordinated. Icons made by various authors from www.flaticon.com, Experiential Live Edit: How to improve Biomed manuscripts. The edge widths show, how many manuscripts experience the respective evolutionary path. These values and criteria can, for instance, be captured by studying aims and means of the patent (Plotkin, 2009) which serves as the technological basis for the editorial management system from our investigation. These organizational and administrative practices may not always be related to epistemic values, yet they are an important part of scholarly knowledge production as scholarly journals are important sites for community building, safeguarding scientific quality and expectations to science in general. The editor and the editorial team decide whether or not to send the manuscript out to review; the corresponding author is contacted with the decision. The editor contacts potential reviewers to ask them to review the manuscript. on 21 Oct, 2016. Thus, the heterogeneity of roles affected by editors shows their coordinating role in the process, due to what Reinhart and Schendzielorz have called the administrative practices of peer review. Yet, given our limited reconstruction of the event history, we cannot confirm this hypothesis. Valuable insights were gained from the categorization of events into the process element categories. In our study, we investigate editorial processes and practices with their data traces captured by an editorial management system. The numbers indicate, how often a specific decision is reached for the respective version (the in-degree of the node). Further, it indicates respect for the authors as sentient beings possibly frustrated about a negative decision. How does the infrastructure support, strengthen or restrain editorial agency for administrating the process? Many researchers, reviewers and editors do have opinions about the roles and responsibilities of both editors and reviewers (Glonti et al., 2019), some of which contradict each other (Glonti et al., 2019, p.1). Magdalena is a geneticist by training and has considerable editorial and publishing experience: having started in Nature Publishing Group in 2001, she was Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Genetics, Senior Editor for genetics and genomics at Nature, and more recently Executive Editor for the Nature Partner Journals. For some time, the manuscript items are actively maintained when they undergo consultation eventually, when they are decided about, and when the editorial decision is communicated to the authors and/or the manuscript is sent to production. Such critics also fueled debates about new forms of open peer review, as technological or organizational innovations are imagined to ultimately alter editorial practices at scholarly journals (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2017). The categorization table is attached as supplementary material to this paper. Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and we work hard to ensure that the different technical and conceptual aspects of the work are covered. We found that the labelling of the events indicates that at least all elements of the minimal model of peer review processes are represented, that is, postulation, consultation, administration and decision. Before These are considered appeals, which, by policy, take second place to consideration of normal submissions. Such claims are difficult to make given the limitations many studies on editorial peer review face. On the other hand, the users of type editor seem to have much leeway regarding which tasks they choose to perform in which order, hence the empirical process network has so many different edges. This is supported by the process sequence empirically showing regularities but being very open in principle. For the investigation of actions with regard to the different roles in the process, the whole dataset was used. Careers, Unable to load your collection due to an error, This article was submitted to Scholarly Communication, a section of the journal Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. Your manuscript is already in great shape but please go through our guidelines below that specify the correct formatting of your final resubmission to avoid delays towards formal acceptance. a cover letter that provides any additional information requested by the editors. In the database entry, we would later discover this as a digital trace of the action performed. It is not our goal, however, to make a life cycle analysis of manuscripts at this publisher. Review Started and Potential Referees Accept were mostly performed by the reviewer and achieved the highest frequency (both had N = 8,937). The other possibility, as you have correctly judged, is that the manuscript might receive a desk rejection. Professional .. . In the subsection above, we have shown for first submitted versions that the drafting of decision letters happens mostly for negative decisions. Drawing from the theoretical considerations explained above, we first present results regarding the different roles which the editorial management system supports and enables in order to understand how the governance of the process is represented and performed by the editorial management system. . Answered by Editage Insights [CDATA[// >
Disadvantages Of The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam,
What Does Wood Pigeon Poop Look Like,
Articles E