Winters Quick Change Oil Capacity, Von Willebrand Disease Foods To Avoid, Articles D

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. You can see an example in the article above. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 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. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. 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. Cookies policy. When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? Here, we define the corresponding author as the author who is responsible for managing the submission process on the manuscript tracking system and for all correspondence with the editorial office prior to publication. 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. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Ben Glocker (an expert in machine learning for medical imaging, Imperial College London), Mirco Musolesi (a data science and digital health expert, University College London), Jonathan Richens (an expert in diagnostic machine learning models, Babylon Health) and Caroline Uhler (a computational biology expert, MIT) talked to Nature Communications about their research interests in causality . 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. Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. 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. Don't wait too long. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. 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. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. Help us improve this article with your feedback. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. 0000006171 00000 n 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. Yes Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. 2017;6:e21718. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 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. 0000004498 00000 n If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). Examines all aspects of your scientific document. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." 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). 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 . Perspect Psychol Sci. Article As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. 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. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. 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. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? 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 . Decision Summary. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. J Lang Evol. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. 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 may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 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. 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]. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Get Scientific Editing. . However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. 0000001795 00000 n This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. 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. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.03, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. Please try your request again later. Am Econ Rev. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. . This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. The study was designed to analyse the manuscripts submitted to Nature-branded journals publishing primary research between March 2015 (when the Nature-branded primary research journals introduced DBPR as an opt-in service) and February 2017. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. 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). Proc Natl Acad Sci. To obtain See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 2016;1(2):1637. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. 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. 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. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. When analysing uptake data by journal tier, we have included both direct submissions and transfers incoming to each journal group, for a total of 128,457 manuscripts that were submitted to one of the 25 Nature-branded journals. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. I am not a robot. 0000082326 00000 n %PDF-1.3 % Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. From inspection of Table8, it would seem that SBPR manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be rejected at the first editorial decision stage than those by male corresponding authors and that DBPR manuscripts by male corresponding authors are less likely to be sent to review than those by female corresponding authors. 0000065294 00000 n Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. 0000007420 00000 n One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Online First - Article available online 6. our vision is for all Springer Nature authors and reviewers to have an ORCID iD, and we are confident we will get there, slowly but surely. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. Plast Reconstr Surg. 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). 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. 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 corresponding journal. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. 9.3 weeks. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. R-CAPTCHA. In Review. 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. If we compare the proportion of accepted manuscripts under DBPR and authored by female vs. male corresponding authors (26 vs. 25%) with a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction, we find that there is a not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for DBPR-accepted papers (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction: 2=0.03188, df=1, p value=0.8583). 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.