. 0000003551 00000 n 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. . We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Visit our main website for more information. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. Barbara McGillivray. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. trailer << /Size 54 /Info 7 0 R /Root 10 0 R /Prev 92957 /ID[<98e42fa76505e1b5b1796b170b58dfee><8c8134bb7fa785eceed4533362dfb985>] >> startxref 0 %%EOF 10 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 6 0 R /Metadata 8 0 R /PageLabels 5 0 R >> endobj 52 0 obj << /S 48 /L 155 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 0 R >> stream I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 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]. 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 . Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. 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. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 0000082326 00000 n In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. 0000009854 00000 n Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by reparationstapet kllare Monitoring dairy cattle behavior can improve the detection of health and welfare issues for early interventions. 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. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. The motivation behind Nature Communications is to provide authors with more choice; both in terms of where they publish, and what access model they want for their papers.At present NPG does not provide a rapid publishing opportunity for authors with high-quality specialist work within the Nature branded titles. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons reparationstapet kllare . In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. 0000062401 00000 n Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. In order to assign a measure of institutional prestige to each manuscript, we used the 2016/2017 Times Higher Education rankings (THE [20]) and normalised the institution names using the GRID API. 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. . The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . Journal Metrics | Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. 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. 2006;295(14):167580. Why did this happen? . In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? (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. Sodexo Disney Springs, 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems 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. The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. process - Geological Society Of America 2015;136(6):136977. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. We did not observe any difference by author gender. 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. 0000011063 00000 n Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Decision Summary. My father emptied the thing at an unknown date ruining my spontaneous project, but at least I was able to recover the skull, jaw, spine & ribs. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska This first-of-its-kind option, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy . n - ->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision Original letter from Ben Cravatt in early 2000 after our meeting at UCSF when he sent me a sample of his FP-biotin probe to test in my laboratory. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? 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. 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. 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. The difference, however, is very small. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Moreover, some records were not complete if authors made spelling mistakes when entering the names of their country or institution, as this would have made it impossible to match those names with normalised names for countries or for institutions using GRID. 0000008659 00000 n The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. and JavaScript. 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). BMC Med. Submissions not complying with policy and guidelines receive an immediate (administrative) reject and are not forwarded to the review process (IEEE PSPB Operation Manual, 8.2.2.3) Authors are required to ensure before submission that their manuscripts are in full compliance with the magazine's submission policy and guidelines as outlined below. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017-07-13 11:21. . We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. . Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. 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. 0000055535 00000 n Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 0000002625 00000 n https://www.grid.ac. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". Your script could be better than the image of the journal. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . 0000001245 00000 n Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. 0000006193 00000 n This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. 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. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? This can be due to quality or referee bias. Part of Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Because the median is not subject to the . Correspondence to 0000002034 00000 n Toggle navigation. The decision is sent to the author. 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 Review | SpringerNature | Authors | Springer Nature 2016;14(1):85. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. We observed a trend in which the OTR rate for both DBPR and SBPR papers decreases as the prestige of the institution groups decreases, and we tested for the significance of this. Regarding institutional bias, a report of a controlled experiment found that SBPR reviewers are more likely than DBPR reviewers to accept manuscripts from famous authors and high-ranked institutions [15], while another report found that authors at top-ranked universities are unaffected by different reviewing methods [16]. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. Sci World J. 2021 Journal Metrics. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . Don't wait too long. LZ. We investigated the proportion of OTR papers (OTR rate) under both peer review models to see if there were any differences related to gender or institution. 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. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision). 0000062196 00000 n The page is updated on an annual basis. 2007;18(2):MR000016. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . botln botkyrka kommun. 0000013573 00000 n Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. 2017;12(12):e0189311. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. 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. Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. 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. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . 0000047805 00000 n Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. 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. Search. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. For DBPR papers, we found a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=7.5042, df=1, p value=0.006155); for SBPR papers, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=0.72863, df=1, p value=0.3933). 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. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. 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. Toggle navigation. 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. 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 . "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . Tulare Ca Obituaries, First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). 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. 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. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. Did you find it helpful? 0000014682 00000 n May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . 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. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. You can see an example in the article above. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. . Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. botln botkyrka kommun. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. 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).