decision sent to author nature communicationsseaside beach club membership fees
decision sent to author nature communications
Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Cookies policy. The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). In the past if your work wasn't accepted in Nature or Science researchers would often try the respected general journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, or PNAS - which wags dubbed "Probably Not . 0000003952 00000 n 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. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. 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. " Decision Summary" editordecision. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). 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. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. 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. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. We believe that Impact Factor is just one of a number of metrics that can be used to evaluate a journal, and a small number of highly cited papers can have a disproportionate effect on the mean number of citations per paper. Plast Reconstr Surg. 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. Did you find it helpful? 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. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. 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). . The Editors have begun a decision in the system. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. 0000006193 00000 n The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. 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). 0000002034 00000 n 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. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. The effect of blinding on review quality. Mayo Clin Proc. ,.,., . Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage : r/labrats - Reddit Peer Review | Nature Portfolio 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. . Using Pearsons chi-square test of independence, we found a significant and large association between country category and review type (2=3784.5, df=10, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.189). 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. 1 Answer to this question. 25th Apr, 2017. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 0000013595 00000 n 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 Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. waiting to send decision to author nature. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. We only retained a normalised institution name and country when the query to the GRID API returned a result with a high confidence, and the flag manual review was set to false, meaning that no manual review was needed. Trends Ecol Evol. . 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. The UC's agreement with Springer Nature is a three-year-plus agreement, through 2023, that increases both UC's access to Springer Nature journals and support for the open access publication of UC research. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 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 . (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Authors might choose SBPR when submitting their best work as they are proud of it and may opt for DBPR for work of lower quality, or, the opposite could be true, that is, authors might prefer to submit their best work as DBPR to give it a fairer chance against implicit bias. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. . 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 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). Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . 1 Answer to this question. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 0000008659 00000 n Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. The present study focusses on the effects of this publisher intervention in the 2years following implementation and can guide others when evaluating the consequences of introducing DBPR to their journals. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 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. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. 0000062196 00000 n The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. We observed that DBPR is chosen more often by authors submitting to higher impact journals within the Nature portfolio, by authors from specific countries (India and China in particular, among countries with the highest submission rates), and by authors from less prestigious institutions. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. 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. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised 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. Search. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. . Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. . Download MP3 / 387 KB. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. . BMC Med. 'Completed - Accept'. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 0000001568 00000 n Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. 2017;12(12):e0189311. The following is an example of a poor cover letter: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer" by Researcher et al. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? PubMedGoogle Scholar. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 0000004388 00000 n 0000062617 00000 n Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. Yes The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. 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. 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. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. I am not a robot. 0000009854 00000 n Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). So, in October 2018, we added a new . Why did this happen? (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. 2002;179(6):14157. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. 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. 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. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. 2002;17(8):34950. 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. 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. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. . Trends Ecol Evol. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Springer Nature. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 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]. How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. 2006;6:12747. Internet Explorer). 0000011063 00000 n Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. These records are excluded from the analysis, resulting in a dataset of 128,454 records, of which 20,406 (16%) were submitted to Nature, 65,234 (51%) to the 23 sister journals, and 42,814 (33%) to Nature Communications. 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. 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. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. 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. nature~. 2012;114(2):50019. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Answer: From the description of the status change of the submission, it seems the manuscript did not pass the formatting check by the editorial staff and required corrections from the author. What does a status change from "Manuscript submitted" to "To author Examines all aspects of your scientific document. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems 2007;18(2):MR000016. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. Nature 's editors are. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Our aim was to understand the demographics of author uptake and infer the presence of any potential implicit bias towards gender, country, or institutional prestige in relation to the corresponding author. 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. 0000001335 00000 n 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 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. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. 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 . 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. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. Whereas in the more conventional single-blind peer review (SBPR) model, the reviewers have knowledge of the authors identity and affiliations [1]; under DBPR, the identity and affiliations of the authors are hidden from the reviewers and vice versa. 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. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? 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. 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. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . Am Econ Rev. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. ->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. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts In these scenarios, crowd wisdom peaks early then becomes less accurate as more individuals become involved, explained senior author Iain Couzin, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. 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 . 0000065294 00000 n &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. 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). Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. 2nd ed. JAMA. For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4). 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). Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 8. nature1. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Corresponding author defined. 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. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . This is known as a rescinding. Corresponding author defined. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. 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. At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. 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. Nature Communications Q&A - Cameronneylon.net Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? palabras en latn con significados bonitos. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. 0000005727 00000 n . 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). Your script could be better than the image of the journal. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage.
Athenahealth Patient Portal Login,
List Of Fda Approved Covid Tests,
Elk Grove Village Il Distribution Center Delays,
Articles D
