201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Another issue that hampered our study was the lack of complete records for each manuscript in the dataset in relation to gender, country, and institution of the corresponding author. 0000003952 00000 n Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 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. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. 2016;1(2):1637. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 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. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. 0000008637 00000 n Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts.The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. Cookies policy. Table2 displays the uptake by journal group and shows that the review model distribution changes as a function of the journal tier, with the proportion of double-blind papers decreasing for tiers with comparatively higher perceived prestige. 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. . Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. The post-review outcome of papers as a function of the institution group and review model (Table15) showed that manuscripts from less prestigious institutions are accepted at a lower rate than those from more prestigious ones, even under DBPR; however, due to the small numbers of papers at this stage, the results are not statistically significant. In order to identify the pair(s) giving rise to this difference, we performed a test of equal proportion for each pair and accounted for multiple testing with Bonferroni correction. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . 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. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). Decisions are to be made by consensus. . EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. 1 Answer to this question. Did you find it helpful? The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 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. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? 1 Answer to this question. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. Most journals assign a manuscript number upon initial submission and send an automated notice to advise you of the number (if not now, the manuscript number will be assigned when the first editor is assigned). The difference, however, is very small. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence show a small effect size (2=138.77, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.082). Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. Our results show that we cannot say that there is a significant difference between authors from prestigious institutions and authors from less prestigious institutions for DBPR-accepted manuscripts. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Research Integrity and Peer 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. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission, https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). Your script could be better than the image of the journal. There is a tiny but significant association between institution group and acceptance, which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. 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. 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 00000 n Why did this happen? However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. 0000002247 00000 n 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. 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. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. Visit our main website for more information. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. PLOS ONE. That is, authors that feel more vulnerable to implicit bias against the prestige of their institutional affiliation or their country tend to choose DBPR to prevent such bias playing a role in the editorial decision. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 2008;23(7):3513. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. In order to see whether the final decision outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. More specifically, the proportion of authors choosing DBPR is lower for higher ranking institution groups; in the uptake analysis by country, China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. 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. 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]. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. 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%. Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. 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. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons 0000003551 00000 n For other authors characteristics, such as institutional prestige, a quality factor is more likely than for gender: it is not unthinkable to assume that on average manuscripts from more prestigious institutions, which tend to have more resources, are of a higher quality than those from institutions with lower prestige and fewer means. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. 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 . Google Scholar. 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 investigated the relationship between review type and institutional prestige (as measured by the institution groups) by testing the null hypothesis that the review type is independent from prestige. Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement. Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. 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. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. 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 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. 0000001335 00000 n The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. 2006;295(14):167580. We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value=0.6179). We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. 430,805 Altmetric mentions (2021), The Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (these comprise articles, reviews, and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. 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. Each indicates a particular phase of the review process that usually happens in a certain order, however an individual submission can skip a phase, or return back to an earlier phase, depending on Editor actions. 2000;90(4):71541. botln botkyrka kommun. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. 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. 0000014828 00000 n 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. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . 1991;81(5):104167. 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 . Am Econ Rev. The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. To obtain Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Springer Nature. . First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). Sci World J. 2017-07-13 11:21. In Review. 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. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. You can see an example in the article above. 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 study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. 0000013573 00000 n MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 0000039536 00000 n 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. Nature. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value <0.001, df=2, Cramers V=0.106). 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 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). Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. 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. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. 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. J Lang Evol. 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. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. 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. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Sodexo Disney Springs, Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? 0000012316 00000 n Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. 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. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Similar results are achieved if simpler logistic regression models are considered, such as review type modelled on journal tier and institution and review type modelled on journal tier only. Part of The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. R-CAPTCHA. If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. 2012;114(2):50019. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. . By using this website, you agree to our Accessed 15 Jan 2017. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. 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. Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process.
Marion Projectile Point,
Smithson Valley Baseball Schedule 2021,
Where Is Jonathan Osteen Now,
Is Jekalyn Carr Related To Kurt Carr,
London Luxury Heated Throw User Manual,
Articles D