decision sent to author nature communications

Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9). 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]. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 0000003551 00000 n This is public, and permanent. 0000004476 00000 n Journals can customize the wording of status terms. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. 0000062196 00000 n All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. . 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 . This is known as a rescinding. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. The WeWork Decision. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 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. For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. 1 Answer to this question. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. . Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. 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. . In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. 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]. Any pending input will be lost. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. 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. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. Moreover, the two models do not have to be exclusive;one could think of a DBPR stage followed by full public disclosure of reviewers and editors identities and reports. Am J Roentgenol. At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. 2006;81(5):705. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 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. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. 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. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. 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. A Pearsons chi-square test found a significant, but small association between institution group and review type (2=656.95, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.106). In the case of transfers, the author cannot change the review type compared to the original submission, and therefore, we excluded the 22,081 (17%) transferred manuscripts from the analysis of author uptake. Decisions are to be made by consensus. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. 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. How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? 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 . eLife. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). 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. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. 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. 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. 9. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). Your script could be better than the image of the journal. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in LZ. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. If we compare male authors and female authors acceptance rates for SBPR papers (44 vs. 46%), we find that there is not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for SBPR-accepted manuscripts (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction test: 2=3.6388, df=1, p value=0.05645). Perspect Psychol Sci. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. We analysed the dataset of 128,454 records with a non-empty review type to answer the following questions: What are the demographics of authors that choose double-blind peer review? 0000082326 00000 n captcha. We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. Please try your request again later. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (2=331.62, df=1, p value <0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (2=464.86, df=1, p value <0.001). 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 . One possible explanation for the lack of fit is that more or other predictors would be needed in order to fully explain the response, for example, a measure of quality, as we have already indicated. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. 0000001795 00000 n Cohen J. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Press J to jump to the feed. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 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). 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. 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]. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 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. Cite this article. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 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. 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). 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. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. 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. 0000014682 00000 n In future works, we will consider studying the post-decision outcome also in relation to the gender of reviewers and defining a quality metric for manuscripts in order to isolate the effect of bias. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. 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. 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 Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 0000005880 00000 n Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. nature physics. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. England Women's Football Captain, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 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%. 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. Journal Issue available online . Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. 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. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. 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. I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. 8. I am not a robot. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. 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. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. 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. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. 2017;12(12):e0189311. 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'. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. Nature . We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section.