decision sent to author nature communications decision sent to author nature communications

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]. Search. 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. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. Journal Issue available online . Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. 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). 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. eLife. Scand J Econ. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 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. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. . This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. 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. Hathaway High School Staff, For Coupons, Giveaways, and Free Games to play with your family, distance between underground pull boxes fiber optic cable, richest instagram influencers non celebrity, big spring correctional center inmate search, rachael newsham and dan cohen relationship, giorno giovanna you will never reach the truth japanese, 34 eye opening photos of the great depression, Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. 0000004498 00000 n Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. When comparing acceptance rates by gender and regardless of review model, we observed that female authors are significantly less likely to be accepted than their male counterparts. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. We have used this definition because it is in line with that used in the guide to authors for Nature (https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission). An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 0000008637 00000 n While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). 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). Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. Usage: New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. J Lang Evol. We studied whether papers were accepted or rejected following peer review, and we included transfers because the editorial decisions as different journals follow different criteria. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 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. 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]. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 0000013573 00000 n Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. n/a. 0000007398 00000 n Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. . 0000001795 00000 n 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. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. 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. 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. 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. Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 0000001245 00000 n HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. This is known as a rescinding. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Concerning the institutions, we defined four categories according to their THE ranks and used these as a proxy for prestige: category 1 includes institutions with THE rank between 1 and 10 (corresponding to 7167 manuscripts, 6% of all manuscripts), category 2 is for THE ranks between 11 and 100 (25,345 manuscripts, 20% of all manuscripts), category 3 for THE ranks above 100 (38,772 manuscripts, 30% of all manuscripts), and category 4 for non-ranked institutions (57,170 manuscripts, or 45% of all manuscripts). After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. Yes The Editors have begun a decision in the system. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. 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. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 0000001335 00000 n Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. 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. . . As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. 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. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. 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 . Because the median is not subject to the . Press J to jump to the feed. 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. 0000012316 00000 n Search. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.' There is not yet sufficient data to conclude which form of peer reviewtransparent or double-blindis the most conducive to rigorous and unbiased science reporting. 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). 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 Correct the online article. 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). 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 . 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. Nature. 0000055535 00000 n 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. 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. Brown RJC. In Review. 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. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. 0000014828 00000 n 0000002034 00000 n May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . 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/. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 0000005880 00000 n Here to foster information exchange with the library community. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. We aimed at modelling acceptance 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). 2017;12(12):e0189311. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. 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. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. 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). 9 days How many days did the entire process take? This might be the result of editor bias towards the review model, of the fact that female authors select their best papers to be DBPR to increase their chances of being accepted, or both. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. 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). Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. When analysing data for the entire portfolio, we only included direct submissions (106,373) and we excluded manuscripts that were rejected by one journal and then transferred to another. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. England Women's Football Captain, The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. 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). botln botkyrka kommun. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Trends Ecol Evol. Am Econ Rev. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. 2002;179(6):14157. 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. 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. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . 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. 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. 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. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. 2021 Journal Metrics. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 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. After peer review, a decision of accept, reject, or revision is made on the basis of the reviewers comments and the judgment of the editor.