This is public, and permanent. 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. 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. . 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. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 0000001795 00000 n The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. 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. . Back to top. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 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. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. 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). Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. 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. 00ple`a`0000r9%_bxbZqsaa`LL@` N endstream endobj 53 0 obj 142 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /Parent 6 0 R /Resources 12 0 R /Contents [ 24 0 R 28 0 R 30 0 R 32 0 R 34 0 R 36 0 R 38 0 R 40 0 R ] /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Rotate 0 >> endobj 12 0 obj << /ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ] /Font << /TT2 18 0 R /TT4 16 0 R /TT6 14 0 R /TT8 15 0 R /TT9 25 0 R >> /XObject << /Im1 51 0 R >> /ExtGState << /GS1 44 0 R >> /ColorSpace << /Cs6 22 0 R /Cs8 21 0 R >> >> endobj 13 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -211 /Flags 96 /FontBBox [ -517 -325 1082 998 ] /FontName /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /ItalicAngle -15 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 45 0 R >> endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 117 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 278 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic /FontDescriptor 13 0 R >> endobj 15 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 121 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 333 278 0 0 556 556 556 556 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 722 722 722 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 833 0 0 667 0 0 667 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 0 0 278 889 611 611 611 0 389 556 333 611 0 0 0 556 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /FontDescriptor 20 0 R >> endobj 16 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 122 /Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 191 333 333 0 0 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 0 556 556 556 0 556 278 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 667 722 722 667 611 778 0 278 500 0 556 833 722 0 667 0 722 667 611 0 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 556 500 556 556 278 556 556 222 222 500 222 833 556 556 556 556 333 500 278 556 500 722 500 500 500 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBJF+Arial /FontDescriptor 19 0 R >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 891 /CapHeight 0 /Descent -216 /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -568 -307 2000 1007 ] /FontName /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 0 /FontFile2 43 0 R >> endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /TrueType /FirstChar 32 /LastChar 32 /Widths [ 250 ] /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /BaseFont /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman /FontDescriptor 17 0 R >> endobj 19 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -665 -325 2000 1006 ] /FontName /JEGBJF+Arial /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 94 /XHeight 515 /FontFile2 42 0 R >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /Ascent 905 /CapHeight 718 /Descent -211 /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -628 -376 2000 1010 ] /FontName /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold /ItalicAngle 0 /StemV 133 /FontFile2 50 0 R >> endobj 21 0 obj [ /Indexed 22 0 R 255 41 0 R ] endobj 22 0 obj [ /ICCBased 49 0 R ] endobj 23 0 obj 1151 endobj 24 0 obj << /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 23 0 R >> stream manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. 2017-07-13 11:21. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. 1 Answer to this question. 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. The page will refresh upon submission. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. 0000005880 00000 n Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 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. . 0000007420 00000 n 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. 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). Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. 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. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 0000039536 00000 n . 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. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years. JAMA. Often commercial sensors do not provide researchers with sufficient raw and open data; therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an open and customizable system to classify cattle behaviors. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. Sodexo Disney Springs, Help us to improve this site, send feedback. This is known as a rescinding. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. Nature. PLOS ONE. 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 spite of the presence of explicit instructions to authors, this type of review model has sometimes been shown to fail to hide authors identity. ->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. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. nature physics. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. 2.3 Procedures Communications Arising submissions that meet Nature's initial selection criteria are sent to the authors of the original paper for a response, and the exchange to independent referees. 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. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Cohen J. 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. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. 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. reparationstapet kllare . Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 2017;12(12):e0189311. 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. eLife. Cite this article. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Your script could be better than the image of the journal. 0000007398 00000 n Until this is done, the decision can be changed. This study is the first one that analyses and compares the uptake and outcome of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals covering a wide range of disciplines depending on the review model chosen by the author (double-blind vs. single-blind peer review). Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 0000003551 00000 n 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. Press J to jump to the feed. . 0000003764 00000 n Because the median is not subject to the . As a consequence, we are unable to distinguish bias towards author characteristics or the review model from any quality effect, and thus, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR in addressing bias. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". The Alan Turing Institute, London, England, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, Springer Nature, 4 Crinan Street, London, UK, You can also search for this author in 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. 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. 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. 0000011085 00000 n See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. 0000011063 00000 n The analysis of success outcome at both the out-to-review and acceptance stages could in principle reveal the existence of any reviewer bias against authors characteristics. The page is updated on an annual basis. However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. If you have previously submitted a paper to a Nature Portfolio journal and would like an update on the status of your submission, please login to the manuscript tracking account for the corresponding journal. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Springer Nature. 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. 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). We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). 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. 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. Please try your request again later. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. In order to detect any bias towards institutional prestige, we referred to a dataset containing 20,706 records, which includes OTR papers that were either rejected or accepted, as well as transfers. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under the "For Authors" section of the journal's homepage as listed on SpringerLink Nature Portfolio Journals If you have previously submitted a paper to a Nature Portfolio journal and would like an update on the status of your submission, please login to the manuscript . When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. We calculated that, at this rate, it would take us several decades to collect sufficient data that would result in statistically significant results, so another strategy is required, e.g. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. The difference, however, is very small. 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. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. Corresponding author defined. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) 25th Apr, 2017. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 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. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. On the other hand, an analysis of the Evolution of Language (EvoLang 11) conference papers found that female authors received higher rankings under DBPR [13]. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. 2019. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. 2nd ed. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). We understand that you have not received any journal email. 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. 'Completed - Accept'. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 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. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 0000008659 00000 n Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. But the confusing part is, is that the reviewer are now done with reviewing (Review completed) but the new status became apperently ''Manuscript under consideration". This is because the Nature journals do not collect information on authors gender, and thus, such information can only be retrieved with name-matching algorithms with limited accuracy. 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. 0000004437 00000 n The decision may need to be confirmed by multiple Editors in some journals, and the Editors may decide to seek additional reviews or assign another Editor, returning the manuscript to an earlier status. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. 0000062401 00000 n 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. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. . Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Download MP3 / 387 KB. Usage: The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Am J Roentgenol. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. 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.