decision sent to author nature communications

(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 height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. https://www.grid.ac. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. 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. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. 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). Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 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. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. 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. R-CAPTCHA. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Regarding institutional bias, a report of a controlled experiment found that SBPR reviewers are more likely than DBPR reviewers to accept manuscripts from famous authors and high-ranked institutions [15], while another report found that authors at top-ranked universities are unaffected by different reviewing methods [16]. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. 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 . Data are collected annually for full calendar years. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . 0000062617 00000 n . 2002;179(6):14157. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. 0000001568 00000 n . (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). Get Scientific Editing. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. . A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). 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. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. 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. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. 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. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The 5-year journal Impact Factor, available from 2007 onward, is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year. 2nd ed. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. . 0000001589 00000 n Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. isolera golv plintgrund This agreement provides: A supported path for UC authors to publish open access in Springer's subscription-based and open access journals, including Springer, Springer Open, BioMed . (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 0000014828 00000 n Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. We did not find a significant association between OTR and gender (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.015641, df=1, p value=0.9005). Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? Journals can customize the wording of status terms. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. 2000;90(4):71541. 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. . 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. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. Papers. The page is updated on an annual basis. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. 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. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. 0000013595 00000 n If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. 2016;14(1):85. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. Usage: More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. 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). Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. 0000009876 00000 n 0000005880 00000 n Sorry we couldn't be helpful. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. 0000004498 00000 n So, in October 2018, we added a new . New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 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]. To post social content, you must have a display name. 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. 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. In order to reduce the variability in the institutional affiliations, we normalised the institution names and countries via a Python script that queried the API of the Global Resource Identified Database (GRID [19]). We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. The study was designed to analyse the manuscripts submitted to Nature-branded journals publishing primary research between March 2015 (when the Nature-branded primary research journals introduced DBPR as an opt-in service) and February 2017. There . 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. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, 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. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. 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. 0000065294 00000 n Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. PLOS ONE. 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). We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). The Editors may take time to discuss the reviews and may invite more reviewers or assign another editor, returning the submission to an earlier status. 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. Google Scholar. Check Status". Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. The results on author uptake show that DBPR is chosen more frequently by authors that submit to higher impact journals within the portfolio, by authors from certain countries, and by authors from less prestigious institutions. 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". Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 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 All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. This first-of-its-kindoption, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform andgives you real time updates onyour manuscripts progress through peer review. 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. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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*). eLife. . 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Comment on/see emerging science in full HTMLin both phone and desktop-friendly sizes, Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search, Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals, Authors original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. 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. In order to test whether two variables were independent, we used Pearsons chi-square test of independence and referred to the classification in [21] to define the strength of association. We decided to exclude the NA entries for gender and tested the null hypothesis that the two populations (manuscripts by male corresponding authors and manuscripts by female corresponding authors) have the same OTR rate within each of the two review models. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. Don't wait too long. This resulted in 17,379 (14%) instances of manuscripts whose corresponding author was female, 83,830 (65%) manuscripts with male corresponding author, and 27,245 (21%) manuscripts with gender NA. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 0000009854 00000 n statement and Sodexo Disney Springs, Help us improve this article with your feedback. Did you find it helpful? 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. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. Any pending input will be lost. 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). Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. n/a. 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 . Terms and Conditions, The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. 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). 0000047805 00000 n Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . 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/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. For this analysis, we included direct submissions as well as transferred manuscripts, because the editorial criteria vary by journal and a manuscript rejected by one journal and transferred to another may then be sent out to review. 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). 0000002247 00000 n Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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.

Eliud Kipchoge Diet, Roman Column Types, Huckleberry Mountain Monsters Net Worth, Articles D