Highsmith Funeral Home Obituaries, Meet Kevin Real Estate, Articles D

Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. 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). We also attempted to fit a generalized linear mixed effects model with a random effect for the country category, as we can assume that the data is sampled by country and observations from the same country share characteristics and are not independent. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. 0000014828 00000 n Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. We employed a Wald test to evaluate the statistical significance of each coefficient in the model by testing the hypothesis that the coefficient of an independent variable in the model is significantly different from zero. 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. In the post-review analysis, we found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . 0000005727 00000 n Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. For DBPR papers, we found a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=7.5042, df=1, p value=0.006155); for SBPR papers, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=0.72863, df=1, p value=0.3933). You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. We observed a trend in which the OTR rate for both DBPR and SBPR papers decreases as the prestige of the institution groups decreases, and we tested for the significance of this. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. You can see an example in the article above. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. . 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. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . 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. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 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. 8. nature1. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. 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. 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. 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. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. We excluded papers for which the post-review outcome was a revision and papers which were still under review; thus, the dataset for this analysis comprises 20,706 records of which 8934 were accepted and 11,772 were rejected. 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 After reviewing the reports, you can proceed to making decisions on papers. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? Please try your request again later. 25th Apr, 2017. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, 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. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. 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 . Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Am J Roentgenol. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. 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%. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . Linkping University. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 PLOS ONE. 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 . Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 2012;114(2):50019. 2006;295(14):167580. 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. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 2nd ed. In Review. We also conducted regression analyses on the data, to measure the effect of different variables such as gender and institution group on three outcomes: author uptake, out-to-review, and acceptance. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. . Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. 2002;17(8):34950. editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. 0000004476 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. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. 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). Cohen J. Trends Ecol Evol. 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 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). You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. 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. 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. 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 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. 9.3 weeks. 2015;136(6):136977. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. 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. botln botkyrka kommun. LZ. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. and JavaScript. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. Terms and Conditions, Your script could be better than the image of the journal. 0000012294 00000 n So, in October 2018, we added a new . Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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. The result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. To obtain Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the Natural Product Communications editorial office as follows: [email protected], 614-786-1970. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. 8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. 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 Visit our main website for more information. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? PubMedGoogle Scholar. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. 0000062196 00000 n This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. England Women's Football Captain, Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Why did this happen? There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Get Scientific Editing. 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. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. 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. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. 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. 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. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. 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. The Editor may be reading and assessing the submission, assigning additional editors according to the journal's polices, or taking some other action outside of the system. 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. We considered using citations as a proxy for the quality of published papers; however, this would have limited the dataset to the small number of published articles that have had time to accrue citations, given the low acceptance rate of the journals considered, and the fact that the dataset is recent in relation to when DBPR was introduced at the Nature journals. 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. 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). When analysing uptake data by journal tier, we have included both direct submissions and transfers incoming to each journal group, for a total of 128,457 manuscripts that were submitted to one of the 25 Nature-branded journals. . No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. 0000007398 00000 n How do I check the status of my manuscript? 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. Because the median is not subject to the . 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. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. Communications (max. 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. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. 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". These records are excluded from the analysis, resulting in a dataset of 128,454 records, of which 20,406 (16%) were submitted to Nature, 65,234 (51%) to the 23 sister journals, and 42,814 (33%) to Nature Communications. Springer Nature. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. 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. palabras en latn con significados bonitos. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . 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]. 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. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. 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.