decision sent to author nature communications{ keyword }

. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. 0000006193 00000 n reparationstapet kllare . 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. 0000003064 00000 n The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. Press J to jump to the feed. 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. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. We observed that DBPR is chosen more often by authors submitting to higher impact journals within the Nature portfolio, by authors from specific countries (India and China in particular, among countries with the highest submission rates), and by authors from less prestigious institutions. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. 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. 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. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. The study reported on here is the first one that focusses on Nature-branded journals, with the overall aim to investigate whether there is any implicit bias in peer review in these journals and ultimately understand whether DBPR is an effective measure in removing referee bias and improving the peer review of scientific literature. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. 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. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. . The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. In addition, the high prestige of these journals might accentuate an implicit referee bias and therefore makes such journals a good starting point for such an analysis. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Hope everybody's doing well. Nature CommunicationsTips - Help us improve this article with your feedback. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. This might indicate that authors are more likely to choose DBPR when the stakes are higher in an attempt to increase their success chances by removing any implicit bias from the referees. We can conclude that authors from the least prestigious institutions are more likely to choose DBPR compared to authors from the most prestigious institutions and authors from the mid-range institutions. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. Perspect Psychol Sci. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. 9. We understand that you have not received any journal email. . We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. 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. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. Papers. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. 0000003764 00000 n 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. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. Guide to authors | Nature Communications Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. 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). 2017;114(48):1270813. JAMA. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. 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. 0000011085 00000 n 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 page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. 0000062196 00000 n The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. 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 We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 0000002034 00000 n In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Rejection of your paper / manuscript : Nature Support Search. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. 0000002625 00000 n Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. In the past if your work wasn't accepted in Nature or Science researchers would often try the respected general journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, or PNAS - which wags dubbed "Probably Not . 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. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. 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. In order to see whether the final decision outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 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. For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4). Nature. 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. In order to measure any quality effect, we tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution group 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for DBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.37 for group 1, 0.31 for group 2, and 0.23 for group 3). The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. 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). Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. nature~. 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. 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]). Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) 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. 2002;17(8):34950. 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. 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. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) Thank you for visiting nature.com. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. 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. 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. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. 0000013573 00000 n . When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 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]. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. 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. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. 0000039536 00000 n In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. 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 . I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Visit our main website for more information. 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. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. 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.

Bob Parsons Contact Information, Authority Letter For Police Character Certificate Pakistan, Articles D