n/a. Moreover, some records were not complete if authors made spelling mistakes when entering the names of their country or institution, as this would have made it impossible to match those names with normalised names for countries or for institutions using GRID. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 00000 n 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). A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. Get Scientific Editing. 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. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal, Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number, Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing, Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article. Peer review times vary per journal. 2nd ed. Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. Barbara McGillivray. Sci World J. Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts.The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. nature~. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. 0000006193 00000 n Your script could be better than the image of the journal. This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . Part of We however included transfers in all other analyses because we considered the analysed items as combinations of three attributes: paper, corresponding author, and journal to which the paper was submitted. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. 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. This result does not change significantly if we focus on the three institution groups we defined (high-, medium-, and low-prestige), thus excluding the fourth group for which no THE rank was found (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.405, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.064), which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. 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. Don't wait too long. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. 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 . Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. There . 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. We did not observe any difference by author gender. 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). 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. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. In future works, we will consider studying the post-decision outcome also in relation to the gender of reviewers and defining a quality metric for manuscripts in order to isolate the effect of bias. (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. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. Usage: These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. (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. We analysed the dataset of 128,454 records with a non-empty review type to answer the following questions: What are the demographics of authors that choose double-blind peer review? We used a significance threshold of 0.05. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 0000002034 00000 n . This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . 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. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in 8. Visit our main website for more information. 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). 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. Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska This first-of-its-kind option, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy . 1 Answer to this question. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). 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. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. 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. The WeWork Decision. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. bounded rationality . DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. 2017;114(48):1270813. Sodexo Disney Springs, A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (2=331.62, df=1, p value <0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (2=464.86, df=1, p value <0.001). Mayo Clin Proc. Tulare Ca Obituaries, Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. Blank RM. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. Back to top. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. 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. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. 0000013595 00000 n To post social content, you must have a display name. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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. 0000012294 00000 n 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. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal's citation influence to the size of the journal's article contribution over a period of five years. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. 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 . . . An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). Am Econ Rev. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Submissions not complying with policy and guidelines receive an immediate (administrative) reject and are not forwarded to the review process (IEEE PSPB Operation Manual, 8.2.2.3) Authors are required to ensure before submission that their manuscripts are in full compliance with the magazine's submission policy and guidelines as outlined below. Google Scholar. 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. " Decision Summary" editordecision. 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. 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 CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. 0000062196 00000 n 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. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. 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 the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. 8. nature1. 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). statement and Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. 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%. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? waiting to send decision to author nature. 0000007420 00000 n Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision). 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. Papers. 0000009876 00000 n 'Completed - Accept'. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 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. 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. 0000001335 00000 n Because the median is not subject to the . Please try your request again later. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. 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). Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Any pending input will be lost. 0000004174 00000 n Decisions are to be made by consensus. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Hope everybody's doing well. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 0000062617 00000 n We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. The prestige of the corresponding authors institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. Example: Blood Cancer Journal: Go to the 'Publish with us' drop down menu: Click on 'Submit manuscript' in order to be directed to that journal's manuscript tracking system: For the status of your submission to Scientific Reports,go to the Scientific Reports contact webpage for email addresses to determine which one best fits your requirements. 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. 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. We aimed at modelling OTR decisions 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). Papers. 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/. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. 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. Each indicates a particular phase of the review process that usually happens in a certain order, however an individual submission can skip a phase, or return back to an earlier phase, depending on Editor actions. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9). 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. Because of the small size of the data set for accepted papers and of the lack of an independent measure for the quality of the manuscripts, we could not draw firm conclusions on the existence of implicit bias and on the effectiveness of DBPR in reducing or removing it. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. 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. 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. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record.
Jim Irsay Guitar Collection List,
Anzac Bridge Construction,
Rodent Blaster Owners Manual,
Chris Milligan Jenna Rosenow Split,
Roger Leblanc Obituary,
Articles D