Papers. Papers. 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 effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 0000009876 00000 n 0000012294 00000 n Hope everybody's doing well. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. 0000005880 00000 n In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. BMC Med. 0000004388 00000 n 'Completed - Accept'. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. 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. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). 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. Another report found that the authors of submissions to the American Journal of Public Health were in fact recognizable in around half of the cases [3]. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. Nature . The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. 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. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 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. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. 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). Perspect Psychol Sci. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. The page is updated on an annual basis. . 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). 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. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. . 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. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. On the other hand, an analysis of the Evolution of Language (EvoLang 11) conference papers found that female authors received higher rankings under DBPR [13]. . . Editorial process | Nature Communications Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? Download MP3 / 387 KB. 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. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . Table7 shows the results; for the sake of completeness, Table7 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was NA. 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). Examines all aspects of your scientific document. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence show a small effect size (2=138.77, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.082). All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. R-CAPTCHA. 0000082326 00000 n 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. 1 Answer to this question. How much time does the scientific journal 'Nature' take from - Quora n - 0000055535 00000 n 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 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. I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 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. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. From inspection of Table8, it would seem that SBPR manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be rejected at the first editorial decision stage than those by male corresponding authors and that DBPR manuscripts by male corresponding authors are less likely to be sent to review than those by female corresponding authors. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. This study is the first one that analyses and compares the uptake and outcome of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals covering a wide range of disciplines depending on the review model chosen by the author (double-blind vs. single-blind peer review). Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 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. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . Therefore, in the DBPR case, we can conclude that there is a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male corresponding authors and the OTR rate of papers by female corresponding authors. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. Please try your request again later. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. 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. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). 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). Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. 0000004498 00000 n Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? 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. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 8. nature1. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. The WeWork Decision. manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. You can see an example in the article above. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. As mentioned above and discussed below in more detail, the fact that we did not control for the quality of the manuscripts means that the conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR that can be drawn from this data are limited. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. 2008;23(7):3513. 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. Nature 's editors are. bounded rationality . 0000001245 00000 n Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Proc Natl Acad Sci. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Often commercial sensors do not provide researchers with sufficient raw and open data; therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an open and customizable system to classify cattle behaviors. Decision Summary. Terms and Conditions, 0000004476 00000 n . Corresponding author defined. 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). Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. reparationstapet kllare . On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Toggle navigation. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. Nature. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 1991;81(5):104167. The proportion of authors choosing double-blind changes as a function of the institution group, with higher ranking groups having a higher proportion of single-blind manuscripts (Table4). 2021 Journal Metrics. 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. 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. 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. After manually checking a sample of gender assignments and their scores, we kept the gender returned by Gender API where the accuracy was at least 80 and assigned a value NA otherwise. 0000013595 00000 n After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Visit our main website for more information. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. Search. We investigated the question of whether, out of the papers that go to review, manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be accepted than those with male corresponding authors under DBPR and SBPR. 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). It's simple! 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. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. 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). The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. Table6 shows the counts and proportions of manuscripts that were sent out for review or rejected by the editors as a function of peer review model. 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. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). trailer << /Size 54 /Info 7 0 R /Root 10 0 R /Prev 92957 /ID[<98e42fa76505e1b5b1796b170b58dfee><8c8134bb7fa785eceed4533362dfb985>] >> startxref 0 %%EOF 10 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 6 0 R /Metadata 8 0 R /PageLabels 5 0 R >> endobj 52 0 obj << /S 48 /L 155 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 0 R >> stream Cite this article. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new . JAMA. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. 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/. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 8. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. Journal Issue available online . Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. 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. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? by | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort | May 28, 2022 | vga white light on asus motherboard | anskan om utbyte av utlndskt krkort Correct the online article.