decision sent to author nature communications

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 Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. 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. 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. 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. n/a. 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. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). The decision is sent to the author. 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 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. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." 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. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. 2017-07-13 11:21. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. 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. . Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. How do I check the status of my manuscript? Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. ,.,., . 1 Answer to this question. 1 Answer to this question. Using Pearsons chi-square test of independence, we found a significant and large association between country category and review type (2=3784.5, df=10, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.189). 0000003551 00000 n When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind 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. 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). manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. "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 . 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. In Review. In Review. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 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. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. In the context of scientific literature, an analysis of 2680 manuscripts from seven journals found no overall difference in the acceptance rates of papers according to gender, while at the same time reporting a strong effect of number of authors and country of affiliation on manuscripts acceptance rates [9]. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. 0000055535 00000 n Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. PLOS ONE. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. For example, a report showed that 34% of 880 manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that would either potentially or definitely reveal the identities of the authors or their institution [2]. 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). Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . 0000011085 00000 n Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. Toggle navigation. 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]. 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). 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. For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. 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. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. 0000004476 00000 n 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. We would like to thank Michelle Samarasinghe for the help in collecting the data from the manuscript tracking system and Sowmya Swaminathan for the comments on the study and feedback on the manuscript draft. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. 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 . (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. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms. 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. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 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. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. 0000039536 00000 n Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. 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. 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. 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. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. 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. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? . sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Tulare Ca Obituaries, reparationstapet kllare . So, in October 2018, we added a new . 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. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? Does double-blind review benefit female authors? The effect of blinding on review quality. (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. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Help us improve this article with your feedback. The motivation behind Nature Communications is to provide authors with more choice; both in terms of where they publish, and what access model they want for their papers.At present NPG does not provide a rapid publishing opportunity for authors with high-quality specialist work within the Nature branded titles. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. 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). All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. 0000002625 00000 n (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. 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. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. It's simple! Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. 0000062196 00000 n BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Among the studies dealing with institutional bias, an analysis of abstracts submitted to the American Heart Associations annual Scientific Sessions research meeting from 2000 to 2004 found some evidence of bias favouring authors from English-speaking countries and prestigious institutions [14].

decision sent to author nature communications 2023