Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. Corresponding author defined. 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. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. 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. 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). 0000001245 00000 n Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. 0000009876 00000 n We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). 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. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? It's simple! The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). 2006;81(5):705. 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. 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. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Corresponding author defined. If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. 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. Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Article 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. Don't wait too long. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE 0000082326 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. The post-review outcome of papers as a function of the institution group and review model (Table15) showed that manuscripts from less prestigious institutions are accepted at a lower rate than those from more prestigious ones, even under DBPR; however, due to the small numbers of papers at this stage, the results are not statistically significant. Whereas in the more conventional single-blind peer review (SBPR) model, the reviewers have knowledge of the authors identity and affiliations [1]; under DBPR, the identity and affiliations of the authors are hidden from the reviewers and vice versa. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under 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. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . 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. We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). 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. 2000;90(4):71541. 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 . Nature . Trends Ecol Evol. 2021 Journal Metrics. 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. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. 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? Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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 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 Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Authors might choose SBPR when submitting their best work as they are proud of it and may opt for DBPR for work of lower quality, or, the opposite could be true, that is, authors might prefer to submit their best work as DBPR to give it a fairer chance against implicit bias. How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? As a matter of fact, the models accuracy (as tested on a random sample of 20% of the data chosen as test set) is 0.88, and the model always predicts author choices for SB, which is the majority class. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. Download MP3 / 387 KB. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . Nature. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. 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). 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. This is known as a rescinding. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. There is not yet sufficient data to conclude which form of peer reviewtransparent or double-blindis the most conducive to rigorous and unbiased science reporting. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 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. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. Table2 displays the uptake by journal group and shows that the review model distribution changes as a function of the journal tier, with the proportion of double-blind papers decreasing for tiers with comparatively higher perceived prestige. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Scand J Econ. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. 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. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. 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). 0000003064 00000 n Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Another issue that hampered our study was the lack of complete records for each manuscript in the dataset in relation to gender, country, and institution of the corresponding author. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. 0000013573 00000 n (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. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Decision Summary. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. 0000004388 00000 n . We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. 0000055535 00000 n This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. 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. 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. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Any pending input will be lost. 0000007398 00000 n Papers. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . 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. 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). 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). The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). I am not a robot. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Toggle navigation. 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. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. Back to top. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. Cohen J. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=378.17, degrees of freedom=2, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.054 and show that authors submitting to more prestigious journals tend to have a slight preference for DBPR compared to SBPR. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. 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). We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. " Decision Summary" editordecision. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. 2002;17(8):34950. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. Papers. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. 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 In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. Am J Roentgenol. We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . 430,805 Altmetric mentions (2021), The Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (these comprise articles, reviews, and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years.
How To Redeem Fortnite Qr Codes,
Mark Bennett Obituary 2021,
Articles D