decision sent to author nature communicationsarizona state employee raises 2022

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]. 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. In our case, this analysis was hampered by the lack of an independent measure of quality, by potential confounders such as potential editor bias towards the review model or author characteristics, and by the lack of controlled experiments in which the same paper is reviewed under both SBPR and DBPR, or in which DBPR is compulsory, thus eliminating the effect of bias towards the review model. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. 0000007420 00000 n 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. 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. 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. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 2015;136(6):136977. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. 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. More specifically, the proportion of authors choosing DBPR is lower for higher ranking institution groups; in the uptake analysis by country, China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. The multivariate regression analyses we performed led to uninformative models that did not fit the data well when the response was author uptake, out-to-review decision, or acceptance decision, and the predictors were review type, author gender, author institution, author country, and journal tier. 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). Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 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. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 2016;1(2):1637. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. Decision Sent to Author 2020-07-09 08:38:16 Decision Pending 2020-06-29 08:28:42 Under Review 2020-06-25 09:38:03 Under Editorial Consideration 2020-06-23 10:09:56 Manuscript Submission 2020-04-09 14:44:05 Stage Start Date Manuscript Ready for Publication 2020-07-16 10:45:24 . 0000062196 00000 n 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. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. 0000004476 00000 n Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). Journal Issue available online . A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 0000039536 00000 n 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. 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. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=0.13012, df=1, p value=0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). Scand J Econ. 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. 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. 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. 2006;81(5):705. 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. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 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. . 0000008659 00000 n Corresponding author defined. . 0000004498 00000 n Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. 2012;114(2):50019. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. 2009;4(1):624. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? Corresponding author defined. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. Perspect Psychol Sci. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). Communications (max. The effect of blinding on review quality. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. Part of New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). We have analysed a large dataset of submissions to 25 Nature journals over a period of 2years by review model and in dependence of characteristics of the corresponding author. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. Correspondence to We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. 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). Yes 0000006193 00000 n 2021 Journal Metrics. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn 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 . There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 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. 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. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles Proc Natl Acad Sci. 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 Back to top. (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. We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. Am Econ Rev. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes. 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. 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. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. 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. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. 2006;295(14):167580. 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). (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. Sci World J. . 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. Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. 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. This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. 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. 2007;18(2):MR000016. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. 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). (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) 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]). 0000062617 00000 n 0000008637 00000 n Please try your request again later. nature physics. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. 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). On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. Trends Ecol Evol. If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. 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. manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. This is public, and permanent. ~. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. The Editor may be reading and assessing the submission, assigning additional editors according to the journal's polices, or taking some other action outside of the system. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. 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. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. 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. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. 2008;23(7):3513. 0000002247 00000 n . Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). 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). Similar results are achieved if simpler logistic regression models are considered, such as review type modelled on journal tier and institution and review type modelled on journal tier only. Visit our main website for more information. 1 Answer to this question. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? Nature 's editors are. 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.

Columbus Zoo Arctic Fox Anana Death, Impossible Restaurant, Exotic Clones For Sale Michigan, Trident Tattoo Small, Articles D