0000009876 00000 n 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. Get Scientific Editing. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. JAMA. 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. 2017;12(12):e0189311. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. palabras en latn con significados bonitos. 0000008659 00000 n A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. We note here that, in recent years, trends in scholarly publishing have emerged that strongly propose transparent, or open, peer review as a model that could potentially improve the quality and robustness of the peer review process [18]. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. Don't wait too long. Correspondence to Article 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. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. 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). eLife. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 0000005880 00000 n 1991;81(5):104167. 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). 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . 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. 2000;90(4):71541. 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. Scand J Econ. In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value <0.001, df=10, Cramers V=0.189). 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 Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. statement and Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. Search. 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). Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 0000013573 00000 n PLOS ONE. Internet Explorer). 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. 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. 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. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. . 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. There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. 2008;23(7):3513. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? 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. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. 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]. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. 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]). 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). Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly recordthat means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. 2012;114(2):50019. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. Although each journal published by Cell Press is editorially independent, we have been using Editorial Manager, a manuscript tracking system that allows authors to transfer manuscripts along with any review comments they may have between Molecular Plant and Plant Communications.Should you have any questions about the . For each manuscript, we used Springer Natures internal manuscript tracking system to extract name, institutional affiliation, and country of the corresponding author; journal title; the manuscripts review type (single-blind or double-blind); the editors final decision on the manuscript (accept, reject, or revise); and the DOI. Corresponding author defined. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. This is public, and permanent. 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. 'Completed - Accept'. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. Some research has not found conclusive results [6, 7], demonstrating the need for further large-scale systematic analyses spanning over journals across the disciplinary spectrum. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? . 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. 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. Corresponding author defined. The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". 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. LZ. We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. 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. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. 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. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 0000013595 00000 n Your script could be better than the image of the journal. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. We observed a trend in which the OTR rate for both DBPR and SBPR papers decreases as the prestige of the institution groups decreases, and we tested for the significance of this. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. 0000047805 00000 n 0000062401 00000 n 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. My father emptied the thing at an unknown date ruining my spontaneous project, but at least I was able to recover the skull, jaw, spine & ribs. " Decision Summary" editordecision. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. ~. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. Part of 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). We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. 0000003764 00000 n DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. Decision Summary. 2016;14(1):85. 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). Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. 8. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. 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 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. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. 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. 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. Cookies policy. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). Research Integrity and Peer Review 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. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. Yes (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 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. Nature 's editors are. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . Finally, we investigated the uptake of the peer review models by country of the corresponding author for the entire portfolio, using data on all of the 106,373 manuscripts. 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. Am J Roentgenol. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. 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). 0000006171 00000 n However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. Nature Support Solution home Author and Peer Reviewer Support Submission Rejection of your paper / manuscript Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM Springer is committed to your. 0000001568 00000 n Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 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. Trends Ecol Evol. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. 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. 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). In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. 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. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 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). . These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. 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. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. 0000004476 00000 n Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). 0000055535 00000 n 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. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. The effect of blinding on review quality. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. 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. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. 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). The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.06, which means that the model only represents a 6% improvement over simply guessing the most frequent outcome, or in other words, the model is not powerful enough to predict the uptake of DB with high reliability. 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. After peer review, a decision of accept, reject, or revision is made on the basis of the reviewers comments and the judgment of the editor. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 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. 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. 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
Martin Archery Bow,
Woodland Park, Nj Recreation Department,
We Are Least Likely To Use Heuristics,
M40 Banbury Accident Today,
Articles D