decision sent to author nature communications

Research Integrity and Peer Review It was on December 21, 1968, that Apollo 8 launched from Cape Kennedy, in Florida, sending US astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell Jr and William Anders on the world's . 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. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit We studied whether papers were accepted or rejected following peer review, and we included transfers because the editorial decisions as different journals follow different criteria. As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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). %PDF-1.3 % 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). 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]). Springer Nature. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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). 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. Please try your request again later. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, Nature. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made How do I find and access my journal's submission system. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. Am Econ Rev. In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 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. There . These records are excluded from the analysis, resulting in a dataset of 128,454 records, of which 20,406 (16%) were submitted to Nature, 65,234 (51%) to the 23 sister journals, and 42,814 (33%) to Nature Communications. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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. At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Did you find it helpful? https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems Scand J Econ. Decisions are to be made by consensus. 9.3 weeks. 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. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. 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. 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. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. Renee Wever. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 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 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. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. 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. decision sent to author nature communications - tCubed So, in October 2018, we added a new . McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. We believe that Impact Factor is just one of a number of metrics that can be used to evaluate a journal, and a small number of highly cited papers can have a disproportionate effect on the mean number of citations per paper. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Natural Product Communications: SAGE Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). 0000004388 00000 n 0000003952 00000 n Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in 0000008637 00000 n 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. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Brown RJC. Internet Explorer). In order to test whether two variables were independent, we used Pearsons chi-square test of independence and referred to the classification in [21] to define the strength of association. 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. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. 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. In order to see whether the final decision outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. 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. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. 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. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. Proc Natl Acad Sci. process - Geological Society Of America 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. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? 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. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. 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). 2017;12(12):e0189311. . 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. This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. 0000001795 00000 n 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. 0000007398 00000 n We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. 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. This might be the result of editor bias towards the review model, of the fact that female authors select their best papers to be DBPR to increase their chances of being accepted, or both. 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. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. 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. 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 Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Journal metrics are based on the published output, thus those that are calculated from the output in multiple years will use a partial dataset for recently launched journals. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . 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]. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

decision sent to author nature communications 2023