decision sent to author nature communications decision sent to author nature communications

. If you have previously submitted a paper to a Nature Portfolio journal and would like an update on the status of your submission, please login to the manuscript tracking account for the corresponding journal. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. . We observed that DBPR is chosen more often by authors submitting to higher impact journals within the Nature portfolio, by authors from specific countries (India and China in particular, among countries with the highest submission rates), and by authors from less prestigious institutions. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 0000002034 00000 n As a consequence, we are unable to distinguish bias towards author characteristics or the review model from any quality effect, and thus, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR in addressing bias. Hathaway High School Staff, For Coupons, Giveaways, and Free Games to play with your family, distance between underground pull boxes fiber optic cable, richest instagram influencers non celebrity, big spring correctional center inmate search, rachael newsham and dan cohen relationship, giorno giovanna you will never reach the truth japanese, 34 eye opening photos of the great depression, Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra. 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. 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. Am Econ Rev. Communications (max. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 0000013573 00000 n eLife. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Did you find it helpful? The following is an example of a poor cover letter: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer" by Researcher et al. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. 2019. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." 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 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. 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. Research Integrity and Peer Review 0000012294 00000 n We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . The Editors have begun a decision in the system. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) The results on author uptake show that DBPR is chosen more frequently by authors that submit to higher impact journals within the portfolio, by authors from certain countries, and by authors from less prestigious institutions. 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). Visit our main website for more information. 0000003064 00000 n Most journals assign a manuscript number upon initial submission and send an automated notice to advise you of the number (if not now, the manuscript number will be assigned when the first editor is assigned). Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. Search. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. LZ. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. 0000004388 00000 n 2000;90(4):71541. 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. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. Double anonymity and the peer review process. 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. For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4). 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. The study reported on here is the first one that focusses on Nature-branded journals, with the overall aim to investigate whether there is any implicit bias in peer review in these journals and ultimately understand whether DBPR is an effective measure in removing referee bias and improving the peer review of scientific literature. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. 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. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. Back to top. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. captcha. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. 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]. Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. This can be due to quality or referee bias. . Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts.The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. 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. Toggle navigation. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. 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. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . 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). Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. 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. Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. n/a. 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. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. 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. 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. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . 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. . 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. Part of Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. It's simple! 0000062401 00000 n 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. 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). We did not observe any difference by author gender. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ,.,., . 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 then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? Because the median is not subject to the distortions from outliers, we have developed and provided the 2-year Median, derived from Web of Science data and defined as the median number of citations received in 2021for articles published in 2019and 2020. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. 0000004437 00000 n The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . 0000014828 00000 n 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. Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). 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). After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. 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. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. The result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. Springer Nature. 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). Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. . Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. The data that support the findings of this study are available from Springer Nature but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 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. 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. 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 . Help us to improve this site, send feedback. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission, https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . 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]. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. 3. level 1. 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. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. 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. Help us improve this article with your feedback. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. To obtain Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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. 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).