decision sent to author nature communications

Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. 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. 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. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. Thank you for visiting nature.com. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. The effect of blinding on review quality. 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. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. An analysis of the journal Behavioral Ecology, which switched to DBPR in 2001, found a significant interaction between gender and time, reflecting the higher number of female authors after 2001, but no significant interaction between gender and review type [11]. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 2017;6:e21718. In Review. 2002;17(8):34950. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. 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. We understand that you have not received any journal email. 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. But the confusing part is, is that the reviewer are now done with reviewing (Review completed) but the new status became apperently ''Manuscript under consideration". 0000039536 00000 n 2019. 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. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. 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'. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. . Journal Issue available online . Another report found that the authors of submissions to the American Journal of Public Health were in fact recognizable in around half of the cases [3]. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. 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. 0000062401 00000 n When comparing acceptance rates by gender and regardless of review model, we observed that female authors are significantly less likely to be accepted than their male counterparts. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. 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. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. 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 Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. 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. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . 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 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. 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. 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). 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. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. 0000002625 00000 n . :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE 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. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons 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). manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Usage: Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. England Women's Football Captain, In Review. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. California Privacy Statement, Moreover, some records were not complete if authors made spelling mistakes when entering the names of their country or institution, as this would have made it impossible to match those names with normalised names for countries or for institutions using GRID. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. Scand J Econ. 2017-07-13 11:21. 0000007420 00000 n Ben Glocker (an expert in machine learning for medical imaging, Imperial College London), Mirco Musolesi (a data science and digital health expert, University College London), Jonathan Richens (an expert in diagnostic machine learning models, Babylon Health) and Caroline Uhler (a computational biology expert, MIT) talked to Nature Communications about their research interests in causality . 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . Data are collected annually for full calendar years. 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). 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. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. This can be due to quality or referee bias. The decision is sent to the author. 0000055535 00000 n This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. 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. Double anonymity and the peer review process. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Springer Nature. Mayo Clin Proc. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 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. 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). As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Nature . For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. 4;N>0TjAWSI#|9aJs]PZYp M#M%,f-);k'\C/*('O2 X(^tL4[msd\5n9cIh(?J0yVg5[5(z,|j}(mLR:V#P/lAD~"jhQT H+}0Z3Nj>!76{7#FMxgiqyym qo=CFf.oA:+ 6hlXT?:SNMZ/|)wj 44X7^tkp+:LL4 The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed.