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

An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2.3 Procedures Communications Arising submissions that meet Nature's initial selection criteria are sent to the authors of the original paper for a response, and the exchange to independent referees. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. 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. 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). 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. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. 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. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. 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. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. J Lang Evol. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. 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. 0000001568 00000 n 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. 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. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. The Editors may take time to discuss the reviews and may invite more reviewers or assign another editor, returning the submission to an earlier status. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. 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 Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. We also conducted regression analyses on the data, to measure the effect of different variables such as gender and institution group on three outcomes: author uptake, out-to-review, and acceptance. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. 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. We also found that manuscripts from female authors or authors from less prestigious institutions are accepted with a lower rate than those from male authors or more prestigious institutions, respectively. This process left 13,542 manuscripts without a normalised name; for the rest of the manuscripts, normalised institution names and countries were found, which resulted in 5029 unique institution names. 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. 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. It's simple! editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. Often commercial sensors do not provide researchers with sufficient raw and open data; therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an open and customizable system to classify cattle behaviors. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the nature of revisions and the field of study. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 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 Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. We calculated that, at this rate, it would take us several decades to collect sufficient data that would result in statistically significant results, so another strategy is required, e.g. Am Econ Rev. 0000004437 00000 n In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. 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. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) botln botkyrka kommun. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Peer review times vary per journal. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. . Because the median is not subject to the . 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]. 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. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. ,.,., . 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. The WeWork Decision. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. 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). Google Scholar. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Double anonymity and the peer review process. Corresponding author defined. 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 . Don't wait too long. Corresponding author defined. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. Perspect Psychol Sci. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Back to top. 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. The UC's agreement with Springer Nature is a three-year-plus agreement, through 2023, that increases both UC's access to Springer Nature journals and support for the open access publication of UC research. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. . We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 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. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. Nature. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. 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. Correspondence to This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. The effect of blinding on review quality. The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. 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. 2002;179(6):14157. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. A study analysing 940 papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008 found no significant difference between the grades of female- and male-authored papers by review type [12]. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. (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. The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). This can be due to quality or referee bias. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts Motivation: First decision to send out to review in 3 weeks, but then a very long delay to receiving a final decision. 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. 0000013595 00000 n Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Press J to jump to the feed. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? Communications (max. . After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. 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. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 0000062401 00000 n 0000003764 00000 n 0000055535 00000 n There . manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. Moreover, the two models do not have to be exclusive;one could think of a DBPR stage followed by full public disclosure of reviewers and editors identities and reports. 0000001589 00000 n If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 0000001795 00000 n In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR.