decision sent to author nature communications

Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. We excluded papers for which the post-review outcome was a revision and papers which were still under review; thus, the dataset for this analysis comprises 20,706 records of which 8934 were accepted and 11,772 were rejected. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. This is public, and permanent. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? - Elsevier This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 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]. 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. I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for Concerning the institutions, we defined four categories according to their THE ranks and used these as a proxy for prestige: category 1 includes institutions with THE rank between 1 and 10 (corresponding to 7167 manuscripts, 6% of all manuscripts), category 2 is for THE ranks between 11 and 100 (25,345 manuscripts, 20% of all manuscripts), category 3 for THE ranks above 100 (38,772 manuscripts, 30% of all manuscripts), and category 4 for non-ranked institutions (57,170 manuscripts, or 45% of all manuscripts). The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. LZ. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. 0000004498 00000 n A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. 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. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. 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. Am Econ Rev. 0000006193 00000 n Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. ->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision Original letter from Ben Cravatt in early 2000 after our meeting at UCSF when he sent me a sample of his FP-biotin probe to test in my laboratory. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. 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. By accepting all cookies, you agree to our use of cookies to deliver and maintain our services and site, improve the quality of Reddit, personalize Reddit content and advertising, and measure the effectiveness of advertising. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 9.3 weeks. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision). Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Am J Roentgenol. Reviews for "Nature Communications" - Page 1 - SciRev However, we did not achieve a good fit, as per the binned plot of residuals against expected values, and the C-index (used to assess the discriminatory ability of standard logistic models) is 0.68, so well below the threshold of 0.8 for good fit. 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 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. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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). 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. 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. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). 0000065294 00000 n Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. The difference, however, is very small. The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. 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 . On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 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. statement and Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. 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. 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. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 3. level 1. 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. Nature What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made 0000004174 00000 n 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. Table2 displays the uptake by journal group and shows that the review model distribution changes as a function of the journal tier, with the proportion of double-blind papers decreasing for tiers with comparatively higher perceived prestige. process - Geological Society Of America 25th Apr, 2017. Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. We should note that the significance of the results on outcome is limited by the size of the dataset for accepted papers, due to the high selectivity of these journals and to the low uptake of DBPR. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. Internet Explorer). The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Yes waiting to send decision to author nature. Submissions not complying with policy and guidelines receive an immediate (administrative) reject and are not forwarded to the review process (IEEE PSPB Operation Manual, 8.2.2.3) Authors are required to ensure before submission that their manuscripts are in full compliance with the magazine's submission policy and guidelines as outlined below. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). 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. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. When analysing uptake data by journal tier, we have included both direct submissions and transfers incoming to each journal group, for a total of 128,457 manuscripts that were submitted to one of the 25 Nature-branded journals. 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. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. We did not observe any difference by author gender. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. The analysis of success outcome at both the out-to-review and acceptance stages could in principle reveal the existence of any reviewer bias against authors characteristics. 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. 0000004388 00000 n However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. In the past if your work wasn't accepted in Nature or Science researchers would often try the respected general journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, or PNAS - which wags dubbed "Probably Not . In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. 0000006171 00000 n Comment on/see emerging science in full HTMLin both phone and desktop-friendly sizes, Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search, Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals, Authors original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. While these shortcomings of the data are beyond our control, we have made it clear in the Results section when and why we have excluded a subset of the dataset in each aspect of the analysis. Nature Communications Q&A - Cameronneylon.net 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. Research Integrity and Peer Review 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. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Locate submission instructions for a Springer journal, Submit a manuscript with your ORCID number, Submit a Nature Portfolio manuscript for Open Access publishing, Submit multimedia files to be published online with your article. eLife. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. 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. In addition, the high prestige of these journals might accentuate an implicit referee bias and therefore makes such journals a good starting point for such an analysis. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 0000008637 00000 n 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. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9). The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. 'Completed - Accept'. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. The Editor may be reading and assessing the submission, assigning additional editors according to the journal's polices, or taking some other action outside of the system. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. 9.3 weeks. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 0000009876 00000 n Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. 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). n/a. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? 2007;18(2):MR000016. Peer review times vary per journal. In Review. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. Visit our main website for more information. Help us improve this article with your feedback. 0000011085 00000 n Any pending input will be lost. ,.,., . captcha. 2006;81(5):705. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? 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". This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 1 Answer to this question. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? Search. I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. 0000007420 00000 n Decisions are to be made by consensus. I am not a robot. 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/. Here, we define the corresponding author as the author who is responsible for managing the submission process on the manuscript tracking system and for all correspondence with the editorial office prior to publication. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. 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. 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). 2016;14(1):85. The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). Renee Wever. 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. 2016;1(2):1637. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. You can see an example in the article above. 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. This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. 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. For DBPR papers, we found a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=7.5042, df=1, p value=0.006155); for SBPR papers, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=0.72863, df=1, p value=0.3933). It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. 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. Toggle navigation. 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).