decision sent to author nature communications

This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 2008;23(7):3513. Am Econ Rev. Corresponding author defined. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Trends Ecol Evol. 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 . 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. 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. We aimed at modelling OTR decisions 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). Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. ->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. The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Nature. 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). Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. 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. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. BMC Med. 0000008637 00000 n Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 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. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. 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. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. We understand that you have not received any journal email. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. 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%. 2016;14(1):85. 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. There is a tiny but significant association between institution group and acceptance, which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. The present study focusses on the effects of this publisher intervention in the 2years following implementation and can guide others when evaluating the consequences of introducing DBPR to their journals. Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, 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. 0000082326 00000 n Journals can customize the wording of status terms. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. Nature Communications Q&A - Cameronneylon.net A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. Search. 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. 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. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. 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. . Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 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. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. 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. 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 . Please note that this definition is different from that of the corresponding author(s) as stated on published articles and who are the author(s) responsible for correspondence with readers. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . 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. 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. You can see an example in the article above. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). 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

Breeo Sear Plate Worth It, Why Did Sarah Greene Leave Ransom, Articles D