decision sent to author nature communications

the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Nature Support Solution home Author and Peer Reviewer Support Submission Rejection of your paper / manuscript Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM Springer is committed to your. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 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. Google Scholar. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. 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. I am not a robot. In order to reduce the variability in the institutional affiliations, we normalised the institution names and countries via a Python script that queried the API of the Global Resource Identified Database (GRID [19]). IP-address: 40.77.167.199. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. This is public, and permanent. 2009;4(1):624. Another issue that hampered our study was the lack of complete records for each manuscript in the dataset in relation to gender, country, and institution of the corresponding author. (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Rejection of your paper / manuscript : Nature Support %PDF-1.3 % Don't wait too long. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. 9.3 weeks. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons For this analysis, we included direct submissions as well as transferred manuscripts, because the editorial criteria vary by journal and a manuscript rejected by one journal and transferred to another may then be sent out to review. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 8. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Example: Blood Cancer Journal: Go to the 'Publish with us' drop down menu: Click on 'Submit manuscript' in order to be directed to that journal's manuscript tracking system: For the status of your submission to Scientific Reports,go to the Scientific Reports contact webpage for email addresses to determine which one best fits your requirements. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 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. . Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence show a small effect size (2=138.77, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.082). 0000006171 00000 n May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . 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. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. 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. Am Econ Rev. 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. . There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly recordthat means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. 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. 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 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. The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . 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. Among the studies dealing with institutional bias, an analysis of abstracts submitted to the American Heart Associations annual Scientific Sessions research meeting from 2000 to 2004 found some evidence of bias favouring authors from English-speaking countries and prestigious institutions [14]. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. (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. In the post-review analysis, we found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. captcha. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.03, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. Cite this article. 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. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Peer Review | Nature Portfolio trailer << /Size 54 /Info 7 0 R /Root 10 0 R /Prev 92957 /ID[<98e42fa76505e1b5b1796b170b58dfee><8c8134bb7fa785eceed4533362dfb985>] >> startxref 0 %%EOF 10 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 6 0 R /Metadata 8 0 R /PageLabels 5 0 R >> endobj 52 0 obj << /S 48 /L 155 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 0 R >> stream In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Nature. 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. 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). (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. 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. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Natural Product Communications: SAGE Journals can customize the wording of status terms. 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. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. 2016;14(1):85. Journal metrics are based on the published output, thus those that are calculated from the output in multiple years will use a partial dataset for recently launched journals. In order to detect any bias towards institutional prestige, we referred to a dataset containing 20,706 records, which includes OTR papers that were either rejected or accepted, as well as transfers. 2008;23(7):3513. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. . Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? The WeWork Decision. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. Nature 2017;114(48):1270813. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. We analysed the dataset of 128,454 records with a non-empty review type to answer the following questions: What are the demographics of authors that choose double-blind peer review? The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. So, in October 2018, we added a new . We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. 0000009876 00000 n To post social content, you must have a display name. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Nature. Corresponding author defined. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). In your 'Author Main Menu' manuscripts appear in different folders as they pass through phases in the editorial process: The submission is waiting for you to complete the submission (or revision) process. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. Communications (max. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Terms and Conditions, 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. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. Tracking your manuscript status in journal submission systems If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. 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). As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status.

Amy Coveno Wmur, 75th Fighter Squadron Obituary, Nevada Trust Companies List, 5 Major Tornadoes In The Last 50 Years, Articles D