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. 0000005727 00000 n Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development. Check Status". Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. Trends Ecol Evol. 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. 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. 0000011063 00000 n Part of 0000012316 00000 n Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. "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 . Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. 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. Correspondence to captcha. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 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. If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. J Lang Evol. Although each journal published by Cell Press is editorially independent, we have been using Editorial Manager, a manuscript tracking system that allows authors to transfer manuscripts along with any review comments they may have between Molecular Plant and Plant Communications.Should you have any questions about the . 0000062617 00000 n 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 This first-of-its-kind option, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy . 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? Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons Scand J Econ. 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. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. 9.3 weeks. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. . manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. . 2007;18(2):MR000016. To place the results below within the right context, we point out that this study suffered from a key limitation, namely that we did not have an independent measure of quality for the manuscript or a controlled experiment in which the same manuscript is reviewed under both peer review models. This first-of-its-kindoption, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform andgives you real time updates onyour manuscripts progress through peer review. Renee Wever. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in 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 . Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? (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. 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). Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? We employed a Wald test to evaluate the statistical significance of each coefficient in the model by testing the hypothesis that the coefficient of an independent variable in the model is significantly different from zero. Toggle navigation. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. We however included transfers in all other analyses because we considered the analysed items as combinations of three attributes: paper, corresponding author, and journal to which the paper was submitted. 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. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. Yes There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=0.13012, df=1, p value=0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. Search. . Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. 0000001589 00000 n Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. In Review. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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). This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. 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. 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. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under the "For Authors" section of the journal's homepage as listed on SpringerLink Nature Portfolio Journals 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 . Google Scholar. 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). 2008;23(7):3513. 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. As a consequence, we are unable to distinguish bias towards author characteristics or the review model from any quality effect, and thus, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR in addressing bias. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. To obtain isolera golv plintgrund This agreement provides: A supported path for UC authors to publish open access in Springer's subscription-based and open access journals, including Springer, Springer Open, BioMed . Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). By using this website, you agree to our Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. 2002;17(8):34950. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 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. 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. 0000014828 00000 n Using Pearsons chi-square test of independence, we found a significant and large association between country category and review type (2=3784.5, df=10, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.189). And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). Papers. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. The page is updated on an annual basis. 2017;6:e21718. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 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. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. ->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. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. 0000003064 00000 n Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Brown RJC. There . 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. 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). At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). . We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. 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. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value <0.001, df=10, Cramers V=0.189). 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. 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. Decision Summary. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. Online First - Article available online 6. our vision is for all Springer Nature authors and reviewers to have an ORCID iD, and we are confident we will get there, slowly but surely. 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). Privacy Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). Linkping University. 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. We understand that you have not received any journal email. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. If we compare the proportion of accepted manuscripts under DBPR and authored by female vs. male corresponding authors (26 vs. 25%) with a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction, we find that there is a not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for DBPR-accepted papers (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction: 2=0.03188, df=1, p value=0.8583). Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. . We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value=0.6179). Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. 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. Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. 2019. Barbara McGillivray. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. 0000065294 00000 n So, in October 2018, we added a new . Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. 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. 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. 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. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. 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. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. 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. After manually checking a sample of gender assignments and their scores, we kept the gender returned by Gender API where the accuracy was at least 80 and assigned a value NA otherwise. MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. 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. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . 0000007398 00000 n Accessed 15 Jan 2017. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=378.17, degrees of freedom=2, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.054 and show that authors submitting to more prestigious journals tend to have a slight preference for DBPR compared to SBPR. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. 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. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. We only retained a normalised institution name and country when the query to the GRID API returned a result with a high confidence, and the flag manual review was set to false, meaning that no manual review was needed. 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. Any pending input will be lost. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. 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. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. The result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . 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. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 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). We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. 0000013573 00000 n In the context of scientific literature, an analysis of 2680 manuscripts from seven journals found no overall difference in the acceptance rates of papers according to gender, while at the same time reporting a strong effect of number of authors and country of affiliation on manuscripts acceptance rates [9]. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. decision sent to author nature communications posted by Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. 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. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. 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. n/a. 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. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. . We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. 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. 2006;81(5):705. 0000062401 00000 n Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. 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.