The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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. 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 . HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. 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. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. 0000001795 00000 n This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. . Our results show that we cannot say that there is a significant difference between authors from prestigious institutions and authors from less prestigious institutions for DBPR-accepted manuscripts. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. 0000014682 00000 n PubMedGoogle Scholar. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Trends Ecol Evol. . (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. 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). One possible explanation for the lack of fit is that more or other predictors would be needed in order to fully explain the response, for example, a measure of quality, as we have already indicated. botln botkyrka kommun. 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. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. 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 had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value <0.001, df=2, Cramers V=0.106). 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). A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). 0000009876 00000 n Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage : r/labrats - Reddit 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). 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. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. 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. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. . 0000082326 00000 n Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. botln botkyrka kommun. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. How do I check the status of my manuscript? Vintage Cardboard Christmas Decorations, 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. Corresponding author defined. We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): 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). 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. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. 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. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The 5-year journal Impact Factor, available from 2007 onward, is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year. 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. reparationstapet kllare . %PDF-1.3 % 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). 9.3 weeks. 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. 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. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. In Review. 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 . We did not observe any difference by author gender. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. It's simple! 0000004388 00000 n Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) . This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. Nature CommunicationsTips - https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. 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. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. 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. 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. . 2nd ed. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. We also attempted to fit a generalized linear mixed effects model with a random effect for the country category, as we can assume that the data is sampled by country and observations from the same country share characteristics and are not independent. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. 0000011063 00000 n We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. 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. 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*). In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). . There . Springer Nature. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Am Econ Rev. Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. 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. Nature 's editors are. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. 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. 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. 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. 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. Research Integrity and Peer Review Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. Find submission status of your article / manuscript - Nature Support Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. captcha. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Table6 shows the counts and proportions of manuscripts that were sent out for review or rejected by the editors as a function of peer review model. 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. 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. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 2017;114(48):1270813. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. 0000009854 00000 n 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 00000 n Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author.

Heather Campbell Seinfeld, Pavestone Holland Pavers, Class C State Basketball Montana 2022, Articles D