0000014682 00000 n Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . 1 Answer to this question. Privacy In this study, we sought to understand the demographics of authors choosing DBPR in Nature-branded journals and to identify any differences in success outcomes for manuscripts undergoing different review models depending on the gender and the affiliation of the corresponding author. 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. 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 After reviewing the reports, you can proceed to making decisions on papers. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? Most journals assign a manuscript number upon initial submission and send an automated notice to advise you of the number (if not now, the manuscript number will be assigned when the first editor is assigned). Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. Perspect Psychol Sci. Cookies policy. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. To obtain 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. Internet Explorer). Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Tulare Ca Obituaries, Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by reparationstapet kllare Monitoring dairy cattle behavior can improve the detection of health and welfare issues for early interventions. Renee Wever. 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. . MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. 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 UC's agreement with Springer Nature is a three-year-plus agreement, through 2023, that increases both UC's access to Springer Nature journals and support for the open access publication of UC research. 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. Communications (max. Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. An analysis of the journal Behavioral Ecology, which switched to DBPR in 2001, found a significant interaction between gender and time, reflecting the higher number of female authors after 2001, but no significant interaction between gender and review type [11]. 2.3 Procedures Communications Arising submissions that meet Nature's initial selection criteria are sent to the authors of the original paper for a response, and the exchange to independent referees. 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). nature physics. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 2000;90(4):71541. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. This result does not change significantly if we focus on the three institution groups we defined (high-, medium-, and low-prestige), thus excluding the fourth group for which no THE rank was found (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.405, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.064), which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Peer review times vary per journal. 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. Thank you for visiting nature.com. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the nature of revisions and the field of study. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. In Review | SpringerNature | Authors | Springer Nature 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. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. 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. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . 2nd ed. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. We did not observe any difference by author gender. The post-review outcome of papers as a function of the institution group and review model (Table15) showed that manuscripts from less prestigious institutions are accepted at a lower rate than those from more prestigious ones, even under DBPR; however, due to the small numbers of papers at this stage, the results are not statistically significant. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. 0000007420 00000 n We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. We believe that Impact Factor is just one of a number of metrics that can be used to evaluate a journal, and a small number of highly cited papers can have a disproportionate effect on the mean number of citations per paper. https://www.grid.ac. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles 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. 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). I am not a robot. 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. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. 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. Transfer of papers between Cell Press journals and Molecular Plant. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts In these scenarios, crowd wisdom peaks early then becomes less accurate as more individuals become involved, explained senior author Iain Couzin, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. 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. Corresponding author defined. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 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). 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). 2017;6:e21718. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.' . Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. . All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. . 0000001795 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]. 2007;18(2):MR000016. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. 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 . A Pearsons chi-square test found a significant, but small association between institution group and review type (2=656.95, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.106). The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. 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. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. PLOS ONE. In order to identify the pair(s) giving rise to this difference, we performed a test of equal proportion for each pair and accounted for multiple testing with Bonferroni correction. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . 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. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 2002;17(8):34950. Nature. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. 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. 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 area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. We investigated the question of whether, out of the papers that go to review, manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be accepted than those with male corresponding authors under DBPR and SBPR. 0000007398 00000 n 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Decision Summary. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. 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. Barbara McGillivray. 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). 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. In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. 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 . Sci World J. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal.
Judy Gallagher Obituary,
Cbs Sunday Morning Segments Today,
Articles F
