decision sent to author nature communicationsdecision sent to author nature communications

Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. 2nd ed. In addition, the high prestige of these journals might accentuate an implicit referee bias and therefore makes such journals a good starting point for such an analysis. 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. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. Search. J Lang Evol. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 2009;4(1):624. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 0000007420 00000 n This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. (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. 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. 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. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. "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 . 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. BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. (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. 0000001245 00000 n We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. . Sorry we couldn't be helpful. It is calculated by multiplying the Eigenfactor Score by 0.01 and dividing by the number of articles in the journal, normalized as a fraction of all articles in all publications. The dataset consisted of 133,465 unique records, with 63,552 different corresponding authors and 209,057 different institution names. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. 2006;295(14):167580. We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. Renee Wever. 0000001335 00000 n The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. 0000014682 00000 n MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. 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 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. Comment on/see emerging science in full HTMLin both phone and desktop-friendly sizes, Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search, Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals, Authors original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses. 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. We observed a trend in which the OTR rate for both DBPR and SBPR papers decreases as the prestige of the institution groups decreases, and we tested for the significance of this. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. 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. We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. 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). 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. 0000014828 00000 n Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. 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. 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). nature~. 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. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. . Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. 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. 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). Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). 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. Any pending input will be lost. There . Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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. The results on author uptake show that DBPR is chosen more frequently by authors that submit to higher impact journals within the portfolio, by authors from certain countries, and by authors from less prestigious institutions. Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. ->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 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). We did not observe any difference by author gender. That is, authors that feel more vulnerable to implicit bias against the prestige of their institutional affiliation or their country tend to choose DBPR to prevent such bias playing a role in the editorial decision. The effect of blinding on review quality. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. 2017;6:e21718. Submission has been transferred to another journal, see How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . 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. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. 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]). If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? 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. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the Natural Product Communications editorial office as follows: [email protected], 614-786-1970. Decision Summary. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. 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

Irish Drinking Toast For The Dead, How To Set Up Multiple Kindle Accounts, Buyer Harassing Seller After Closing, Belgian Malinois Champdogs, Articles D