decision sent to author nature communicationsdecision sent to author nature communications

Reviews for "Nature Communications" - Page 1 - SciRev Please try your request again later. Double anonymity and the peer review process. 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. 0000005727 00000 n Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. 2006;81(5):705. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. Am Econ Rev. The gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). 0000006171 00000 n 0000047727 00000 n Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 0000006193 00000 n 2021 Journal Metrics. 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. 0000062401 00000 n 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). Tulare Ca Obituaries, Yes Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Corresponding author defined. 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 Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . I am not a robot. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. 3. level 1. 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. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. 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. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. We aimed at modelling acceptance 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). 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]. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. 9.3 weeks. 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). Decisions are to be made by consensus. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). palabras en latn con significados bonitos. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. 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). Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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. 2016;14(1):85. 1991;81(5):104167. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 2019. 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 corresponding journal. 0000007398 00000 n A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) 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. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. waiting to send decision to author nature. BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. 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. ~. Brown RJC. We studied whether papers were accepted or rejected following peer review, and we included transfers because the editorial decisions as different journals follow different criteria. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. 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. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. 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 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 could have chosen a different distribution of institutions among the four categories, and will likely have an impact on the uptake of DBPR across the institutional prestige spectrum. However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. 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. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. Sodexo Disney Springs, Peer Review | Nature Portfolio Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. For this analysis, we used a subset of the 106,373 manuscripts consisting of 58,920 records with non-empty normalised institutions for which a THE rank was available (the Institution Dataset, excluding transfers) (Table4). Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. 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). The lack of a significant association between gender and OTR rate regardless of peer review model (Table7) might suggest that there is no editor bias towards gender; however, this is based on the assumption that there is no gender-dependent quality factor. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit 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. Toggle navigation. 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 Correct the online article. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. reparationstapet kllare . 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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*). This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. (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. 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. 0000039536 00000 n In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. 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]). Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. PDF Brief Communications and Communications Arising - Ju Li . LZ. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. 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 . Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 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. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . 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. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 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 Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. Nature . JAMA. Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? We understand that you have not received any journal email. Any pending input will be lost. Cookies policy. The proportion of authors choosing double-blind changes as a function of the institution group, with higher ranking groups having a higher proportion of single-blind manuscripts (Table4). 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. Article Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 0000005880 00000 n how to pronounce dandelion witcher. 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. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. 2017;6:e21718. The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? 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. Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. This is known as a rescinding. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). 0000001795 00000 n The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 0000001568 00000 n There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). By using this website, you agree to our . No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. bounded rationality . 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. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. 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. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. 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. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. 2012;114(2):50019. 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). In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. A study analysing 940 papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008 found no significant difference between the grades of female- and male-authored papers by review type [12]. 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. 2000;90(4):71541. nature~. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. 2017;12(12):e0189311. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. 0000011063 00000 n Toggle navigation. The page will refresh upon submission. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. . This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. 0000003551 00000 n https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. 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. 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. . This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. n - Am J Roentgenol. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. Correspondence to 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 Alan Turing Institute, London, England, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, Springer Nature, 4 Crinan Street, London, UK, You can also search for this author in In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. 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. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). 0000013595 00000 n Title page: A separate title page is necessary and should bear a) the title of the article, b) name of the authors, c) the institutions of origin, d) a short title and for Short Communications also the corresponding author's name, address, and e-mail.Please note that it should be a maximum of 5 authors for Short Communications. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. . We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). 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. The motivation behind Nature Communications is to provide authors with more choice; both in terms of where they publish, and what access model they want for their papers.At present NPG does not provide a rapid publishing opportunity for authors with high-quality specialist work within the Nature branded titles. sciencenature - 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. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in The multivariate regression analyses we performed led to uninformative models that did not fit the data well when the response was author uptake, out-to-review decision, or acceptance decision, and the predictors were review type, author gender, author institution, author country, and journal tier. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? - Elsevier All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. Nature 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).
Devin Thomas Obituary, Victoria Secret Pink Rn 54867 Ca 23226, Beaufort Sc Mugshots, What To Say When Someone Calls You Perfect, Articles D