In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. 0000001335 00000 n McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. We did not observe any difference by author gender. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. 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. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. 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. 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. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 0000004476 00000 n What does a status change from "Manuscript submitted" to "To author If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. 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 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). This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly recordthat means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. sciencenature - 0000011063 00000 n EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. 0000062196 00000 n Journals can customize the wording of status terms. " Decision Summary" editordecision. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. 9.3 weeks. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. 0000011085 00000 n For example, a report showed that 34% of 880 manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that would either potentially or definitely reveal the identities of the authors or their institution [2]. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. . Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 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. 0000009876 00000 n authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 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 . 0000047727 00000 n Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 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. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission, https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . The submission remains at this status until you select "Build PDF for Approval". 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. 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. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. botln botkyrka kommun. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 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. %PDF-1.3 % SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B In order to detect any bias towards institutional prestige, we referred to a dataset containing 20,706 records, which includes OTR papers that were either rejected or accepted, as well as transfers. We calculated that, at this rate, it would take us several decades to collect sufficient data that would result in statistically significant results, so another strategy is required, e.g. . The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. 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.' 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. 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*). Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 2002;17(8):34950. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. 0000002625 00000 n Because the median is not subject to the distortions from outliers, we have developed and provided the 2-year Median, derived from Web of Science data and defined as the median number of citations received in 2021for articles published in 2019and 2020. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. 0000003551 00000 n Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. 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. 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). When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. 2002;179(6):14157. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. Cohen J. 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. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). 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. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1. 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. Communications (max. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Double anonymity and the peer review process. Nature Communications Q&A - Cameronneylon.net 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. It's simple! To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. 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. 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 . 0000014828 00000 n (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? 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. 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. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. 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. To post social content, you must have a display name. Nature volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) nature~. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? 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). 0000003064 00000 n 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). . After peer review, a decision of accept, reject, or revision is made on the basis of the reviewers comments and the judgment of the editor. Part of 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. Trends Ecol Evol. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Plast Reconstr Surg. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. BMC Med. Search. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. (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. 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. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . What happens after my manuscript is accepted? Moreover, the two models do not have to be exclusive;one could think of a DBPR stage followed by full public disclosure of reviewers and editors identities and reports. 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. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal's citation influence to the size of the journal's article contribution over a period of five years. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. 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? A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (2=331.62, df=1, p value <0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (2=464.86, df=1, p value <0.001). 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). While these shortcomings of the data are beyond our control, we have made it clear in the Results section when and why we have excluded a subset of the dataset in each aspect of the analysis. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. 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. 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. 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. 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. The science editor has sole responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript, and that decision is final. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . For other authors characteristics, such as institutional prestige, a quality factor is more likely than for gender: it is not unthinkable to assume that on average manuscripts from more prestigious institutions, which tend to have more resources, are of a higher quality than those from institutions with lower prestige and fewer means. statement and 0000006193 00000 n Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Privacy 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. 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. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 2017-07-13 11:21. 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]. 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. PLOS ONE. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal.