decision sent to author nature communications

2002;179(6):14157. Nature CommunicationsTips: NCOnline: 140 250 tips (Naturetransfer) NCzip"Zip of files for Reviewer" 2-4 2. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 0000062196 00000 n Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. 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. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Back to top. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=0.13012, df=1, p value=0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). 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. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? When analysing data for the entire portfolio, we only included direct submissions (106,373) and we excluded manuscripts that were rejected by one journal and then transferred to another. At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles . Why did this happen? Toggle navigation. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. 0000002034 00000 n 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%. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 2017;6:e21718. . the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. For each manuscript, we used Springer Natures internal manuscript tracking system to extract name, institutional affiliation, and country of the corresponding author; journal title; the manuscripts review type (single-blind or double-blind); the editors final decision on the manuscript (accept, reject, or revise); and the DOI. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. 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. PubMedGoogle Scholar. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. We divided the journals in three tiers: (i) the flagship interdisciplinary journal (Nature), (ii) the discipline-specific sister journals (Nature Astronomy, Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Cell Biology, Nature Chemical Biology, Nature Chemistry, Nature Climate Change, Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature Energy, Nature Genetics, Nature Geoscience, Nature Human Behaviour, Nature Immunology, Nature Materials, Nature Medicine, Nature Methods, Nature Microbiology, Nature Nanotechnology, Nature Neuroscience, Nature Photonics, Nature Physics, Nature Plants, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology), and (iii) the open-access interdisciplinary title (Nature Communications). Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings. However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 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. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. 2002;17(8):34950. Controlled experiments as described above were not possible due to peer review policies at the Nature journals and the fact that we could only analyse historical data. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 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). This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Am Econ Rev. We note here that, in recent years, trends in scholarly publishing have emerged that strongly propose transparent, or open, peer review as a model that could potentially improve the quality and robustness of the peer review process [18]. Yes The analysis of success outcome at both the out-to-review and acceptance stages could in principle reveal the existence of any reviewer bias against authors characteristics. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. Ben Glocker (an expert in machine learning for medical imaging, Imperial College London), Mirco Musolesi (a data science and digital health expert, University College London), Jonathan Richens (an expert in diagnostic machine learning models, Babylon Health) and Caroline Uhler (a computational biology expert, MIT) talked to Nature Communications about their research interests in causality . There . Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. 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. 0000055535 00000 n What happens after my manuscript is accepted? This can be due to quality or referee bias. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, 2012;114(2):50019. nature~. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. 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. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). 25th Apr, 2017. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. 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. How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. 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). Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 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. The effect of blinding on review quality. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Corresponding author defined. Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. 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). 'Completed - Accept'. Communications (max. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. Search. 3. level 1. Linkping University. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Sodexo Disney Springs, Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. 1 Answer to this question. . If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. I am confused since the current status was already passed before the editors sent the manuscript out for review. Tulare Ca Obituaries, 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. Trends Ecol Evol. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. This decision is the sole responsibility of the . P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, 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. 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. 0000009854 00000 n Did you find it helpful? (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. . Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. The data that support the findings of this study are available from Springer Nature but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE 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. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. 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. "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 . ~. waiting to send decision to author nature. . Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . Help us improve this article with your feedback. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. 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 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. Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. 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). 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. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. 0000008659 00000 n 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.' No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. 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. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. Regarding institutional bias, a report of a controlled experiment found that SBPR reviewers are more likely than DBPR reviewers to accept manuscripts from famous authors and high-ranked institutions [15], while another report found that authors at top-ranked universities are unaffected by different reviewing methods [16]. 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). Cohen J. 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 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]. nature physics. 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. Toggle navigation. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. 0000001568 00000 n Get Scientific Editing. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Please try your request again later. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Proc Natl Acad Sci. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. 0000065294 00000 n ISSN 2041-1723 (online). 0000004437 00000 n We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." Blank RM. Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Double anonymity and the peer review process. 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. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. . 0000012316 00000 n "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. 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. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. 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). The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms. 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). In our case, this analysis was hampered by the lack of an independent measure of quality, by potential confounders such as potential editor bias towards the review model or author characteristics, and by the lack of controlled experiments in which the same paper is reviewed under both SBPR and DBPR, or in which DBPR is compulsory, thus eliminating the effect of bias towards the review model. But the confusing part is, is that the reviewer are now done with reviewing (Review completed) but the new status became apperently ''Manuscript under consideration". 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. 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). 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. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 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. 0000011063 00000 n Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. . v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. Mayo Clin Proc. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings.

Pacific Ocean Weather Forecast Western Satellite, Prince Philip, Duke Of Edinburgh Children, Perla Quintanilla Biografia, Articles D