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). Toggle navigation. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. 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. 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. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. In order to measure any quality effect, we tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution group 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for DBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.37 for group 1, 0.31 for group 2, and 0.23 for group 3). Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. It's simple! 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). Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). 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. Each indicates a particular phase of the review process that usually happens in a certain order, however an individual submission can skip a phase, or return back to an earlier phase, depending on Editor actions. 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). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. 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. We decided to exclude the NA entries for gender and tested the null hypothesis that the two populations (manuscripts by male corresponding authors and manuscripts by female corresponding authors) have the same OTR rate within each of the two review models. 0000012316 00000 n In the following analysis, we will refer to the data for groups 1, 2, and 3 as the Institution Dataset. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. 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 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). 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. nature physics. To post social content, you must have a display name. 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. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. England Women's Football Captain, In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles After manually checking a sample of gender assignments and their scores, we kept the gender returned by Gender API where the accuracy was at least 80 and assigned a value NA otherwise. 2017;6:e21718. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Decision Summary. 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. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. . We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . 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 . 0000001795 00000 n https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Between September 2017 and June 2020, Nature Communications offered authors the option to list the preprints of papers hosted on any community-recognised platform and undergoing peer review. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. Table6 shows the counts and proportions of manuscripts that were sent out for review or rejected by the editors as a function of peer review model. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. By using this website, you agree to our botln botkyrka kommun. Corresponding author defined. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. 0000008659 00000 n Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. We also found that manuscripts from female authors or authors from less prestigious institutions are accepted with a lower rate than those from male authors or more prestigious institutions, respectively. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. Cookies policy. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 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). I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001820, Newcombe NS, Bouton ME. If we compare male authors and female authors acceptance rates for SBPR papers (44 vs. 46%), we find that there is not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for SBPR-accepted manuscripts (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction test: 2=3.6388, df=1, p value=0.05645). For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? The result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. 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). A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Part of . We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. To obtain The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). Did you find it helpful? HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. This resulted in 17,379 (14%) instances of manuscripts whose corresponding author was female, 83,830 (65%) manuscripts with male corresponding author, and 27,245 (21%) manuscripts with gender NA. The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. This can be due to quality or referee bias. We investigated the relationship between review type and institutional prestige (as measured by the institution groups) by testing the null hypothesis that the review type is independent from prestige. 0000003064 00000 n If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. . 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). 0000047727 00000 n 0000003551 00000 n How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? 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 (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. 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. . Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. 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. 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. 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. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. 0000062617 00000 n P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. Am Econ Rev. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. . 0000002034 00000 n Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. 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]. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? 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. 2019. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. 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. 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. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 0000006171 00000 n 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. In spite of the presence of explicit instructions to authors, this type of review model has sometimes been shown to fail to hide authors identity. Linkping University. 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. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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. 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. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. 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. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 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. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 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. Please try your request again later. 0000009854 00000 n Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 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). This is public, and permanent. 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. 1991;81(5):104167. Search. JAMA. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. 4;N>0TjAWSI#|9aJs]PZYp M#M%,f-);k'\C/*('O2 X(^tL4[msd\5n9cIh(?J0yVg5[5(z,|j}(mLR:V#P/lAD~"jhQT H+}0Z3Nj>!76{7#FMxgiqyym qo=CFf.oA:+ 6hlXT?:SNMZ/|)wj 44X7^tkp+:LL4 Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. statement and 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. Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. isolera golv plintgrund This agreement provides: A supported path for UC authors to publish open access in Springer's subscription-based and open access journals, including Springer, Springer Open, BioMed . You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance 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. 2016;14(1):85. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). 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. 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. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. Mayo Clin Proc. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. 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.
Garlic Cheese Focaccia, What Personality Type Is Adrien Agreste, Subway Rewards Card Balance, Articles D