decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 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. 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). 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? Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. 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]. 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. The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. R-CAPTCHA. This decision is taken solely by the editors, who are aware of the chosen peer review model as well as all author information. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 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 . 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. 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. 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. 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. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. 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 underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. Peer review times vary per journal. 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. Is my manuscript likely to be peer reviewed by now? - Editage Insights 1 Answer to this question. Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. The prestige of the corresponding authors institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 (But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in, too.) Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. Internet Explorer). Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model 0000006193 00000 n 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. Nature CommunicationsTips - 2017-07-13 11:21. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 0000062617 00000 n 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 . 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. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. Papers. Nature Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Why did this happen? process - Geological Society Of America Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. 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. 0000004437 00000 n Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. . 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. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. 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]. 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". 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. Trends Ecol Evol. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. 0000047727 00000 n 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts In these scenarios, crowd wisdom peaks early then becomes less accurate as more individuals become involved, explained senior author Iain Couzin, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. 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 status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . 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). The target number of required reviews has been completed, and the Handling Editor is considering the reviews. 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. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. 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. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. . 0000002625 00000 n Concerning the institutions, we defined four categories according to their THE ranks and used these as a proxy for prestige: category 1 includes institutions with THE rank between 1 and 10 (corresponding to 7167 manuscripts, 6% of all manuscripts), category 2 is for THE ranks between 11 and 100 (25,345 manuscripts, 20% of all manuscripts), category 3 for THE ranks above 100 (38,772 manuscripts, 30% of all manuscripts), and category 4 for non-ranked institutions (57,170 manuscripts, or 45% of all manuscripts). If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. 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 Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. 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 . 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). If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 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. 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. 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. What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? We understand that you have not received any journal email. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Rejection of your paper / manuscript : Nature Support . 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]. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. 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. Our aim was to understand the demographics of author uptake and infer the presence of any potential implicit bias towards gender, country, or institutional prestige in relation to the corresponding author. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. The study was designed to analyse the manuscripts submitted to Nature-branded journals publishing primary research between March 2015 (when the Nature-branded primary research journals introduced DBPR as an opt-in service) and February 2017. 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]. 0000013595 00000 n Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. 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 . 2007;18(2):MR000016. Part of 9.3 weeks. How masked is the masked peer review of abstracts submitted to international medical conferences? Because the median is not subject to the . Help us improve this article with your feedback. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. 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. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. You can see an example in the article above. It's simple! 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).
Chickasaw Senior Community Franklin, Tn,
Houses For Sale In Nuremberg Germany,
Mccool Academy Bell Schedule,
Washington Post Obituaries Past 3 Days,
Articles D
