decision sent to author nature communications decision sent to author nature communications

You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. When comparing acceptance rates by gender and regardless of review model, we observed that female authors are significantly less likely to be accepted than their male counterparts. Nature and Nature Communications are to follow in due course. Several Nature journals (see list below) follow a transparent peer review system, publishing details about the peer review process as part of the publication (including the reviewer comments to. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. botln botkyrka kommun. To obtain Article All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. 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. 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]. Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. In Review | SpringerNature | Authors | Springer Nature However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. 0000008637 00000 n 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. ,.,., . The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Does "Decision Sent to Author " before the peer review stage - reddit . 0000001795 00000 n 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. A Pearsons chi-square test found a significant, but small association between institution group and review type (2=656.95, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.106). 0000012294 00000 n You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. 0000007420 00000 n Journal Metrics | Nature Communications 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 0000008659 00000 n (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 2008;23(7):3513. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. 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. 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. 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]. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. We considered using citations as a proxy for the quality of published papers; however, this would have limited the dataset to the small number of published articles that have had time to accrue citations, given the low acceptance rate of the journals considered, and the fact that the dataset is recent in relation to when DBPR was introduced at the Nature journals. 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. 1991;81(5):104167. 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. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. 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). journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised 2006;81(5):705. 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]. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. . McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 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. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. 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). The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. 0000009854 00000 n 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. 2017;6:e21718. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. 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. 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. 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. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage : r/labrats - Reddit 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". Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. Cookies policy. So, in October 2018, we added a new . making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. 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. 0000002034 00000 n Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under the "For Authors" section of the journal's homepage as listed on SpringerLink Nature Portfolio Journals 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 . The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. . LZ. " Decision Summary" editordecision. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. 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? 2nd ed. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? . ->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision Original letter from Ben Cravatt in early 2000 after our meeting at UCSF when he sent me a sample of his FP-biotin probe to test in my laboratory. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. PDF Brief Communications and Communications Arising - Ju Li If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. Nature Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Usage: Please try your request again later. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. 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. The present study focusses on the effects of this publisher intervention in the 2years following implementation and can guide others when evaluating the consequences of introducing DBPR to their journals. . All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Nature. 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]. https://www.grid.ac. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 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 Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. 0000047805 00000 n Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. . Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. Sci World J. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 0000013573 00000 n hoi4 what to do when capitulate. 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). Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. 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. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. 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 . How long time should we wait for editor decision on a manuscript? and You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. 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 Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? 2015;136(6):136977. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 how to pronounce dandelion witcher. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. 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.