decision sent to author nature communications

The page is updated on an annual basis. 0000062196 00000 n 2016;14(1):85. 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]. 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. 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. When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. 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.' 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. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 'Completed - Accept'. Authors might choose SBPR when submitting their best work as they are proud of it and may opt for DBPR for work of lower quality, or, the opposite could be true, that is, authors might prefer to submit their best work as DBPR to give it a fairer chance against implicit bias. 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. 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). Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. We observed that DBPR is chosen more often by authors submitting to higher impact journals within the Nature portfolio, by authors from specific countries (India and China in particular, among countries with the highest submission rates), and by authors from less prestigious institutions. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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. The final dataset was further processed and then analysed statistically using the statistical programming language R, version 3.4.0. decision sent to author nature communications posted by Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. 0000012294 00000 n 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. %PDF-1.3 % and JavaScript. Peer review times vary per journal. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Plast Reconstr Surg. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? 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". 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. Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). 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. 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. 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. In order to reduce the variability in the institutional affiliations, we normalised the institution names and countries via a Python script that queried the API of the Global Resource Identified Database (GRID [19]). The lack of a significant association between gender and OTR rate regardless of peer review model (Table7) might suggest that there is no editor bias towards gender; however, this is based on the assumption that there is no gender-dependent quality factor. 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. In Review. 0000001335 00000 n Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 430,805 Altmetric mentions (2021), The Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (these comprise articles, reviews, and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. statement and The decision is sent to the author. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. 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. 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. 0000007420 00000 n P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. 2006;81(5):705. 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. To post social content, you must have a display name. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. 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). These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. 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. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. England Women's Football Captain, Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. . Submission Experiences Duration from Submission to the First Editorial Decision How many days did the entire process take? 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 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]. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. 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). 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Your script could be better than the image of the journal. 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. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 0000055535 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). 0000006171 00000 n Brown RJC. Corresponding author defined. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 0000005727 00000 n Nature. We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): 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). A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. 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. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . Yes 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. 2nd ed. This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. 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 . Double anonymity and the peer review process. 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). Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, 1991;81(5):104167. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the nature of revisions and the field of study. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? 2017;114(48):1270813. 0000004476 00000 n These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . 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. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 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. 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. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 3. level 1. Search. 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. Nature Support Solution home Author and Peer Reviewer Support Submission Rejection of your paper / manuscript Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM Springer is committed to your. 9 days How many days did the entire process take? GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). 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 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. 2007;18(2):MR000016. 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. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. 8. nature1. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. 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]. 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). 0000004174 00000 n Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). 0000003764 00000 n All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. 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). I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. 0000008659 00000 n 2002;179(6):14157. In order to see whether the OTR outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. 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 height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.05, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. That is, authors that feel more vulnerable to implicit bias against the prestige of their institutional affiliation or their country tend to choose DBPR to prevent such bias playing a role in the editorial decision. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. 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. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. 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. 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). Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 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. You can see an example in the article above. 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. Why did this happen? Springer Nature. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. BMC Med. Toggle navigation. 0000062617 00000 n Nature . Any pending input will be lost. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 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. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. waiting to send decision to author nature. In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement. One possible explanation for the lack of fit is that more or other predictors would be needed in order to fully explain the response, for example, a measure of quality, as we have already indicated. 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). https://www.grid.ac. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. ->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. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. 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. Hope everybody's doing well. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 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). 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. 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. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) ISSN 2041-1723 (online). All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme.