Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 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). 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. 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. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 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. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. In Review. Similar results are achieved if simpler logistic regression models are considered, such as review type modelled on journal tier and institution and review type modelled on journal tier only. . 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. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. Nature. The difference, however, is very small. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . Am J Roentgenol. 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. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. We however included transfers in all other analyses because we considered the analysed items as combinations of three attributes: paper, corresponding author, and journal to which the paper was submitted. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. Nature By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. 1 Answer to this question. 8. nature1. Search. eLife. 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. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 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. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Is double-blinded peer review necessary? Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 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. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. 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). (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. 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. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Hathaway High School Staff, For Coupons, Giveaways, and Free Games to play with your family, distance between underground pull boxes fiber optic cable, richest instagram influencers non celebrity, big spring correctional center inmate search, rachael newsham and dan cohen relationship, giorno giovanna you will never reach the truth japanese, 34 eye opening photos of the great depression, Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra. Times Higher Education - World University Rankings. 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. The page is updated on an annual basis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) Papers. Plast Reconstr Surg. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. How much time does the scientific journal 'Nature' take from - Quora The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.03, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 8. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. 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). Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380?, . Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 0000047727 00000 n Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. Download MP3 / 387 KB. PubMedGoogle Scholar. For further information, please contact Research Square at [email protected]. Table11 displays the accept rate by review type defined as the number of accepted papers over the total number of accepted or rejected papers. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . 2012;114(2):50019. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. nature physics. 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). 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. Submission to first editorial decision - 8, Submission to first post-review decision - 46. 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 Correct the online article. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. 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]. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. 0000004174 00000 n how to pronounce dandelion witcher. 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. Hope everybody's doing well. 0000012294 00000 n What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager? - Elsevier However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. . If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch. The WeWork Decision. 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. 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. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. Nature . 2017;114(48):1270813. bounded rationality . 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. Yes Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. captcha. Did you find it helpful? Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. 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. Corresponding author defined. BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 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 Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. 0000013573 00000 n . In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. 2009;4(1):624. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. Why did this happen? 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. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? 201451 [email protected] Final decision for XXXXX. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? manuscripts originally submitted to a journal and subsequently transferred to another journal which was deemed a better fit by the editor. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by Make the correction notice free to view. 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. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. 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. Decide and Notify authors of decisions made on articles. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Part of 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. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE Authors must then complete the submission process at the receiving journal. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." 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. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 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. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. 2002;17(8):34950.