decision sent to author nature communications

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. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Renee Wever. Visit our main website for more information. 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 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. 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). 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. 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). Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. Search. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. . Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 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]. We only retained a normalised institution name and country when the query to the GRID API returned a result with a high confidence, and the flag manual review was set to false, meaning that no manual review was needed. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. 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. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 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. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. Usage: . If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. nature physics. 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). Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. 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. 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. If an author wishes to appeal against Nature 's decision, the appeal must be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be confined to the scientific case for publication. On the other hand, an analysis of the Evolution of Language (EvoLang 11) conference papers found that female authors received higher rankings under DBPR [13]. 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. Please try your request again later. 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. When the decision is finalized, you will receive a direct email with the overall editorial decision, Editor and/or reviewer comments, and further instructions. 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. 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. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . https://www.grid.ac. 0000003952 00000 n Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. Search. Each journal is able to customize the wording of the status terms, but the same status phases apply to all journals using Editorial Manager. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. 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). Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. Some research has not found conclusive results [6, 7], demonstrating the need for further large-scale systematic analyses spanning over journals across the disciplinary spectrum. %PDF-1.3 % 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. Nature . 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. I submitted a paper in a journal. It's showing under consideration for 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. We would like to thank Michelle Samarasinghe for the help in collecting the data from the manuscript tracking system and Sowmya Swaminathan for the comments on the study and feedback on the manuscript draft. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . To obtain We employed a Wald test to evaluate the statistical significance of each coefficient in the model by testing the hypothesis that the coefficient of an independent variable in the model is significantly different from zero. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. 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. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). 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. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . Yes McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Don't wait too long. ->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 found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. 0000003551 00000 n Google Scholar. In future works, we will consider studying the post-decision outcome also in relation to the gender of reviewers and defining a quality metric for manuscripts in order to isolate the effect of bias. 0000082326 00000 n We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. 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. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. The difference, however, is very small. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years. 9.3 weeks. 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. Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. 2008;23(7):3513. We had gender information for 50,533 corresponding authors and found no statistically significant difference in the distribution of peer review model between males and females (p value=0.6179). 50decision sent to authorwaiting for revisionFigure 2 Article proofs sent to author 4. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. 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. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. We also analysed the OTR rates by gender of the corresponding author, regardless of review type. 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). Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. 0000014682 00000 n Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. Part of SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Terms and Conditions, However, we did not achieve a good fit, as per the binned plot of residuals against expected values, and the C-index (used to assess the discriminatory ability of standard logistic models) is 0.68, so well below the threshold of 0.8 for good fit. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. 0000008637 00000 n 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). 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. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. 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. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. . 2017;114(48):1270813. An analysis of the journal Behavioral Ecology, which switched to DBPR in 2001, found a significant interaction between gender and time, reflecting the higher number of female authors after 2001, but no significant interaction between gender and review type [11]. 2007;18(2):MR000016. 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. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. . 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. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). In order to assign a measure of institutional prestige to each manuscript, we used the 2016/2017 Times Higher Education rankings (THE [20]) and normalised the institution names using the GRID API. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. . Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. 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. 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]. 0000004476 00000 n We can conclude that authors from the least prestigious institutions are more likely to choose DBPR compared to authors from the most prestigious institutions and authors from the mid-range institutions. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. 0000001795 00000 n This first-of-its-kindoption, called In Review, brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform andgives you real time updates onyour manuscripts progress through peer review. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. Brown RJC. a higher likelihood for rejection) for double-blind than single-blind papers (p value <0.001, df=1, Cramers V=0.112 for first decision; p value <0.001; df=1, Cramers V=0.082 for post-review decision). nature~. The original authors are given 10 days to respond. 0000009876 00000 n Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. 0000006171 00000 n journals - All Reviewers Assigned : Nature Communications revised 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. . Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Correspondence to Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). What does the status of my submission mean in Editorial Manager?