To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.06, which means that the model only represents a 6% improvement over simply guessing the most frequent outcome, or in other words, the model is not powerful enough to predict the uptake of DB with high reliability. 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. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. 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 waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . Is double-blinded peer review necessary? In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. If you have submitted your manuscript to an Editorial Manager journal but you have not yet received a final decision, you can check its status online. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. Our results show that we cannot say that there is a significant difference between authors from prestigious institutions and authors from less prestigious institutions for DBPR-accepted manuscripts. We used a significance threshold of 0.05. 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). Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 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. 2000;90(4):71541. 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. Submissions not complying with policy and guidelines receive an immediate (administrative) reject and are not forwarded to the review process (IEEE PSPB Operation Manual, 8.2.2.3) Authors are required to ensure before submission that their manuscripts are in full compliance with the magazine's submission policy and guidelines as outlined below. botln botkyrka kommun. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 8. nature1. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. 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. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. 2017;114(48):1270813. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. 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 gender (male, female, or NA) of the corresponding authors was determined from their first name using a third-party service (Gender API). This might be the result of editor bias towards the review model, of the fact that female authors select their best papers to be DBPR to increase their chances of being accepted, or both. 0000082326 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). . The Editor may be reading and assessing the submission, assigning additional editors according to the journal's polices, or taking some other action outside of the system. An Editor has been assigned, and has not yet taken an action that triggers some other status. If an author believes the decision regarding their manuscript was affected by a publication ethics breach, . In Review. 4;N>0TjAWSI#|9aJs]PZYp M#M%,f-);k'\C/*('O2 X(^tL4[msd\5n9cIh(?J0yVg5[5(z,|j}(mLR:V#P/lAD~"jhQT H+}0Z3Nj>!76{7#FMxgiqyym qo=CFf.oA:+ 6hlXT?:SNMZ/|)wj 44X7^tkp+:LL4 2006;81(5):705. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 0000062617 00000 n In order to test whether the proportions in different groups were the same, we used the test of equal proportions in R (command prop.test). Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Therefore, in the DBPR case, we can conclude that there is a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male corresponding authors and the OTR rate of papers by female corresponding authors. For example, a report showed that 34% of 880 manuscripts submitted to two radiology journals contained information that would either potentially or definitely reveal the identities of the authors or their institution [2]. 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. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. 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. In the ten countries with the highest number of submissions, we found a large significant association between country and review type (p value <0.001, df=10, Cramers V=0.189). Blank RM. statement and 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. 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. For this analysis, we included direct submissions as well as transferred manuscripts, because the editorial criteria vary by journal and a manuscript rejected by one journal and transferred to another may then be sent out to review. 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]. 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. The data that support the findings of this study are available from Springer Nature but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. 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). 2008;23(7):3513. Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. Authors of accepted papers will receive proofs of their article about 15 business days after the decision is sent. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. ~. How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? Examines all aspects of your scientific document. 0000003764 00000 n . 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. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. 9.3 weeks. At this point the status of your article will change to 'Completed' and no further modifications can be made in Editorial Manager. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. Communications (max. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 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]. making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. 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). We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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. 2012;114(2):50019. . 2006;6:12747. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 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. Example: Blood Cancer Journal: Go to the 'Publish with us' drop down menu: Click on 'Submit manuscript' in order to be directed to that journal's manuscript tracking system: For the status of your submission to Scientific Reports,go to the Scientific Reports contact webpage for email addresses to determine which one best fits your requirements. Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Accelerated Communications, JBC Reviews, Meeting Reports, Letters to the Editor, and Corrections, as well as article types that publish . We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 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 . If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . 0000004476 00000 n All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. 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. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Toggle navigation. 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. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. 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. 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. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. . (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) . authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). Corresponding author defined. This is public, and permanent. 8. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. (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. 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. 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 After reviewing the reports, you can proceed to making decisions on papers. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. As mentioned above and discussed below in more detail, the fact that we did not control for the quality of the manuscripts means that the conclusions on the efficacy of DBPR that can be drawn from this data are limited.
Tim Hortons Paisley Phone Number,
Hotel Manager Home Alone 2,
Hottest Female Rugby Player,
Bouvier Family Net Worth,
Forecaster Police Beat,
Articles D