How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. (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. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. The analysis of success outcome at both the out-to-review and acceptance stages could in principle reveal the existence of any reviewer bias against authors characteristics. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. 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. Communications (max. 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. 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. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. 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 . 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). We should note that the significance of the results on outcome is limited by the size of the dataset for accepted papers, due to the high selectivity of these journals and to the low uptake of DBPR. volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. 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). As a matter of fact, the models accuracy (as tested on a random sample of 20% of the data chosen as test set) is 0.88, and the model always predicts author choices for SB, which is the majority class. From inspection of Table8, it would seem that SBPR manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be rejected at the first editorial decision stage than those by male corresponding authors and that DBPR manuscripts by male corresponding authors are less likely to be sent to review than those by female corresponding authors. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Google Scholar. 0000008659 00000 n 0000009876 00000 n 0000047805 00000 n This status will remain until you begin the process of submitting your revision. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. Perspect Psychol Sci. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Any pending input will be lost. 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. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. 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. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. 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. 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. waiting to send decision to author nature. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 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. Am Econ Rev. McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. As mentioned in the Methods section, we have used a commercial algorithm to attribute gender based on first names, and discarded records that could not be matched with accuracy greater than 80%. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Online First - Article available online 6. our vision is for all Springer Nature authors and reviewers to have an ORCID iD, and we are confident we will get there, slowly but surely. We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. 0000011085 00000 n A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 00000 n 0000013573 00000 n Renee Wever. Yes Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. J Lang Evol. LZ. Visit our main website for more information. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. 0000005727 00000 n 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? Another report found that the authors of submissions to the American Journal of Public Health were in fact recognizable in around half of the cases [3]. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) 2006;81(5):705. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. . Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Examines all aspects of your scientific document. 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. Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. 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. In order to detect any bias towards institutional prestige, we referred to a dataset containing 20,706 records, which includes OTR papers that were either rejected or accepted, as well as transfers. 2017;114(48):1270813. 0000001335 00000 n 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. Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by reparationstapet kllare Monitoring dairy cattle behavior can improve the detection of health and welfare issues for early interventions. Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts.The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. statement and 2007;18(2):MR000016. In addition, the high prestige of these journals might accentuate an implicit referee bias and therefore makes such journals a good starting point for such an analysis. Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. 0000007420 00000 n Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. 1991;81(5):104167. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. We employed descriptive statistics for data exploration, and we tested our hypotheses using Pearsons chi-square and binomial tests. . There is not yet sufficient data to conclude which form of peer reviewtransparent or double-blindis the most conducive to rigorous and unbiased science reporting. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. 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. 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. 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. Hb```f``5g`c`} 6Pc. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). A PDF has been built, either by you or by the editor, that requires your approval to move forward. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . 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 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). Sci World J. Back to top. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. 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. 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). 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. 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. This may be due to editor bias towards the review model, to a quality effect (authors within each institution group choose to submit their best studies under SBPR), or both. Double anonymity and the peer review process. The Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community is a community blog for readers and authors of Nature Research journals, including Nature Biomedical Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, Nature . Trends Ecol Evol. The proportion of authors that choose double-blind review is higher when they submit to more prestigious journals, they are affiliated with less prestigious institutions, or they are from specific countries; the double-blind option is also linked to less successful editorial outcomes. Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. Masked reviews are not fairer reviews. 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! Does double-blind review benefit female authors? . In our case, the option that the outcome is subject to a complex combination of soft constraints or incentives is possible, which supports our simpler approach of evaluating the variables with the bivariate approach we have reported on. MOYcs@9Y/b6olCfEa22>*OnAhFfu J 1m,&A mc2ya5a'3jyoJx6Fr?pW6'%c?,J;Gu"BB`Uc!``!,>. wuI-\Z&fy R-7. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. 3. level 1. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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. Decision Sent to Author 2020-07-09 08:38:16 Decision Pending 2020-06-29 08:28:42 Under Review 2020-06-25 09:38:03 Under Editorial Consideration 2020-06-23 10:09:56 Manuscript Submission 2020-04-09 14:44:05 Stage Start Date Manuscript Ready for Publication 2020-07-16 10:45:24 . Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. ,.,., . 201451 [email protected] Final decision for XXXXX. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 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). We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. Brown RJC. 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. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. 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. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 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. 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. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. . Am Econ Rev. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . 0000062617 00000 n So, in October 2018, we added a new . 2015;136(6):136977.
Sharp Eohd Locations, Deadpool 2 Domino Quotes, Spike Feresten House, Articles D