decision sent to author nature communications

We also conducted regression analyses on the data, to measure the effect of different variables such as gender and institution group on three outcomes: author uptake, out-to-review, and acceptance. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. Am J Roentgenol. . 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. r/biology I buried a dead rat (killed by delayed rat poison or a neighbor's cat) in an iron barrel with soil on Sep 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. 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. 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%. Get Scientific Editing. This is known as a rescinding. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. To place the results below within the right context, we point out that this study suffered from a key limitation, namely that we did not have an independent measure of quality for the manuscript or a controlled experiment in which the same manuscript is reviewed under both peer review models. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. Internet Explorer). 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. 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. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers Check Status". So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. In order to identify the pair(s) giving rise to this difference, we performed a test of equal proportion for each pair and accounted for multiple testing with Bonferroni correction. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. 2017;12(12):e0189311. 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. Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. 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. For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. If your manuscript is sent to reviewers, please share with the community how many days the evaluated process took by editor's office (not include the evaluated process of reviewers). We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. 9.3 weeks. Journal metrics are based on the published output, thus those that are calculated from the output in multiple years will use a partial dataset for recently launched journals. In the case of transfers, the author cannot change the review type compared to the original submission, and therefore, we excluded the 22,081 (17%) transferred manuscripts from the analysis of author uptake. We have used this definition because it is in line with that used in the guide to authors for Nature (https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission). Corresponding author defined. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. 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. Posted by May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska May 21, 2022 upphittade katter vstervik on jag har avslutat min anstllning autosvar engelska Abstract: The abstract not exceeding 150 words and preferably in . 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). If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 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. 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. 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. 0000047805 00000 n 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. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 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. 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. 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. 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. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . 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. 2006;81(5):705. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) 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? Ben Glocker (an expert in machine learning for medical imaging, Imperial College London), Mirco Musolesi (a data science and digital health expert, University College London), Jonathan Richens (an expert in diagnostic machine learning models, Babylon Health) and Caroline Uhler (a computational biology expert, MIT) talked to Nature Communications about their research interests in causality . We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. 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. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. To obtain Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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]. nature physics. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 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. 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. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. Trends Ecol Evol. 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. . In Review. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. Double anonymity and the peer review process. Don't wait too long. 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 . As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Papers. 0000004498 00000 n However, we recommend you check the Junk/ Spam folder in your mailbox to see if the journal's decision letter is present. In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. ~. Usage: 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.

Power Bi Create Measure Based On Column Text Value, Articles D