decision sent to author nature communications decision sent to author nature communications

The following is an example of a poor cover letter: Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled "Large Scale Analysis of Cell Cycle Regulators in bladder cancer" by Researcher et al. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 2017;6:e21718. 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. We investigated the question of whether, out of the papers that go to review, manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be accepted than those with male corresponding authors under DBPR and SBPR. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. https://www.grid.ac. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. . If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. 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]. 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). IP-address: 40.77.167.199. 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. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. 0000062617 00000 n It's simple! California Privacy Statement, how to pronounce dandelion witcher. At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. A Pearsons chi-square test found a significant, but small association between institution group and review type (2=656.95, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.106). If we compare male authors and female authors acceptance rates for SBPR papers (44 vs. 46%), we find that there is not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for SBPR-accepted manuscripts (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction test: 2=3.6388, df=1, p value=0.05645). 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. We found a significant result (2=37.76, df=2, p value <0.001). Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the published submission date to the final editorial acceptance date. 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). Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. 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 . For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. By using this website, you agree to our All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. Springer Nature. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. Uses field-specific PhD-qualified editors, editing to quality standards set by Nature Research. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Blank RM. The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=378.17, degrees of freedom=2, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.054 and show that authors submitting to more prestigious journals tend to have a slight preference for DBPR compared to SBPR. 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. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 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. Authors might choose SBPR when submitting their best work as they are proud of it and may opt for DBPR for work of lower quality, or, the opposite could be true, that is, authors might prefer to submit their best work as DBPR to give it a fairer chance against implicit bias. The underlying research question that drove this study is to assess whether DBPR is effective in removing or reducing implicit reviewer bias in peer review. nature~. Sodexo Disney Springs, Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. 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. Includes a detailed report with feedback and, for journal manuscripts, publishing advice and journal recommendations based on our editors' detailed assessment of your findings. If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. Let us suggest an alternative journal within our esteemed publishing portfolio for resubmitting your manuscript (and any reviewer comments) for fast, effortless publication. Trends Ecol Evol. Linkping University. The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 0000014682 00000 n Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. You have completed the submission and approval steps, and the article has been submitted to the journal. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. We then studied the manuscripts editorial outcome in relation to review model and authors characteristics. 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. We understand that you have not received any journal email. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 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. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 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. We did not find a significant association between OTR and gender (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.015641, df=1, p value=0.9005). Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. Am J Roentgenol. However, we did not find a combination of predictors that led to a model with a good fit to the data. 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). 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. isolera golv plintgrund waiting to send decision to author nature. 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). 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. When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . 2017-07-13 11:21. 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. 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. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. 2007;18(2):MR000016. This result does not change significantly if we focus on the three institution groups we defined (high-, medium-, and low-prestige), thus excluding the fourth group for which no THE rank was found (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.405, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.064), which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. Table2 displays the uptake by journal group and shows that the review model distribution changes as a function of the journal tier, with the proportion of double-blind papers decreasing for tiers with comparatively higher perceived prestige. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. The status changed to "Manuscript under editorial consideration" last night without it changing to "Editor decision started" like in other examples. Cohen J. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. Carlsson F, Lfgren , Sterner T. Discrimination in scientific review: a natural field experiment on blind versus non-blind reviews. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. The WeWork Decision. This might indicate that authors are more likely to choose DBPR when the stakes are higher in an attempt to increase their success chances by removing any implicit bias from the referees. 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. decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. The study reported on here is the first one that focusses on Nature-branded journals, with the overall aim to investigate whether there is any implicit bias in peer review in these journals and ultimately understand whether DBPR is an effective measure in removing referee bias and improving the peer review of scientific literature. I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . 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. 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. 0000005880 00000 n https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings.