By using this website, you agree to our 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). Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . That is, authors that feel more vulnerable to implicit bias against the prestige of their institutional affiliation or their country tend to choose DBPR to prevent such bias playing a role in the editorial decision. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. 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. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. 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. 0000005727 00000 n Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.). 2002;17(8):34950. A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. 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). The page will refresh upon submission. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. 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. Blank RM. 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]. 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. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. Because we were unable to independently measure the quality of the manuscripts, this quality-dependent selection, if present, remains undetermined in our study. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. 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. . Corrected proofs returned by author 5. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. Visit our main website for more information. 1 Answer to this question. Post Decision Manuscripts Decision summarynature. 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. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Submission to first post-review decision: for manuscripts that are sent to external reviewers, the median time (in days) taken from when a submission is received to when an editorial decision post-review is sent to the authors. 2006;81(5):705. ,.,., . Hope everybody's doing well. . GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. Springer is committed to your publishing success: If your research is of good quality, then it may be suitable for another journal. . After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. Moreover, some records were not complete if authors made spelling mistakes when entering the names of their country or institution, as this would have made it impossible to match those names with normalised names for countries or for institutions using GRID. Third review was never returned so decision was at least partly based on two reviews from the same discipline. 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. 0000011063 00000 n . Barbara McGillivray. If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. (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. The height of the rectangles is related to the significance and the width to the amount of data that support the result. 0000001795 00000 n Katz DS, Proto AV, Olmsted WW. 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. This is public, and permanent. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. All papers submitted from January 2016 qualify for this scheme. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. We calculated that, at this rate, it would take us several decades to collect sufficient data that would result in statistically significant results, so another strategy is required, e.g. Article Tracking will guide you through the stages from the moment your article has been submitted until it is published. 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. Perspect Psychol Sci. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. This reply will be sent to the author of the Correspondence before publication. Because of the small size of the data set for accepted papers and of the lack of an independent measure for the quality of the manuscripts, we could not draw firm conclusions on the existence of implicit bias and on the effectiveness of DBPR in reducing or removing it. . 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. Toggle navigation. When a manuscript is re-ferred, all reviews and recommendations are sent with the manuscript to the receiving journal. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzw009. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. As needed, the journal editors may also ask the committee to provide opinions on the policies and procedures of the journals. On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. 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. Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. 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. 0000008659 00000 n Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Corresponding author defined. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . and JavaScript. 2007;18(2):MR000016. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. The test yielded a non-significant p value (2=5.2848, df=2, p value=0.07119). Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. Thus, our unit of analysis is identified by three elements: the manuscript, the corresponding author, and the journal. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for SBPR papers returned a significant difference (2=331.62, df=1, p value <0.001); the same test for group 2 and group 3 for SBPR papers also returned a significant difference (2=464.86, df=1, p value <0.001). 2006;295(14):167580. 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. California Privacy Statement, BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. Accepted articles are automatically sent to the production department once the Editor has made a final decision of 'Accept'. nature~. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. Please note that this definition is different from that of the corresponding author(s) as stated on published articles and who are the author(s) responsible for correspondence with readers. On submission, authors should choose one or two referral journals, in the order of preference, or "no referral." PLOS ONE. 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. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. 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. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. 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]. 2008;23(7):3513. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. The Editor has made a decision and requested you revise the submission. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. 0000003764 00000 n 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. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. We excluded papers for which the post-review outcome was a revision and papers which were still under review; thus, the dataset for this analysis comprises 20,706 records of which 8934 were accepted and 11,772 were rejected. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. 0000009876 00000 n volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) 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. Finally, we investigated the outcome of post-review decisions as a function of peer review model and characteristics of the corresponding author. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . More specifically, the proportion of authors choosing DBPR is lower for higher ranking institution groups; in the uptake analysis by country, China and the USA stand out for their strong preference for DBPR and SBPR, respectively. The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. 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. https://www.grid.ac. 0000065294 00000 n See How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. We fitted logistic regression models and report details on their goodness of fit. Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. Scand J Econ. 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). We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. 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. We studied whether papers were accepted or rejected following peer review, and we included transfers because the editorial decisions as different journals follow different criteria. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? 0000001589 00000 n Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. 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. Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. In Review. If you need any assistance please contact us at Author Support, or contact the responsible editor for the journal. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Nature 2015;518(7539):274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/518274b. Based on these results, we cannot conclude whether the referees are biased towards gender. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 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. 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. The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). Decision-making: Theory and practic e 145. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. 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]. 0000047727 00000 n 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. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. The effect of blinding on review quality. 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. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.). We investigated the uptake of double-blind review in relation to journal tier, as well as gender, country, and institutional prestige of the corresponding author. Because the median is not subject to the . Springer Nature. When analysing uptake data by journal tier, we have included both direct submissions and transfers incoming to each journal group, for a total of 128,457 manuscripts that were submitted to one of the 25 Nature-branded journals. . 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 Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. Data from Web of Science was used; more information regarding the details of article categories and approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. Several Nature journals (see list below) follow a transparent peer review system, publishing details about the peer review process as part of the publication (including the reviewer comments to. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. 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.