2016;1(2):1637. 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). 2002;17(8):34950. 0000006171 00000 n These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. 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. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). 8. nature1. 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. When can I expect a decision from the Editor? 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. 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. 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. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. 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. 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]. 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. Cookies policy. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. We focus on the Nature journals as that portfolio covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural sciences and biomedical research, and thus, it gives us an opportunity to identify trends beyond discipline-specific patterns. 0000002247 00000 n Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. 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 . 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. 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). The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. 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). How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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. 2000;90(4):71541. Our main question concerns a possible gender bias; therefore, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and gender, still including both direct submissions and transfers (Table8). 0000007420 00000 n The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. 1991;81(5):104167. 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. 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. If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Your script could be better than the image of the journal. ISSN 2041-1723 (online). Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.03, and the binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. The EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). 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. For each manuscript, we used Springer Natures internal manuscript tracking system to extract name, institutional affiliation, and country of the corresponding author; journal title; the manuscripts review type (single-blind or double-blind); the editors final decision on the manuscript (accept, reject, or revise); and the DOI. 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. Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. ~. 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. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. This is public, and permanent. 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). Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. 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). Hope everybody's doing well. To obtain We note here that, in recent years, trends in scholarly publishing have emerged that strongly propose transparent, or open, peer review as a model that could potentially improve the quality and robustness of the peer review process [18]. n/a. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians. 0000013573 00000 n However, we were unable to distinguish the effects of gender bias (from reviewers) and manuscript quality in this observation because an analysis of acceptance rate by gender and review type did not yield statistically significant results. Communications (max. In order to reduce the variability in the institutional affiliations, we normalised the institution names and countries via a Python script that queried the API of the Global Resource Identified Database (GRID [19]). 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. The prestige of the corresponding authors institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. 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. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Please log in to your personal My Springer Nature profile and click on "Your submissions" to start tracking your articles. . We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. Mayo Clin Proc. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. 0000003952 00000 n making DBPR compulsory to accelerate data collection and remove potential bias against the review model. In this scheme, authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of the paper alongside their published research. The page will refresh upon submission. We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. Proofs are sent before publication; authors are welcome to discuss proposed changes with Nature's subeditors, but Nature reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures. Unfortunately, in light of the serious concerns raised by the referees, I regret that our decision must be negative, and we are unable to offer to publish your manuscript in Nature Communications.' Any pending input will be lost. 0000009876 00000 n In order to test whether two variables were independent, we used Pearsons chi-square test of independence and referred to the classification in [21] to define the strength of association. 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'. Here, we included data on direct submissions and transfers (101,209 submissions). 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. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. Usage: If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. We did not observe gender-related differences in uptake. All communication from submission to publication will be with the corresponding author. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. We aimed at modelling OTR decisions 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). This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. . statement and Also, because of the retrospective nature of this study, we could not conduct controlled experiments. Yes (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The median number of citations received in 2019 for articles published in2017 and 2018. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. 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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. The author can request that the deadline be extended by writing to the editor in advance. 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. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? BMC Med. 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 Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? 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. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Hathaway High School Staff, For Coupons, Giveaways, and Free Games to play with your family, distance between underground pull boxes fiber optic cable, richest instagram influencers non celebrity, big spring correctional center inmate search, rachael newsham and dan cohen relationship, giorno giovanna you will never reach the truth japanese, 34 eye opening photos of the great depression, Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra. 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. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. 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 outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. 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]. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. After making the decision, it is necessary to notify the authors. We decided to exclude the gender values NA and we observed a significant but very small difference in the acceptance rate by gender (Pearsons chi-square test of independence: 2=3.9364, df=1, p value=0.047; Cramers V=0.015), leading us to conclude that manuscripts by female corresponding authors are slightly less likely to be accepted. Manuscript then goes into said editor's pile, and waits until it gets to the front of the line. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. Is double-blinded peer review necessary? 0000001245 00000 n Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. %PDF-1.3 % 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). Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. 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). For translations into other languages, we recommend using YouTube's translation feature. This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. 2019. Decision sent to author NZip for reviewers 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. 0000009854 00000 n 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". Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. 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. ,.,., . Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. Some editors keep a paper for long time, more than 6 months or a year, without a decision and when send them a reminder message they do not reply or sometimes reply for the first time saying that . 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. The author is usually given a deadline of a few weeks to a couple of months depending on the nature of revisions and the field of study. 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. We decided to exclude the NA entries for gender and tested the null hypothesis that the two populations (manuscripts by male corresponding authors and manuscripts by female corresponding authors) have the same OTR rate within each of the two review models. Nature Communications is an open access, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the biological, physical, chemical and Earth sciences. After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. 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). In the SBPR case, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . . 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. 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. 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). 0000082326 00000 n Search. 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. Toggle navigation. As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. How do I check the status of my manuscript? . 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. Needs Approval or Revision Needs Approval. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? Every step is described and will let you know whether action is required. 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). 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. You will receive more information via email from the production team regarding the publication process. Each indicates a particular phase of the review process that usually happens in a certain order, however an individual submission can skip a phase, or return back to an earlier phase, depending on Editor actions. Cohen-Friendly association plot for Table5. Papers. 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. 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. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. Papers from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be sent to review than papers from less prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. 2008;23(7):3513. Blank RM. Nature. Google Scholar. 0000062401 00000 n In your 'Author Main Menu' manuscripts appear in different folders as they pass through phases in the editorial process: The submission is waiting for you to complete the submission (or revision) process. All authors are encouraged to update their demographic and expertise information during the confirmation step. 2021: Nature Communications: 14.3 weeks: 42.6 weeks: n/a: 3: 4 (very good . Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving .
Mental Projection Superpower,
Chigwell Golf Club Membership Fees,
Articles D
