Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. 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. Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. 2017-07-13 11:21. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. The WeWork Decision. 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. 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]. 1 Answer to this question. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! 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. 0000013573 00000 n Table14 shows acceptance rate by institution group, regardless of review type. Sci World J. 0000004388 00000 n We did not find a significant association between gender and review type (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.24883, df=1, p value=0.6179). 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. trailer << /Size 54 /Info 7 0 R /Root 10 0 R /Prev 92957 /ID[<98e42fa76505e1b5b1796b170b58dfee><8c8134bb7fa785eceed4533362dfb985>] >> startxref 0 %%EOF 10 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 6 0 R /Metadata 8 0 R /PageLabels 5 0 R >> endobj 52 0 obj << /S 48 /L 155 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 53 0 R >> stream 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. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. Help us to improve this site, send feedback. 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. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. We first analysed the demographics of corresponding authors that choose DBPR by journal group, gender, country, and institution group. This may occur as a consequence of positive referee bias towards institution groups or to quality factors. 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 . 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 Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 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. We also attempted to fit a generalized linear mixed effects model with a random effect for the country category, as we can assume that the data is sampled by country and observations from the same country share characteristics and are not independent. Trends Ecol Evol. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 7u?p#T3;JUQJBw|u 2v{}ru76SRA? Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. Our commitment to early sharing andtransparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. . This can potentially skew our results if, for example, there are differences in the proportion of names that cannot be attributed between genders. 2000;90(4):71541. We discuss the limitations of the study in more detail in the Discussion section. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. 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. Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. Corresponding author defined. 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. Download MP3 / 387 KB. Trends Ecol Evol. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. 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. 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. Watch the Checking the status of your submission video for more information. 0000008659 00000 n We identify two potential causes for this, one being a difference in quality and the other being a gender bias. Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. 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. In the past if your work wasn't accepted in Nature or Science researchers would often try the respected general journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, or PNAS - which wags dubbed "Probably Not . 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. 2016;1(2):1637. Corresponding author defined. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE 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. 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. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? After review, Nature Communications rejected it because of reason X. 0000004498 00000 n The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. Webb TJ, OHara B, Freckleton RP. Because the median is not subject to the . Papers. . If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . When action from your side is required, this will also be announced by email. Here to foster information exchange with the library community. This is a statistically significant result, with a small effect size; the results of Pearsons chi-square test of independence are as follows: 2=1533.9, df=2, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.147. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. 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. In the post-review analysis, we found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. In order to see if institutional prestige played a role in the choice of review type by authors, we analysed the uptake by institution group for the entire portfolio. 2006;295(14):167580. 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). McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. 0000014828 00000 n 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. We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. 0000047805 00000 n Yes 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*).