decision sent to author nature communications

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. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. 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. Often commercial sensors do not provide researchers with sufficient raw and open data; therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an open and customizable system to classify cattle behaviors. ->Editor assigned->Manuscript under consideration->Editor Decision StartedDecision sent to author->Waiting for revision Original letter from Ben Cravatt in early 2000 after our meeting at UCSF when he sent me a sample of his FP-biotin probe to test in my laboratory. Cookies policy. P30 Lite Android 11 Release Date, 2015;136(6):136977. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomedical journals investigating the interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review in these publications, the authors reported that DBPR did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate [4]. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01102.x. 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. 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. Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. Linkping University. 0000004476 00000 n No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. Research Integrity and Peer Review von | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback | Mai 21, 2022 | safello aktie flashback The report will be advisory to the editors. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. Hi, it depends from the Journal but normally you can wait more days. This can be due to quality or referee bias. 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. Until this is done, the decision can be changed. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. Hope everybody's doing well. Your new or revised submission has been sent back by the Editorial Team for changes prior to review. 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. Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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 result was a p value below 0.05, which shows that removing any of the predictors would harm the fit of the best model. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? We found that a smaller proportion of DBPR papers are sent to review compared with SBPR papers and that there is a very small but significant association between review type and outcome of the first editorial decision (results of a chi-square test: 2=1623.3, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.112). 2017-07-13 11:21. Double anonymity and the peer review process. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. Peer review times vary per journal. Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. 0000008637 00000 n On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. 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. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. All other data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics. 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. 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). 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). More information regarding the approach taken to derive the median citation can be found here. . We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. We only considered 83,256 (out of the 106,373) manuscripts for which the gender assigned to the corresponding authors name by Gender API had a confidence score of at least 80 and the gender was either male or female (the Gender Dataset, excluding transfers). Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. 2012;114(2):50019. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. . Thus, we cannot draw conclusions on any editor bias. 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. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. botln botkyrka kommun. 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. 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. In order to see whether author uptake could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. 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. Journal-integrated preprint sharing fromSpringer Nature and Research Square, Share your preprint and trackyour manuscripts review progress with ourIn Review service. Am Econ Rev. Thank you for visiting nature.com. EDR was the major contributor in writing the Discussion and Conclusions sections. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. The Editors may take time to discuss the reviews and may invite more reviewers or assign another editor, returning the submission to an earlier status. 0000014682 00000 n Finally, we associated each author with a gender label (male/female) by using the Gender API service [21]. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. 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. 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. You should have received an email detailing the changes needed to your submission. 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. We understand that you have not received any journal email. If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. 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. Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. Time: 2023-03-04T15:53:14+00:00. To obtain 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. R-CAPTCHA. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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. Papers. New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. 0000001568 00000 n This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature Communications. Help us improve this article with your feedback. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). 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]. 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. Next, we focussed on a potential institutional bias and looked at the relationship between OTR rate and institutional prestige as measured by the groups defined based on THE ranking explained above (excluding the fourth group, for which no THE ranking was available), regardless of review type (Table9).

Can I Bring My Own Extensions To A Salon, Wodonga Council Rates, Doctorate In Music Hell's Kitchen, Victoria 2 Consciousness Cheat, Articles D