volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Nature Communications was another publishing master stroke for Nature that also took advantage of a new market opportunity. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. We considered using citations as a proxy for the quality of published papers; however, this would have limited the dataset to the small number of published articles that have had time to accrue citations, given the low acceptance rate of the journals considered, and the fact that the dataset is recent in relation to when DBPR was introduced at the Nature journals. 0000065294 00000 n 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. This is because authors cannot modify their choice of review model at the transfer stage, and thus transfers cannot contribute to the uptake analysis. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). However, we did not achieve a good fit, as per the binned plot of residuals against expected values, and the C-index (used to assess the discriminatory ability of standard logistic models) is 0.68, so well below the threshold of 0.8 for good fit. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). We investigated the proportion of OTR papers (OTR rate) under both peer review models to see if there were any differences related to gender or institution. 0000008659 00000 n 2.2 The model of bounded rationality. Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Search. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Research: gender bias in scholarly peer review. %PDF-1.3 % Finding reviewers who agree to deal with the paper - another week. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . 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. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. We found that manuscripts submitted under DBPR are less likely to be sent to review and accepted than those submitted under SBPR. 0000005727 00000 n The author needs to submit the revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments. 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. Please watch the Submission status explainer video below for more information. " Decision Summary" editordecision. What happens after my manuscript is accepted? 0000003952 00000 n LZ. Journals can customize the wording of status terms. . Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. In Review. 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. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? We observed a trend in which the OTR rate for both DBPR and SBPR papers decreases as the prestige of the institution groups decreases, and we tested for the significance of this. A study analysing 940 papers submitted to an international conference on economics held in Sweden in 2008 found no significant difference between the grades of female- and male-authored papers by review type [12]. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts In these scenarios, crowd wisdom peaks early then becomes less accurate as more individuals become involved, explained senior author Iain Couzin, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. Any pending input will be lost. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. For DBPR papers, we found a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=7.5042, df=1, p value=0.006155); for SBPR papers, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the OTR rate by gender (2=0.72863, df=1, p value=0.3933). We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. 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 EiC may have seen merits in your paper after all (or a fit, if that was the issue). It was on December 21, 1968, that Apollo 8 launched from Cape Kennedy, in Florida, sending US astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell Jr and William Anders on the world's . I think the manuscript "under consideration" is an auto-update that appears as soon as an editor has been assigned. 0000007398 00000 n 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]. . J Lang Evol. 2007;18(2):MR000016. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. 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. In order to assign a measure of institutional prestige to each manuscript, we used the 2016/2017 Times Higher Education rankings (THE [20]) and normalised the institution names using the GRID API. We then analysed the uptake by gender for the entire portfolio, as we were interested in finding any gender-related patterns. 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. We understand that you have not received any journal email. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. Google Scholar. 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). The results of a Pearsons chi-square test of independence show a small effect size (2=138.77, df=1, p value <0.001; Cramers V=0.082). We investigated any potential differences in uptake depending on the journal tier. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. This means that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups. Especially the status 'Under review' encompasses many steps; while it may appear your manuscript is not progressing through the editorial process, a lot of activities may be happening during this part of the review process. 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. Data are collected annually for full calendar years. In Review | SpringerNature | Authors | Springer Nature We excluded data where the gender was not assigned to either male or female. EDR proposed the study and provided the data on manuscript submissions and the gender data from Gender API. 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. Perspect Psychol Sci. 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. 2019. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. SHGtI0PyM&G?m$Y[g!B Manuscript Submission Guidelines: Natural Product Communications: SAGE Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. captcha. However, we find that a logarithmic-based categorization of this sort would be more representative than a linear-based one. 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). Papers. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a pediatric malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage with an aggressive subtype caused by translocations involving . Table1 displays the number and proportion of transfers by journal group. Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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). Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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]. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. This can be due to quality or referee bias. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly recordthat means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. The results of a likelihood ratio showed that the more complex model is better than the simpler ones, and its pseudo R2 is the highest (though very low). Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. 0000001795 00000 n 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]. When comparing acceptance rates by gender and regardless of review model, we observed that female authors are significantly less likely to be accepted than their male counterparts. Nature CommunicationsNatureNature CommunicationsPeer-review Nature Communicationstransparent peer-reviewget Nature Communicationsget50% Nature Communicaitons May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts Motivation: First decision to send out to review in 3 weeks, but then a very long delay to receiving a final decision. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 0000013573 00000 n 2023 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. There is a tiny but significant association between institution group and acceptance, which means that authors from less prestigious institutions tend to be rejected more than authors from more prestigious institutions, regardless of review type. 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. In WeWork, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the use of Sprint email accounts by Sprint employees doing WeWork-related work for SoftBank caused the communications between SoftBank and those individuals to lose the privilege that might otherwise have attached to them. How does the Article Transfer Service work for authors? 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.' The decision may need to be confirmed by multiple Editors in some journals, and the Editors may decide to seek additional reviews or assign another Editor, returning the manuscript to an earlier status. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? We excluded the records for which the assigned gender was NA and focussed on a dataset of 17,167 records, of which 2849 (17%) had a female corresponding author and 14,318 (83%) had a male corresponding author. The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . 2006;295(14):167580. The full model has a pseudo R2 of 0.06, which means that the model only represents a 6% improvement over simply guessing the most frequent outcome, or in other words, the model is not powerful enough to predict the uptake of DB with high reliability. 0000007420 00000 n Once all author information has been resolved and extraneous or incorrect information removed, the system will guide you to the Manuscript Information tab. In the out-to-review analysis, we observed a significant difference between the OTR rate of papers by male and female corresponding authors of DBPR papers. 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). Research Integrity and Peer Review For further information, please contact Research Square at info@researchsquare.com. We investigated the relationship between review type and institutional prestige (as measured by the institution groups) by testing the null hypothesis that the review type is independent from prestige. Proc Natl Acad Sci. ,.,., . For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. 9.3 weeks. Did you find it helpful? Any conclusive statement about the efficacy of DBPR would have to wait until such control can be implemented or more data collected. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. If we compare the proportion of accepted manuscripts under DBPR and authored by female vs. male corresponding authors (26 vs. 25%) with a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction, we find that there is a not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for DBPR-accepted papers (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction: 2=0.03188, df=1, p value=0.8583). 0000011085 00000 n 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. 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. Renee Wever. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. Sodexo Disney Springs, Timely attention to proofs will ensure the article is slated for the next possible issue. The editorial and peer review processwill continue through the peer review systemsas usual. Manuscript Nature switched from ''Review completed'' to - Reddit Authors must sign into CTS with the email address to which the link was sent. 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. :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature Communications which provides an overview of this journal. The "satiscing," process-oriented view is based primarily on Simon's (1979) work on. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Most journals have online submission systems, which have definitely made it easier and quicker for authors to submit their manuscripts. Depending upon the nature of the revisions, the revised paper may be sent out for additional review or it may be accepted directly. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. 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).
High West Vodka Discontinued, St Dominic Hospital Board Of Directors, Private Owner Apartments For Rent In Chicago, Articles D