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. Correspondence to Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Because the median is not subject to the distortions from outliers, we have developed and provided the 2-year Median, derived from Web of Science data and defined as the median number of citations received in 2021for articles published in 2019and 2020. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Springer Nature. 0000012294 00000 n
You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. reparationstapet kllare . Another issue that hampered our study was the lack of complete records for each manuscript in the dataset in relation to gender, country, and institution of the corresponding author. 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. 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. " Decision Summary" editordecision. . Median values and the graphed interval (minimum and maximum values), are indicated. As described above, Nature Portfolio has produced the 2-year Median in the table below. "This is an extension of the wisdom-of-crowds theory that allows us to relax the assumption that being in big groups is always the best way to make a . Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). 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. 0000006193 00000 n
For other authors characteristics, such as institutional prestige, a quality factor is more likely than for gender: it is not unthinkable to assume that on average manuscripts from more prestigious institutions, which tend to have more resources, are of a higher quality than those from institutions with lower prestige and fewer means. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. 00ple`a`0000r9%_bxbZqsaa`LL@` N
endstream
endobj
53 0 obj
142
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/Parent 6 0 R
/Resources 12 0 R
/Contents [ 24 0 R 28 0 R 30 0 R 32 0 R 34 0 R 36 0 R 38 0 R 40 0 R ]
/MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/CropBox [ 0 0 612 792 ]
/Rotate 0
>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<<
/ProcSet [ /PDF /Text /ImageC /ImageI ]
/Font << /TT2 18 0 R /TT4 16 0 R /TT6 14 0 R /TT8 15 0 R /TT9 25 0 R >>
/XObject << /Im1 51 0 R >>
/ExtGState << /GS1 44 0 R >>
/ColorSpace << /Cs6 22 0 R /Cs8 21 0 R >>
>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 905
/CapHeight 0
/Descent -211
/Flags 96
/FontBBox [ -517 -325 1082 998 ]
/FontName /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic
/ItalicAngle -15
/StemV 0
/FontFile2 45 0 R
>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 117
/Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 278 556 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JEGBJH+Arial,Italic
/FontDescriptor 13 0 R
>>
endobj
15 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 121
/Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 333 278 0 0 556 556 556 556 556 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 722 722 722 722 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 833 0 0 667
0 0 667 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 611 556 611 556 333 611
611 278 0 0 278 889 611 611 611 0 389 556 333 611 0 0 0 556 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold
/FontDescriptor 20 0 R
>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 122
/Widths [ 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 191 333 333 0 0 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556
0 556 556 556 0 556 278 278 0 0 0 0 0 667 667 722 722 667 611 778
0 278 500 0 556 833 722 0 667 0 722 667 611 0 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 556 556 500 556 556 278 556 556 222 222 500 222 833 556 556
556 556 333 500 278 556 500 722 500 500 500 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JEGBJF+Arial
/FontDescriptor 19 0 R
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 891
/CapHeight 0
/Descent -216
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -568 -307 2000 1007 ]
/FontName /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman
/ItalicAngle 0
/StemV 0
/FontFile2 43 0 R
>>
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /TrueType
/FirstChar 32
/LastChar 32
/Widths [ 250 ]
/Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding
/BaseFont /JEGBIE+TimesNewRoman
/FontDescriptor 17 0 R
>>
endobj
19 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 905
/CapHeight 718
/Descent -211
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -665 -325 2000 1006 ]
/FontName /JEGBJF+Arial
/ItalicAngle 0
/StemV 94
/XHeight 515
/FontFile2 42 0 R
>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/Ascent 905
/CapHeight 718
/Descent -211
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -628 -376 2000 1010 ]
/FontName /JEGBLI+Arial,Bold
/ItalicAngle 0
/StemV 133
/FontFile2 50 0 R
>>
endobj
21 0 obj
[
/Indexed 22 0 R 255 41 0 R
]
endobj
22 0 obj
[
/ICCBased 49 0 R
]
endobj
23 0 obj
1151
endobj
24 0 obj
<< /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 23 0 R >>
stream
By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. To ascertain whether indeed any referee bias is present, we studied the acceptance rate by gender and review type. Over the past years, several studies have analysed the efficacy of DBPR in eradicating implicit bias in specific scientific disciplines. So, in October 2018, we added a new . These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? We understand that you have not received any journal email. 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. Online First - Article available online 6. our vision is for all Springer Nature authors and reviewers to have an ORCID iD, and we are confident we will get there, slowly but surely. This process left 13,542 manuscripts without a normalised name; for the rest of the manuscripts, normalised institution names and countries were found, which resulted in 5029 unique institution names. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. Decisions are to be made by consensus. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. https://www.grid.ac. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Pathobiology. Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. We then mapped the normalised institution names from our dataset to the normalised institution names of the THE rankings via a Python script. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? We tested the null hypothesis that the populations (institution groups 1, 2, and 3) have the same proportion of accepted manuscripts for SBPR manuscripts with a test for equality of proportions (proportion of accepted manuscripts 0.49 for group 1, 0.44 for group 2, and 0.41 for group 3). 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. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Journal Issue available online . The submission process has completed with either an Accept or Reject decision. The corresponding author takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review and production process. There is a small but significant association between institution group and acceptance (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=49.651, df=3, p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.049). However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. Nature . Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. Table3 shows the distribution of DBPR and SBPR in the three gender categories. Back to top. Nature Communications: n/a: n/a: 6.0 days: n/a: n/a: n/a: Rejected (im.) Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. 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. If you want to find out more about when to expect a decision from the Editor, click here. 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. v)ic#L7p[ q^$;lmP)! To obtain The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. 0000047805 00000 n
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 are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. Editorial Manager displays status terms as described in the table below. statement and 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. Am Econ Rev. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. We employed hypothesis testing techniques to test various hypotheses against the data. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. By using this website, you agree to our In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. The decision post-review of whether to accept a paper or not is taken by the editor but is based on the feedback received from the referees, so we assume that the decision at this stage would reflect a potential referee bias. . 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. 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). Table7 shows the results; for the sake of completeness, Table7 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was NA. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. You will need to go through the through the decision letter to see what the journal has said about the manuscript. 1991;81(5):104167. 2021 Journal Metrics. ,.,., . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114. 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. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. 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. 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. This might be the result of editor bias towards the review model, of the fact that female authors select their best papers to be DBPR to increase their chances of being accepted, or both. (major revision)6 (revision)3 (Covid-19) 3. In the processing step, we excluded 5011 (3.8%) records which had an empty value in the column recording the review type due to technical issues in the submissions system for Nature Communications. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. 0000003952 00000 n
0000008659 00000 n
First, we calculated the acceptance rate by gender, regardless of review type (Table12). These reviewers then need sufficient time to conduct a thorough review on your manuscript. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . Help us improve this article with your feedback. 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). Examines all aspects of your scientific document. Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Based on the Nature Photonics Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.4 days to get the first editorial decision. Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. The outcome both at first decision and post review is significantly more negative (i.e. Nature. For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. 2019. Modified on: Thu, 30 Jul, 2020 at 4:54 PM. In any 6-month period, manuscripts can be under editorial assessment . volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) 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. DBPR was introduced in the Nature journals in response to the author communitys wish for a bias-free peer review process. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. . 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. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. 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. 8. nature1. Reddit and its partners use cookies and similar technologies to provide you with a better experience. 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. So, in October 2018, we added a new . 0000004388 00000 n
The aims of this study are to analyse the demographics of corresponding authors choosing double-blind peer review and to identify differences in the editorial outcome of manuscripts depending on their review model. Submissions not complying with policy and guidelines receive an immediate (administrative) reject and are not forwarded to the review process (IEEE PSPB Operation Manual, 8.2.2.3) Authors are required to ensure before submission that their manuscripts are in full compliance with the magazine's submission policy and guidelines as outlined below. If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality controlchecks before being sent to theIn Reviewplatform. More information regarding the release of these data can be found here. 2017-07-13 11:21. 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. The process was on par with other journal experiences, but I do not appreciate the inconsistency between what the editor at Nature Medicine told me when transferring to Nature Comms, and the final evaluation at Nature Comms. Yes Posted on 31st May 2022 by 31st May 2022 by reparationstapet kllare Monitoring dairy cattle behavior can improve the detection of health and welfare issues for early interventions. 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. Don't wait too long. 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. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. &@ 5A9BC|2 @So0 A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. and JavaScript. 0000005727 00000 n
Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. England Women's Football Captain, This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. 2015;136(6):136977.
Stephen Merchant Eye Condition, Is Callowhill Philadelphia Safe, Gladfelter Funeral Home York, Pa, Weber Grill Height Extender, Articles D
Stephen Merchant Eye Condition, Is Callowhill Philadelphia Safe, Gladfelter Funeral Home York, Pa, Weber Grill Height Extender, Articles D