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. When the Editors begin to enter a decision it will move the status to 'Decision in Process'. However, when they communicated their decision to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who makes the final decision, it was decided to reconsider your manuscript. Usually when a paper is received for publication, the Editor in chief considers the paper and then transmits it to the suitable . 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. A decision to send the paper for review can take longer, but usually within a month (in which case the editors send apologies). If authors choose DBPR, their details (names and affiliations) are removed from the manuscript files, and it is the authors responsibility to ensure their own anonymity throughout the text and beyond (e.g. By using this website, you agree to our . Editorial process | Nature Communications Regarding gender bias, a study showed that blinding interviewees in orchestra interviews led to more females being hired [8]. 0000014828 00000 n Moreover, DBPR manuscripts are less likely to be successful than SBPR manuscripts at both the decision stages considered (Tables5 and 10), but because of the above limitations, our analysis could not disentangle the effects of these factors: bias (from editors and reviewers) towards various author characteristics, bias (from editors and reviewers) towards the review model, and quality of the manuscripts. 85,307,200 Downloads (in 2021) In general, authors from countries with a more recent history of academic excellence are more likely to choose DBPR. 9 0 obj << /Linearized 1 /O 11 /H [ 1335 254 ] /L 93263 /E 83910 /N 2 /T 92966 >> endobj xref 9 45 0000000016 00000 n The results were significant for all pairs: group 1 vs. group 2 (2=15.961, df=1, p value <0.001); group 2 vs. group 3 (2=7.1264, df=1, p value=0.0227); and group 1 vs. group 3 (2=37.304, df=1, p value <0.001). 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. 201451 [email protected] Final decision for XXXXX. Both authors designed the study and contributed equally to the Results section. Did you find it helpful? . 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. 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. 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. Brown RJC. Author uptake for double-blind submissions was 12% (12,631 out of 106,373). bounded rationality . I submitted to Nature Neuroscience about 9 days ago and it's been "under consideration" for about a week. Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . When analysing data for the entire portfolio, we only included direct submissions (106,373) and we excluded manuscripts that were rejected by one journal and then transferred to another. authors opting for DBPR should not post on preprint archives). 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. Since the models showed a bad fit to the data according to accepted diagnostics criteria, further interpretation of the models is not warranted. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. Editors are always aware of the identity of the authors. What does a quick change from 'Under consideration' to 'Decision made Because of the small size of the data set for accepted papers and of the lack of an independent measure for the quality of the manuscripts, we could not draw firm conclusions on the existence of implicit bias and on the effectiveness of DBPR in reducing or removing it. May 2022 lewmar 185tt bow thruster parts . If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Answer: From the description of the status change of the submission, it seems the manuscript did not pass the formatting check by the editorial staff and required corrections from the author. So, in October 2018, we added a new . Once your articleis accepted for publication, you can track its status with the track your accepted article tool. The Publications Ethics Committee is composed of a chair and two members appointed by the RSNA Board. 2002;179(6):14157. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type (p value <0.001, Cramers V=0.054, df=2). Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Malay S, Zhong L, Weinstein A, Rohrich RJ. 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. 0000047727 00000 n BMcG collected the data from GRID and THE, processed the data, and conducted the statistical analysis. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: experimental evidence from The American Economic Review. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model 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. The decision involved a ruling on a motion to . McGillivray, B., De Ranieri, E. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Settings. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. Whereas in the more conventional single-blind peer review (SBPR) model, the reviewers have knowledge of the authors identity and affiliations [1]; under DBPR, the identity and affiliations of the authors are hidden from the reviewers and vice versa. Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. These results suggest that the choice of DBPR may be linked with a higher perceived risk of discrimination, with the exception of gender discrimination. California Privacy Statement, palabras en latn con significados bonitos. How Many Seats Are Premium Economy On Emirates A380? Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. Table13 shows the proportion of manuscripts that are sent for review and accepted or rejected with different peer review model and by gender of the corresponding author. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.40. Which proportions of papers are sent out to review under SBPR and DBPR? Based on the Nature Communications Review Speed Feedback System, it takes authors 11.6 days to get the first editorial decision. 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). Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? Tregenza T. Gender bias in the refereeing process? 2022.6.13 Editor Decision Started. Usage: . The present study focusses on the effects of this publisher intervention in the 2years following implementation and can guide others when evaluating the consequences of introducing DBPR to their journals. Nature-branded journals publishing primary research introduced DBPR as an optional service in March 2015 in response to authors requests [17]. . 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. 0000007398 00000 n . Nature 's editors are. The status of the manuscript says 'Reviewers Assigned' for about 24 days. 2000;90(4):71541. Type of Peer Review BBRC is a rapid communications journal. The Editors have begun a decision in the system. Each review is due in ten days, and many of them do arrive in two weeks. 0000062401 00000 n Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. 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. 0000004388 00000 n The meaning of 'reject & resubmit' is to indicate that in principle the editor likes the topic for their journal, but the current paper is . 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. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. There are several factors that influence the time taken for review, most notably availability of article referees. Share your preprint and track your manuscript's review progress with our In Review service. 2016;1(2):1637. 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. 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]. . 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. Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. 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. BMC Med. The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. Don't wait too long. Nevertheless, the available data allowed us to draw conclusions on the uptake of the review models, as we detail below. 2.3 Procedures Communications Arising submissions that meet Nature's initial selection criteria are sent to the authors of the original paper for a response, and the exchange to independent referees. 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. This might be due to referee bias against review model, or to a lower quality of DBPR papers, or both. 2017;114(48):1270813. Did you find it helpful? 2017;6:e21718. 0000002247 00000 n Double-blind peer review (DBPR) has been proposed as a means to avoid implicit bias from peer reviewers against characteristics of authors such as gender, country of origin, or institution. 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. The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.65. 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). 0000008659 00000 n When you submit your article through the manuscript submission systemyou will get the chance to opt in toIn Review. We would like to thank Michelle Samarasinghe for the help in collecting the data from the manuscript tracking system and Sowmya Swaminathan for the comments on the study and feedback on the manuscript draft. Journal Metrics | Nature Communications 0000055535 00000 n 0000002034 00000 n Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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. R-CAPTCHA. Finally, editors need to assess these reviews and formulate a decision. If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. 2009;4(1):624. The binned plot of the models residuals against the expected values also shows a poor fit. A useful set of articles providing general advice about writing and submitting scientific papers can Manuscript # . J Lang Evol. Nature Communications is incorporating transparent peer review into the journal on a permanent basis, following a successful ten-month trial. 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.' Figure1 shows a Cohen-Friendly association plot indicating deviations from independence of rows (countries) and columns (peer review model) in Table5. Help Us Celebrate Legal Talent. . One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of blind auditions on female musicians.