we could have chosen a different distribution of institutions among the four categories, and will likely have an impact on the uptake of DBPR across the institutional prestige spectrum. IP-address: 40.77.167.199. Don't wait too long. . 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. JAMA. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. In Review. . Methods Data includes 128,454 manuscripts . 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. "More Manuscript Info and Tools. In spite of the presence of explicit instructions to authors, this type of review model has sometimes been shown to fail to hide authors identity. Internet Explorer). 0000013573 00000 n 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. The study was designed to analyse the manuscripts submitted to Nature-branded journals publishing primary research between March 2015 (when the Nature-branded primary research journals introduced DBPR as an opt-in service) and February 2017. One reviewer admitted the specific field wasn't in his/hers expertise. While these shortcomings of the data are beyond our control, we have made it clear in the Results section when and why we have excluded a subset of the dataset in each aspect of the analysis. Privacy 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. We have used this definition because it is in line with that used in the guide to authors for Nature (https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission). GRID - Global Research Identifier Database. If you have no email from the journal and have already checked the spam folder of your mailbox, you may check if the submission . Toggle navigation. . The area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve is as low as 0.33, indicating that other explanatory variables should be included. 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. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . For more information, please visit Press J to jump to the feed. We understand that you have not received any journal email. By using this website, you agree to our 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 . 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. Similar results were reported for the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [5]. [No author listed] Nature journals offer double-blind review. 2017;6:e21718. Reviewers have been invited and the peer review process is underway. 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. 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. Editorial contacts can be found by clicking on the "Help & support" button under the "For Authors" section of the journal's homepage as listed on SpringerLink Nature Portfolio Journals 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 . For most of our journals the corresponding author can track the article online. 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. This status will remain until an Editor takes an action in the system to change the status, usually inviting reviewers. We inspected the gender assigned via the Gender API, which assigns an accuracy score between 0 and 100 to each record. The effect of blinding on review quality. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). In the following analysis, we will refer to the data where the gender field is not NA as the Gender Dataset. No, Modified on: Mon, 26 Jul, 2021 at 6:04 PM. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. I have a revised manuscript which I submitted to Nature Communications. Data includes 128,454 manuscripts received between March 2015 and February 2017 by 25 Nature-branded journals. 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. . 9.3 weeks. We had 58,920 records with normalised institutions and a THE rank, and we found that corresponding authors from the less prestigious institutions are more likely to choose double-blind review (p value <0.001, df=2, Cramers V=0.106). We did not find a significant association between OTR and gender (Pearsons chi-square test results: 2=0.015641, df=1, p value=0.9005). Correspondence to Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. 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. Across the three institution groups, SBPR papers are more likely to be sent to review. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. We found a small but significant association between journal tier and review type. waiting to send decision to author nature. 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. 2008;23(7):3513. 0000004437 00000 n volume3, Articlenumber:5 (2018) Authors will get real time updates on their manuscripts progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 'Completed - Accept'. This is because the Nature journals do not collect information on authors gender, and thus, such information can only be retrieved with name-matching algorithms with limited accuracy. Nature 's editors are. 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. 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. We aimed at modelling acceptance based on the following variables (and all their subsets): review type (SB/DB), corresponding authors gender, the group of their institution (1, 2, 3, or 4), the category of their country (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, the UK, the USA, and Others), and the journal tier (Nature, Nature sister journals, and Nature Communications). Yes Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. The journal's Editorial team will check the submission and either send back to the author for action, or assign to an Editor. For some journals, the status may include the decision term e.g. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. Controlled experiments as described above were not possible due to peer review policies at the Nature journals and the fact that we could only analyse historical data. 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. You can useIn Reviewto access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. 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. Corrected proofs returned by author 5. 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. how to pronounce dandelion witcher. The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . A 3D accelerometer device and host-board (i.e., sensor node) were embedded in a case . This is because online submission has completely abolished the uncertainty of postal speed, an obstacle faced when manually submitting a manuscript. Roberts SG, Verhoef T. Double-blind reviewing at EvoLang 11 reveals gender bias. 8. nature1. Results on the uptake are shown in Table5. We believe that Impact Factor is just one of a number of metrics that can be used to evaluate a journal, and a small number of highly cited papers can have a disproportionate effect on the mean number of citations per paper. 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. How do I find and access my journal's submission system. 0000004476 00000 n Any pending input will be lost. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0049-z. Next, we investigated the relation between OTR rates, review model, and institution group (Table10) to detect any bias. 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. Are you sure you do not want to provide feedback? 0000001568 00000 n Accessed 15 Jan 2017. Note that once completed reviews for your submitted article have been received and are under evaluation by the handling Editor the status may later return to 'Under Review' if additional reviews are sought. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. The prestige of the corresponding authors institutions was measured from the data of the Global Research Identifier Database (GRID) by dividing institutions in three prestige groups with reference to the 2016 Times Higher Education (THE) ranking. The available data cannot tell us if other factors, such as the quality of the work, play a role in the choice of the review model. isolera golv plintgrund This agreement provides: A supported path for UC authors to publish open access in Springer's subscription-based and open access journals, including Springer, Springer Open, BioMed . 2016;1(2):1637. In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers. This may be due to the higher quality of the papers from more prestigious institutions or to an editor bias towards institutional prestige, or both. the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Falagas ME, Zouglakis GM, Kavvadia PK. 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). New submissions that remain Incomplete more than 90 days will be removed. 0000004174 00000 n decisions for these programmes are taken by panels of independent experts and Nature Research editors play no role in decision making . Renee Wever. sean penn parkinson's disease 2021. korttidsminne test siffror; lng eller kort pipa hagel. The dataset contains both direct submissions and transfers, i.e. 0000055535 00000 n 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. 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. Article 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 Correct the online article. We also performed logistic regression modelling with author update, out-to-review, and acceptance as response, and journal tier, author gender, author country, and institution as predictors. 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. 0000007398 00000 n 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. For this, we used a test for equality of proportions with continuity correction. 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). Next steps for publishing your article: What to expect after acceptance, Timescale to publish an article for a Springer journal, Page numbers in a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) Journal. Accessed 15 Jan 2017. 15 days You can make one of the following decisions: Accept, Revise or Reject.