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. 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. 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). Nature Portfolio is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (see here for more information about our endorsement). 2000;90(4):71541. Locate the submission in Submission Requiring Author Approval or Revisions Requiring Author Approval, and see here for more details. Cohen J. Res Integr Peer Rev 3, 5 (2018). Real Cuban Link Chain For Sale Near Mumbai, Maharashtra, 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. EDR is employed by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which publishes the Nature-branded journals. We aimed at modelling uptake (baseline SB) based on the following variables (and all their subsets): 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). Editors need to identify, invite and get (often two or more) reviewers to agree to review. Papers. There . The corresponding author does not need to be the first author . https://www.grid.ac. 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. Once a paper is submitted, the journal editors proceed with their assessment of the work and decide whether each manuscript is sent out for review (OTR) to external reviewers. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. 0000012316 00000 n
So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. This choice of categories is arbitrary, e.g. We have informational videos that pertain to our Journal Suggester and Transfer Desk that take about five minutes each to listen to if you are interested in learning more about them. reparationstapet kllare . As a co-author, i saw recently that our paper switched from status. 2008;23(7):3513. Click on the journal name to where you submitted your manuscript. 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. Nature Neuroscience manuscript stage. national association of state directors of developmental disabilities service, how many years did juan carlos serve as king. . 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. 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. 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. 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. No, Modified on: Mon, 5 Sep, 2022 at 6:52 PM. manuscript under consideration 40editor decision started. Yes Tulare Ca Obituaries, ,.,., . At the point of first submission, authors have to indicate whether they wish to have their manuscript considered under SBPR or DBPR, and this choice is maintained if the manuscript is declined by one journal and transferred to another. This is public, and permanent. Toggle navigation. Are there differences related to gender or institution within the same review model? 2017-07-13 11:21. 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]. 0000007420 00000 n
(Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics), The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. As a matter of fact, the models accuracy (as tested on a random sample of 20% of the data chosen as test set) is 0.88, and the model always predicts author choices for SB, which is the majority class. The overall uptake of DBPR is 12%, corresponding to 12,631 manuscripts, while for 93,742 manuscripts, the authors chose the single-blind option. Either behaviour may apply to different demographics of authors. . Another possibility is that the predictors are correlated, thus preventing a good fit. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest . :t]1:oFeU2U-:T7OQoh[%;ca
wX~2exXOI[u:?=pXB0X'ixsv!5}eY//(4sx}&pYoIk=mK ZE The area of each rectangle is proportional to the difference between observed and expected frequencies, where the dotted lines refer to expected frequencies. editors waits for him to send his comments then they contact the author and make a decision on the basis of these reports and send you acceptance, rejection or revision based on their reports . 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. 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. Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 20000 characters with spaces), Research Articles (25000-40000 characters with spaces), . 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. . 'Submission Transfers Waiting for Author's Approval'. 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. 201451 XXXXX@nature.com Final decision for XXXXX. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. 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. 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. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Krumholz HM. Cite this article. Renee Wever. 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. This study provides insight on authors behaviour when submitting to high-impact journals. From inspection of Table8, it would seem that SBPR manuscripts by female corresponding authors are more likely to be rejected at the first editorial decision stage than those by male corresponding authors and that DBPR manuscripts by male corresponding authors are less likely to be sent to review than those by female corresponding authors. 2017;114(48):1270813. Journal Issue available online . 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. The Editor may be reading and assessing the submission, assigning additional editors according to the journal's polices, or taking some other action outside of the system. Information for other options are available on our Springer Nature Transfer Desk page. (Nature Portfolio Data), Nature Communications (Nat Commun) 2006;295(14):167580. In the post-review analysis, we found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. We aimed at modelling OTR decisions 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). 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. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. 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. 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. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. PLOS ONE. As there are many steps involved in the editorial process, this may in some cases take longer than you had anticipated. 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. Click here to download our quick reference guide to journal metrics. California Privacy Statement, Nature. 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]. All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate inIn Review. Similar to the uptake case, the models do not have a good fit to the data. 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. "Editor decision started" means that the editor is actively reading the manuscript. . 0000013595 00000 n
For the sake of completeness, Table8 includes the number and percentages of rejected vs. out-to-review manuscripts for which the gender of the corresponding author was male, female, or NA. 0000006171 00000 n
Sodexo Disney Springs, Check Status". 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. Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the Natural Product Communications editorial office as follows: [email protected], 614-786-1970. 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. If we compare male authors and female authors acceptance rates for SBPR papers (44 vs. 46%), we find that there is not a significant difference in female authors and male authors for SBPR-accepted manuscripts (results of two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction test: 2=3.6388, df=1, p value=0.05645). 0000001245 00000 n
As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor. Please enter your feedback to submit this form, Journal Article Publishing Support Center. 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. 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). A list of links to the Manuscript Tracking System login pages for each journal is available on the Nature Portfolio Journals A-Z webpage. 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. We found that DBPR papers that are sent to review have an acceptance rate that is significantly lower than that of SBPR papers. hoi4 what to do when capitulate. The Editor has recommended the submission be transferred to another journal, and your response is needed. We found that 10 countries contributed to 80% of all submissions, and thus, we grouped all other countries under the category Others. A study of the distribution of gender among reviewers and editors of the Frontiers journals showed an underrepresentation of women in the process, as well as a same-gender preference (homophily) [10]. Which proportions of papers are accepted for publication under SBPR and DBPR? 0000011063 00000 n
0000004476 00000 n
Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. 2012;114(2):50019. It's simple! At Nature Biomedical Engineering, we collect some numbers into a 'journal dashboard': These numbers are running statistics over 6-month intervals (to smooth out fluctuations in the numbers*). https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715. 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. HUM6WEX:hQR{pe"3>g7`,. Sorry we couldn't be helpful. In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while its in review. BMcG was the major contributor in writing the Background and Methods sections. And here is a list of journals currently onIn Review. Get Scientific Editing. "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 . Nature does not consider Communications Arising on papers published in other journals. A test for equality of proportions for groups 1 and 2 for DBPR papers showed a non-significant result (2=0.13012, df=1, p value=0.7183), and the same test on group 2 and group 3 for DBPR papers showed a significant result (2=40.898, df=1, p value <0.001). In Review. In order to see whether the final decision outcome could be accurately predicted based on author and journal characteristics, we attempted to fit logistic regression models to the data. Background Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a possible solution to avoid implicit referee bias in academic publishing. 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.
What Shops Are Open At Crown Point Leeds,
Centennial Airport Fighter Jets,
Blue Merle Yorkie Poo For Sale,
Articles D